sword for id

CutlassCollector · 5th February 2014, 10:13 PM

Good point, Fernando, perhaps you are right why go to the effort of embellishing a cutlass when you can have a fancy sword for an officer!

Perhaps with the blade cleaned up there may be some clues with markings. As you say these blades were usually well marked by the manufacturer on the spine and inspection marks on both the guard and ricasso. And usually some trace remains even on well worn blades.
Perhaps I am too optimistic and it is a a replica after all!
Regards, CC.

Jim McDougall · 6th February 2014, 04:48 AM

Thank you Vandoo!

As Fernando has astutely observed, this does appear to be a briquette blade, and this cutlass appears to be a pastiche, and extremely nicely done .
As CC has well noted there appears to be elements of the French M1833 cutlass and the brass bowl of the US M1860 might well be in use as well.

What is curious is that the pommel cap is not in the shape of the regular M1833 French, it is straight and angled , where the original is curved (Gilkerson , 1991, p.79, "Boarders Away".
The M1833 developed from the M1801 'sabre de bord' which was apparently japanned black rather than brass with the bowl guard, and this is typically mounted off the knuckleguard and not butted to the grip and pommel .

Since this bowl guard cutlass, the French M1801/33, was very popular it was used by virtually every European country's naval forces, so perhaps there may have been variants, but the anchor embellishment on the guard does not seem likely for a weapon for rack issue.

weapons 27 · 6th February 2014, 05:43 AM

I'll cleaned the blade and watch if I see markings...
the shell of the sword was painted black, the person that I bought this saber has removed the painting, we see even a few black marks

weapons 27 · 6th February 2014, 03:37 PM

I found no markings...
the blade is old and thick 4mm, very sharp

Shakethetrees · 2nd July 2014, 05:46 AM

Hello, all, I've been lurking on this forum for a while and recently joined. I collect a wide variety of things that I feel would be of interest here, and have been collecting for probably forty years. I have been in the silversmithing/restoration field since 1979 as a practicing professional. I hope I can add value to this forum!

I need to check my 1833. It's packed away now as I am in the process of a move. As I recall, though, the guard is iron, as are the pommel and grip. The "soup ladle" is also iron, unadorned, except for some edge thickening, and no rivets. It was brazed in place. The manufacture date and place should be etched in script on the back of the blade close to the guard.

It's also probably one that I would choose if I had to use it to defend myself. The balance is superb, the blade is sharp enough to do damage but not so sharp that the edge is delicate. It's of a good, manageable length, and because of the nicely defined shape, gets attention!

Shakethetrees · 11th July 2014, 05:00 PM

I checked my cutlass finally and I think your blade is NOT a briquette blade. The width to length proportions are correct for the 1833 French cutlass. A briquette blade is slimmer. The brass guard on yours has what appears to be an extra flange to accommodate the rivets, something the iron mounted example that I have does not posses. I have examined maybe a dozen over the years, all virtually identical in blade length/width, the manner of assembly, etc.

Yours could be an of the period officer's version, private purchase, etc. but without actually seeing it in person, it's hard to tell the age, so, with that in mind, I would be careful.

The US 1860 cutlass is also much slimmer and overall lighter build than its French counterpart. A friend turned up an 1860 at a show years back and everything was "right" as far as the manner of assembly, and measurements. But, the grip wire was still in place, something that is a little odd for the 1860. The Ames mark, very lightly stamped on the originals was too even and perfect even though the font type and size was. Spot on. Most that I have seen seem to have had the wire deliberately removed at some point. Possibly due to verdigris forming and the impossibility of cleaning it to Naval standards of the time.

But for some reason it just didn't pass the smell test, not just by my reasoning, but also to several other long time collectors present as well. When compared side by side with a couple of others that had been on collections for a very long time, the differences stood out like a sore thumb! The rivets securing the shell to the guard were different in number by maybe two. The originals had exactly the same number and layout, whereas the piece now seen to be a copy had a different number and layout. Shell thickness was another issue. The color of the brass was more of an orange, where the old ones were much more yellow.

The point of this diatribe is to note that there are some very good copies out there that might stand on their own merits at face value. But when compared side to side with a piece that is unquestionably right, the credibility falls apart.

So, in the probably unlikely possibility that you are ever able to compare it to another, keep an open mind, and hope for the best!

It's a great looking cutlass, and I hope the best for you!

11th July 2014, 05:00 PM	#6
Shakethetrees Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Louisiana Posts: 363	Cutlass I checked my cutlass finally and I think your blade is NOT a briquette blade. The width to length proportions are correct for the 1833 French cutlass. A briquette blade is slimmer. The brass guard on yours has what appears to be an extra flange to accommodate the rivets, something the iron mounted example that I have does not posses. I have examined maybe a dozen over the years, all virtually identical in blade length/width, the manner of assembly, etc. Yours could be an of the period officer's version, private purchase, etc. but without actually seeing it in person, it's hard to tell the age, so, with that in mind, I would be careful. The US 1860 cutlass is also much slimmer and overall lighter build than its French counterpart. A friend turned up an 1860 at a show years back and everything was "right" as far as the manner of assembly, and measurements. But, the grip wire was still in place, something that is a little odd for the 1860. The Ames mark, very lightly stamped on the originals was too even and perfect even though the font type and size was. Spot on. Most that I have seen seem to have had the wire deliberately removed at some point. Possibly due to verdigris forming and the impossibility of cleaning it to Naval standards of the time. But for some reason it just didn't pass the smell test, not just by my reasoning, but also to several other long time collectors present as well. When compared side by side with a couple of others that had been on collections for a very long time, the differences stood out like a sore thumb! The rivets securing the shell to the guard were different in number by maybe two. The originals had exactly the same number and layout, whereas the piece now seen to be a copy had a different number and layout. Shell thickness was another issue. The color of the brass was more of an orange, where the old ones were much more yellow. The point of this diatribe is to note that there are some very good copies out there that might stand on their own merits at face value. But when compared side to side with a piece that is unquestionably right, the credibility falls apart. So, in the probably unlikely possibility that you are ever able to compare it to another, keep an open mind, and hope for the best! It's a great looking cutlass, and I hope the best for you!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

5th February 2014, 10:13 PM	#1
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 326	Good point, Fernando, perhaps you are right why go to the effort of embellishing a cutlass when you can have a fancy sword for an officer! Perhaps with the blade cleaned up there may be some clues with markings. As you say these blades were usually well marked by the manufacturer on the spine and inspection marks on both the guard and ricasso. And usually some trace remains even on well worn blades. Perhaps I am too optimistic and it is a a replica after all! Regards, CC.

6th February 2014, 04:48 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,819	Thank you Vandoo! As Fernando has astutely observed, this does appear to be a briquette blade, and this cutlass appears to be a pastiche, and extremely nicely done . As CC has well noted there appears to be elements of the French M1833 cutlass and the brass bowl of the US M1860 might well be in use as well. What is curious is that the pommel cap is not in the shape of the regular M1833 French, it is straight and angled , where the original is curved (Gilkerson , 1991, p.79, "Boarders Away". The M1833 developed from the M1801 'sabre de bord' which was apparently japanned black rather than brass with the bowl guard, and this is typically mounted off the knuckleguard and not butted to the grip and pommel . Since this bowl guard cutlass, the French M1801/33, was very popular it was used by virtually every European country's naval forces, so perhaps there may have been variants, but the anchor embellishment on the guard does not seem likely for a weapon for rack issue.

6th February 2014, 05:43 AM	#3
weapons 27 Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 462	I'll cleaned the blade and watch if I see markings... the shell of the sword was painted black, the person that I bought this saber has removed the painting, we see even a few black marks

6th February 2014, 03:37 PM	#4
weapons 27 Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 462	I found no markings... the blade is old and thick 4mm, very sharp

2nd July 2014, 05:46 AM	#5
Shakethetrees Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Louisiana Posts: 363	Hello, all, I've been lurking on this forum for a while and recently joined. I collect a wide variety of things that I feel would be of interest here, and have been collecting for probably forty years. I have been in the silversmithing/restoration field since 1979 as a practicing professional. I hope I can add value to this forum! I need to check my 1833. It's packed away now as I am in the process of a move. As I recall, though, the guard is iron, as are the pommel and grip. The "soup ladle" is also iron, unadorned, except for some edge thickening, and no rivets. It was brazed in place. The manufacture date and place should be etched in script on the back of the blade close to the guard. It's also probably one that I would choose if I had to use it to defend myself. The balance is superb, the blade is sharp enough to do damage but not so sharp that the edge is delicate. It's of a good, manageable length, and because of the nicely defined shape, gets attention!