[Jim McDougall]

The occurrence of mismatched (by issuance numbers, units etc) swords and scabbards is of course well known but determining the circumstances of these cases surely has numbers of various possibilities.

It is unclear whether armies cleared the battlefields of weapons for further use in issue, though it would seem prudent to do so given the notable costs of these. Obviously the bodies of fallen troops were cleared into mass graves, but no note is made of the disposition of scattered weaponry. While the cannon were recovered, no mention is made of firearms or sidearms.

It does seem that many sidearms fallen into positions in mud or growth remained in situ for some time in many cases, however the recovery of visible weapons may have been taken as souvenirs. At Culloden in 1746, it was noted that 191 Scottish swords were retrieved from the field, which was remarkable since there were more than 4000 Scots there. This was the single instance I personally have found of weapons retrieval from battlefields, but clearly such practice was commonplace though more likely scavengers taking them.

There are instances of for example, a heavy cavalry sword (M1796) with rack (Bn number) marked in the hilt with unit number (previously noted) .......it was with a mismatched scabbard. Years later, a M1796 scabbard was found listed with the SAME Bn number in the holdings of a Scottish museum. Sadly, the item had been deaccessed so hope of reassociating was lost.

This suggests that the trooper was possibly wounded and sword dropped on the field. As the scabbard remained attached to him when he was off the field to medical care, it remained with him or the unit. His sword however was left to the elements on the field and likely found by scavengers (Waterloo) and sword and scabbard went separate ways over the next century and a half.

Among collectors, as unusual as it seems, there are those who actually collect scabbards alone. I have seen offers many times of these being sold in auctions along with 'parts' obviously for those persons restoring swords etc.
It would be impossible to tell the origin of sword and scabbard pairings with disparate issue numbers, but there are so many. Usually its a matter of dealers or sellers simply using a scabbard of the same type or pattern if possible to complete the example.

In my early days of collecting the sword examples WITHOUT scabbard were deemed incomplete of course, so luckily for me sold at much lower prices, often by huge difference depending on the scarcity of the type.

As previously noted, like the Bluchersabels, huge numbers of arms were sold off as surplus by the British at the end of the Napoleonic campaigns. Virtually the entire Mexican army was supplied with Brown Bess guns and sundry other such arms in the 1820s.However many swords ended up going to the various yeomanry units and other civil forces in degree. Many of the other ranks weapons, typically with brass hilts, were mostly fodder for the scrap metal forges.

The topic in the original post is an intriguing one, and in the case of this example with the Birmingham maker James Wooley with apparent variation between sword and scabbard markings to him by firm name designated, it is a fascinating conundrum which has remarkable potential for resolution.