![]() |
Question about 1804 British naval cutlass.
4 Attachment(s)
I have been offered one of these cutlasses. It looks legit (measurements, weight) except that the inspector die is 12 under crown.
Annis and May say that all 1804s have inspector marks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. Does this still stand true? The sword was with another one marked 8 under crown in a panoply. Thanks. |
It looks good to me. Can you post a photo of the inspector's mark?
|
6 Attachment(s)
I have another picture.
And the other sword. |
It might be that the 12 isn't an inspector's mark. It isn't unusual for these to be unmarked as well.
Maybe it was sold to a merchant ship? Only swords that went through the ordnance board inspection would have been stamped. Although that doesn't necessarily mean that it was Govt property since examples of private purchase cavalry officer swords that also have these stamps exist. Rules and regulations were a lot more flexible in these times... I wouldn't let that stamp stop me from buying that 1804 all other things being equal. I'd prefer the other one, but more on the quality of the GR mark than anything else. |
Actually, at the end I am getting the 8 one.
|
Just caught up with this thread.
Yes I agree both these look good and I have not seen a 12 inspector's mark before either, but it looks like it could be one. Remember, May and Annis were wading through centuries of paper documents back in 1970 (no web) so the fact that Viewer's Marks for 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 were recorded as being made in 1788 does not rule out others. In 1808 another 20,000 1804s were ordered. This order included four new manufacturers and in total there were nine companies recorded as making 1804s with only five of them linked to specific Marks by May and Annis. It's a pity there is no clear crown above the 12 so we have to wait to see if another turns up. If it does this will be a rare cutlass! |
Quote:
|
I received the the one marked with an 8 on Friday. A friend of the seller asked to have the one with the 12.
Nice piece. Somebody used sandpaper to clean the sword, and no remnants of black coat are left. The cutlasses were found in Asturias. In July 1810 some 1000 British sailors disembarked in Santoņa, and there were other operations by sir Home Popham in the area. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hi midelburgo, interesting link to history time and place! |
1 Attachment(s)
I had a 1796 HCS by Woolley which had a crown / 12 inspection stamp.
|
Thanks Triarii, great post!
Woolley definitely made 1804s so that confirms the stamp on the cutlass. It may even be the same stamp as the serif at the top of the numeral one is missing or feint on both blades. |
While we have been focused on naval references here obviously, this M1796 blade with crown over 12 is interesting so checked Robson (1975).
On p.191: It is noted that from 1796 + swords from whatever source were inspected for quality at the Tower, and these view marks began to appear, initially a crown over single number, on the 1796 swords it notes these were not always discernible. In 1820 the govt. view marks added a letter between the crown and inspectors number, i.e. B=Birmingham, E=Enfield, The example in Robson uses this configuration : crown E 13 So I wonder if the 12 might suggest later mfg. as the 13 coincides with the 1820 beginning of use of the letter designator. David, thank you :).....yes, the shocks on the bookmobile are groaning! |
Quote:
They first went to Gijon and then to Santoņa. A couple of days later a strong French division arrived and they reembarked. it was October, not July, and the weather was poor. Carlos Martinez Valverde, La Marina en la Guerra de Independencia, which I do not own. Possibly Julian Corbett has something on this |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.