The m1804 British naval cutlass

[M ELEY]

It has come to my attention that we've never discussed this pattern in much detail in the past and while no expert, I'd love to open the table for discussion on these interesting pieces.

First off, a little background for those seeking future information on these. The model 1804 British cutlass developed from the single disc knuckle guard pattern that predated it by fifty years or so (I'll display one shortly). Around the same time as the single disc came another pattern, so called the figure-of-eight pattern because it resembled the number 8 with it's double disc guard. Yet another pattern came from these early types, popping up around the time of the American Revolution and resembling the predecessor with the only exception being the grip. This pattern had a smooth iron core (see pic). Finally, after the beginning of the 19th century, we finally see our m1804!

[M ELEY]

Pics of the mid-18th century single disc guard cutlass. Note the rolled metal quillon, an extention of the sheet-metal cut guard, which transitioned over to the later models. Also of note was that these single discs were used by both the Brits and Americans. This point is important when we look at the m1804 and how the American patterns swords of the time (the so-called Baltimore pattern, see Gilkerson's Boarders Away) copied the same patterns-

[M ELEY]

The m1804 cutlass retained the figure of eight double disc to the knuckle bow and guard, but unlike its predessors, it developed a ridged/grooved iron grip. This cutlass developed during the time of the Napoleonic Wars and was also used during the War of 1812 against the Americans. It was a simple, yet sturdy edged weapon perfect for combat at sea. The blade was heavy and straight, blunt except for towards the tip. The weight of a good swing could break bone with the dull edge or cleave a skull with the sharpened tip (this weapon inspired enough fear that the American forces invented their own 'boarding cap/helmet' of thick leather to prevent such attacks). The plain iron weapons were painted black on the hilts to prevent rust and were rolled out in barrels to dispense to the boarding parties/defenders during combat.

[M ELEY]

Note the peened tang at the pommel and the simple cut sheet guard that was simply folded over the grip. The small open slot near the pommel was for a leather lanyard that a sailor could wrap around his wrist to keep him from losing his grip during battle on a moving ship in hand-to-hand combat and often with bloody hands! The guard of the cutlass could likewise be used as a weapon to punch adversaries in the face!

Markings on the m1804 vary. The classic fancy-scripted GR under a crown marking (for George Rex, Latin George III and IV for these pattern swords) are found on many of them. When i first purchased mine, the cutlass had block letter GR under crown, which both intrigued and concerned me. I had heard of spurious markings of this block letter type appearing on later swords of the m1804 pattern made by Schnitzler and Kirschbaum in Solingen after 1850. However, upon doing research, I soon came across information that many different cutlers and merhants were involved in supplying the British Navy and many of them used the exact marking (block letter GR with this specific crown) as found on my example-

[M ELEY]

The contractors for the 1804 Pattern cutlass as of May, 1804 are:

Henry Osborn, T Hadley, Woolley & Co, Craven and Co, and Dawes.
Whether these are just merchants selling to the naval department or actual producers of the weapons, I do not know. The significance is these firms frequently had their own varying GR government ordenance stamp.

The contractors for September 30th 1808 were:

Woolley, Gill, Dawes, Osborn, Hadley, Reddell, Cooper, and Bates.

It is also noted that Tatham and Egg also furnished this pattern. There were NO MORE cutlasses ordered by the Board of Ordnance for the 1814-41 period, after which a new naval pattern British cutlass emerged.

[M ELEY]

Not all m1804 pattern cutlass are stamped. This presents a puzzle, as the British marked everything government issue with either the GR or the broad arrow mark (for a great nautical book, see Heart of Oak:A Sailor's Life in Nelson's Navy by James McGuane. This book shows to what lengths the ordnance department stamped the broad arrow on everything from nails to glass panes to hard biscuit!). It can only be assumed that the unmarked 1804's were overstock and perhaps used for private purchase merchantmen and privateers of the British commerce fleet. As no new patterns were issued after 1814, perhaps these were 'late-comers' to the war effort and were sold to other nations? I don't believe they would have been issued to any of the other semi-naval departments (Revenue Cutters, Dock workers) for the exact reasons explained above.

To show how popular the m1804 pattern was, here id a British private purchase sword which, although it has a sheet pattern guard, still retains the ribbed iron grip and straight bladed spear point of the discussed pattern. Note the weak punch mark. Is it a GR? WR? VR? Hard to tell-

[Jim McDougall]

What an outstanding subject for a thread Capn!!! and these are fascinating weapons that hold amazing pasts in maritime lore!
While these are referred to as M1804, I wonder if, as with many 'regulation patterns' these were in use in some degree prior to bring recognized officially in 1804.

Are there prototypes of other hilt forms which might have led to the distinct double disc (thus figure 8) guards of the hilt?
The single disc American hilt you show is interesting, but perhaps the second disc was of course for better hand protection recalling the 'basket hilt'?

