English Naval Cutlass or English Lead Cutter

[drac2k]

From all the information that I could find this sword appears to be an English Lead Cutter Sword, except it isn't labeled as such, it has a # "6 or 9," on the scabbard, depending on your view(From what I could find there were only 4 sizes of lead cutting swords), and it isn't extraordinarily heavy.
Can someone conclusively tell me what this is?
***Also note that the blade is 28"long.

[adrian]

The placement of a low 'rack' number on British sea service small arms of this period, by using an applied copper 'plaque', surfaces occasionally and I have seen it on Boarding Pikes as well as on at least one Sea Service Musket bayonet's scabbard. This is the first time I have seen it on a cutlass, thank you for posting that.

[drac2k]

So, this isn't a Lead Cutter, but a naval Cutlass? Thank you for the information. Can you tell me why it is unusual to have a "low rack number:" I would have thought each vessel had to start at the number "1."

[CutlassCollector]

This is the standard 1889 pattern British cutlass but these are normally well marked with broad arrow, dates and inspector stamps.
Without those markings I would guess it was private purchase.

CC

[Will M]

This video may be of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glJDFHas5R0

[drac2k]

Thanks to all for the informative comments and the educational video. The sword seems a departure from earlier, shorter cutlasses that I have encountered, with its 28" blade it reminds me more of a cavalry sword as opposed to a cutlass. It must have encompassed a new theory of shipboard fighting whereas, earlier with the exception of boarding pikes, I had always thought that short swords and axes were used in the close, crowded boarding actions.
Also, I am surprised that they developed a new cutlass in 1889, as I would have thought that they would be obsolete by then.

[CutlassCollector]

Originally Posted by drac2k

So, this isn't a Lead Cutter, but a naval Cutlass? Thank you for the information. Can you tell me why it is unusual to have a "low rack number:" I would have thought each vessel had to start at the number "1."

A frigate would carry at least 100 cutlasses - more on larger vessels - so the chances of one with a single digit number surviving are 10 to 1. Move that to bayonets where there are tens of thousands then a low serial number would be even rarer.

It was not standard practice to number cutlasses - depended on the ship. If they were, it was on the cutlass itself with often a brass diamond rivetted to the guard.
Cutlasses were racked and only a few scabbards were carried for guard duty and shore patrol.

In the 1890s, I would guess, that for a merchant vessel they would carry no more than a handful of cutlasses complete with scabbards. Mainly for guard duty in dodgy ports!

On your cutlass there is a button on the side of the handle - not seen on gov issue - and may indicate a safety catch to hold it in the scabbard. Is there a spring loaded catch underneath the guard and a slot in the scabbard?

[drac2k]

Once again a wealth of information and thanks to all.
Yes, I realize that the mode of thinking in the late 19th Century regarding swords was that longer was better; this reflected a change in tactics from slashing to thrusting as evidenced by the development of our Patton Sword. Obviously, when sitting atop a horse, the extra length would be desirable.
Also in the period in which you referenced, horses and mules were an intricate part of an army, for transportation, logistical support, etc, this era mostly predated mechanized vehicles, etc., and even if they had them, the rough muddy terrain that they often found themselves in would have negated their usefulness and as such the Cavalry was a necessary component of warfare.
As there was a change in the mindset of the Cavalry, I was wondering if there was a progression in maritime fighting tactics. Examples of shorter cutlass such as the German M1911, the Austrian M1858, the Swedish M1851, the US 1917, and others led me to this question.
Cutlass Collector, you are 100% correct, the button is spring-loaded and there is a slot on the scabbard.

[adrian]

Move that to bayonets where there are tens of thousands then a low serial number would be even rarer.

Approaching this logically no ship would have carried many hundreds of sea service muskets and bayonets and the chances of finding a low rack number on a sea service small arm in fact would be rather high as there were so many ships and craft of smaller size, carrying small numbers of small arms; many engaged in anti smuggling duties, etc. Below is such a bayonet with a low number: