An American Type I boarding axe? Or not!

M ELEY · 13th February 2024, 09:25 PM

This auction just ended and due to my reservations, I steered clear of it. On first glance, it appears to be a pattern I American boarding axe, an extremely rare find indeed! However, it's styling is a little more provincial in nature and no 'Tarbell' marking to indicate government contract. I have seen, however, so called private purchase types of the period that would have imitated the pattern (see Rankin's naval swords/weapons book for examples), so still a possibility?

My issues were with the poor construction and open ozidizing to the spike. Despite there being some patina, not to the degree I would expect for a ca. 1790-1800 period piece? Finally, the haft seems too 'light' for me and could easily have been fashioned from an old rake handle, shovel, etc.

So what do you think?

M ELEY · 13th February 2024, 09:27 PM

A few more. CC, are you out there?

M ELEY · 14th February 2024, 04:41 AM

Here is Cutlass Collector's exceptional site for boarding axes and the Type I from his site that I'm referring to-

https://www.boardingaxe.com/index.html

Jim McDougall · 14th February 2024, 08:22 AM

This is an enticing example Capn! but I think you were wide to play it safe.
While I know very little on these boarding axes, I enjoy the opportunity to learn so did some quick research.

The haft seems of course replaced and too short for the fundamental use of these, which was apparently much longer, for use two handed as required and likely perhaps to have more reach to clear flaming debris?

I agree too that the metal condition does not seem to correspond to what one might expect from a weapon, munitions grade, produced in late 1700s.

Werent US weapons marked with US inside a square?

As you note the Tarbell JT (Joseph Tarbell inspector 1798-1815

The proper M1797 Type 1 examples I see have a blockish spike (almost square section), and this example has the teeth in a kind of drop down blade with teeth at the back.......on the actual ones the teeth are at the bottom of the normally extended blade of the head.

Not sure I explained that right, but first time out on this topic, which is a great one!!! Looking forward to other entries and CC, the call is out !

CutlassCollector · 14th February 2024, 12:18 PM

I agree with you Mark and you were right to stay away. I did see it come up for auction and concluded that it was best avoided.

A few years a go there was a spate of fakes complete with the VIM US markings but were easy to spot. This one is slightly different from those, so I did think twice that it may be period. I had some discussion with fellow naval collectors in the US and they concurred.

The Type I was only produced for a very limited number of years so there are very few survivors and all are marked to government ownership. So far there is no evidence that these axes were ever produced for private purchase. Why pay for complex work when a simple spike axe would do the job?

It is a passable shape for a Type 1 but with many differences as Jim points out and it is small across the head only 8 3/4 inches while the Type 1 is generally between 10" and 12". The spike looks as though it has been ground into a round shape.

I agree the pitting, especially on the rear of the eye, looks wrong and is not normal corrosion - perhaps those deep pits are more to do with acid than salt water
There is no top down view of the head which often gives a clue as to whether it was hand forged.

It is always hard to be absolutely sure from photographs alone, but I think you were absolutely right to avoid.

There are only around 10 extant examples of this axe and it is sought after. If it had been considered genuine and with the correct markings by collectors and the US museums I would have expected the price to be over ten thousand dollars!

M ELEY · 14th February 2024, 04:11 PM

Thank you so much Jim and CC for coming in on this one! Great to hear from you both!

I'm glad I stayed clear, as I wasn't a player with all of the questionables involved. Both you and Jim make it clear to me that if there were private purchase axes from this period, they certainly wouldn't have taken the time to come up with such a complicated pattern. Too bad, though, that only a few of these amazing types are still in existence and what an incredible thing to think about stumbling over someday (I think we all have that fantasy of walking into a consignment shop or naval yard and seeing one of these hidden in a barrel or somesuch. But not today!) The chap who bought it spent almost a grand!

13th February 2024, 09:25 PM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,097	An American Type I boarding axe? Or not! This auction just ended and due to my reservations, I steered clear of it. On first glance, it appears to be a pattern I American boarding axe, an extremely rare find indeed! However, it's styling is a little more provincial in nature and no 'Tarbell' marking to indicate government contract. I have seen, however, so called private purchase types of the period that would have imitated the pattern (see Rankin's naval swords/weapons book for examples), so still a possibility? My issues were with the poor construction and open ozidizing to the spike. Despite there being some patina, not to the degree I would expect for a ca. 1790-1800 period piece? Finally, the haft seems too 'light' for me and could easily have been fashioned from an old rake handle, shovel, etc. So what do you think? Attached Images Last edited by M ELEY; 13th February 2024 at 09:42 PM.

13th February 2024, 09:27 PM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,097	A few more. CC, are you out there? Attached Images

14th February 2024, 04:41 AM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,097	For comparison... Here is Cutlass Collector's exceptional site for boarding axes and the Type I from his site that I'm referring to- https://www.boardingaxe.com/index.html Attached Images

14th February 2024, 12:18 PM	#5
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 330	I agree with you Mark and you were right to stay away. I did see it come up for auction and concluded that it was best avoided. A few years a go there was a spate of fakes complete with the VIM US markings but were easy to spot. This one is slightly different from those, so I did think twice that it may be period. I had some discussion with fellow naval collectors in the US and they concurred. The Type I was only produced for a very limited number of years so there are very few survivors and all are marked to government ownership. So far there is no evidence that these axes were ever produced for private purchase. Why pay for complex work when a simple spike axe would do the job? It is a passable shape for a Type 1 but with many differences as Jim points out and it is small across the head only 8 3/4 inches while the Type 1 is generally between 10" and 12". The spike looks as though it has been ground into a round shape. I agree the pitting, especially on the rear of the eye, looks wrong and is not normal corrosion - perhaps those deep pits are more to do with acid than salt water There is no top down view of the head which often gives a clue as to whether it was hand forged. It is always hard to be absolutely sure from photographs alone, but I think you were absolutely right to avoid. There are only around 10 extant examples of this axe and it is sought after. If it had been considered genuine and with the correct markings by collectors and the US museums I would have expected the price to be over ten thousand dollars! Last edited by CutlassCollector; 14th February 2024 at 12:24 PM. Reason: spelling

14th February 2024, 08:22 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	This is an enticing example Capn! but I think you were wide to play it safe. While I know very little on these boarding axes, I enjoy the opportunity to learn so did some quick research. The haft seems of course replaced and too short for the fundamental use of these, which was apparently much longer, for use two handed as required and likely perhaps to have more reach to clear flaming debris? I agree too that the metal condition does not seem to correspond to what one might expect from a weapon, munitions grade, produced in late 1700s. Werent US weapons marked with US inside a square? As you note the Tarbell JT (Joseph Tarbell inspector 1798-1815 The proper M1797 Type 1 examples I see have a blockish spike (almost square section), and this example has the teeth in a kind of drop down blade with teeth at the back.......on the actual ones the teeth are at the bottom of the normally extended blade of the head. Not sure I explained that right, but first time out on this topic, which is a great one!!! Looking forward to other entries and CC, the call is out !

14th February 2024, 04:11 PM	#6
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,097	Thank you so much Jim and CC for coming in on this one! Great to hear from you both! I'm glad I stayed clear, as I wasn't a player with all of the questionables involved. Both you and Jim make it clear to me that if there were private purchase axes from this period, they certainly wouldn't have taken the time to come up with such a complicated pattern. Too bad, though, that only a few of these amazing types are still in existence and what an incredible thing to think about stumbling over someday (I think we all have that fantasy of walking into a consignment shop or naval yard and seeing one of these hidden in a barrel or somesuch. But not today!) The chap who bought it spent almost a grand!