I admit I have always wanted one of these for the simple but rugged design which very much represent the great history of these ships. The early examples that had the makers name on the blade back are the most intriguing. As far as I have seen there are Wooley & Deakin; Bate (pre 1806) and J. Gill.

Were these used on private ships such as merchant vessels? also any evidence these might have been used by East India Co.?

[M ELEY]

Hello Jim, you old sea dog! Great to hear from you! Yes, these are definitely the questions I too want answers to. It is very possible that this pattern was floating around for a while before it became locked in stone as the model 1804. As noted, the earlier Brit cutlass had the figure 8 and a smooth iron core (different from even earlier figure-8's such as Thomas Hollier's swords of the early 18th with their antler or wood grips). I imagine with the smooth-gripped Rev War period Brit cutlass would be very slippery without the grooves so, thus, the 'new' model. Leave it to naval swords/cutlasses (which had no defined patterns until the last quarter of the 18th century, unlike every other branch of the military. Add to that the so-called private purchase one off swords, which again we typically don't see with any other military branch.)

I had totally forgotten about the whole East India connection! Still, I would think they would fall under control of the British monarchy and be so marked. To add even more confusion to the mess, we have the whole Schnitzler and Kirschbaum situation as detailed by Gilkerson. This firm had this model in their catalog circa 1850's AND it had a spurious block letter GR under crown on it/ Why would this be? Are we to assume the GR mark would be viewed as a sign of quality, much like the spurious Andrea Ferrera or Sahagan marking?

As far as the S&K swords, I'm wondering if the marking isn't spurious at all, but perhaps the cutlasses were simple overstock? Or perhaps the blades date to the wars and were refurbished in S&K made hilts? Better question yet, who was buying them then? Perhaps other country's merchant ships, but then why the GR to confuse things? I even started spinning off my gears thinking 'Were all of the m1804 blades German imports in the first place, with the said English suppliers just offering their wares as middlemen, as was pretty common back in the day! That might explain why the S&K had the GR, because they made and supplied the blades earlier. One thing is for sure to me. I don't believe S&K made these swords as a sort of historismus to the earlier wars. Had they been made a hundred+ years later, perhaps, but this was within a quarter century of the m1804's use. So hopefully someone out there has my answer!!

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I admit I have always wanted one of these for the simple but rugged design which very much represent the great history of these ships. The early examples that had the makers name on the blade back are the most intriguing. As far as I have seen there are Wooley & Deakin; Bate (pre 1806) and J. Gill.

Jim, do you happen to have any photographs of the J. Gill stamp?

There is evidence that James Gill did continue as a cutler for a time after the passing of his father, however, it is believed that the blades he used were supplied by his brother, John. It would be great to see evidence that supports the possibility that John made his own blades as well.

Richard Dellar has a great chapter on the Gill family in his book on British Cavalry sabres.

[CutlassCollector]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Markings on the m1804 vary. The classic fancy-scripted GR under a crown marking (for George Rex, Latin George III and IV for these pattern swords) are found on many of them. When i first purchased mine, the cutlass had block letter GR under crown, which both intrigued and concerned me. I had heard of spurious markings of this block letter type appearing on later swords of the m1804 pattern made by Schnitzler and Kirschbaum in Solingen after 1850. However, upon doing research, I soon came across information that many different cutlers and merhants were involved in supplying the British Navy and many of them used the exact marking (block letter GR with this specific crown) as found on my example-

I thought I would post pictures of this British Coastguard cutlass because it has a good example of the block GR and is also marked Enfield and a rather worn crown. The cutlass can be dated to between 1823 and 1830 as Enfield did not make swords before 1823 and William came to the throne in 1830.

It is also interesting because the shape of the blade looks like it took its inspiration from the very rare 1814 cutlass. Sim Comfort suggests that the 1814 exists with two different grips (page 235) - the same as the 1804 grip and a later version.
The coastguard cutlass grip is like the later version. It is more shaped at the palm and the end with 20 spiral rings and does not have the vertical slots of the 1804 grip.

[adrian]

The cutlass can be dated to between 1823 and 1830 as Enfield did not make swords before 1823 and William came to the throne in 1830.

Unfortunately the 'end date' of 1830 cannot be ascribed and should be extended to c1840 given the evidence of other blades of later date with the same stamps. Take for example the early Brunswick Rifle swords that are also stamped ENFIELD and have that same crown/GR stamp - those date to the early reign of Queen Victoria.... an example from my collection below. I have yet to come across a convincing reason for this other than that they had yet to replace the GR stamp that was used for such blades; Blackmore cites evidence that the 1800 dated storekeeper's stamp, applied to the stock (butt) of small arms, was still being used in 1824, so it would not be an isolated case of an 'old' stamp continuing in use.