Gills Britah manufacturing sword

[Peter Hudson]

I agree ! Some of Gills swords have a G many do not. Some have the name in capitals..GILL.some do not and there is even a peculiar griffon on some blades but again not on all. As you note Jim the often placed mark of "warranted never to fail " is seen on his weapons. It's a weak excuse to suggest that many blades were changed in those days thus ommissions can be expected...Some Gill swords went to America and I saw one that had returned to England with a modified pommelin the form of a miniature George Washington. To muddy the waters even more it may be noted that Naval Swords in the UK never got the name Cutlass untill after about 1804 when that weapon became produced by/on behalf of the Amiralty...
It is however true that in studying English sword making Gill deserves a long hard look as his swords were like jewels in a goldmine...and stand as prime weapons in the British Armoury along with Harvey and others plus of course Shotley Bridge Swords.

Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

Peter, good notes! However going back through research , Andrew Mowbrays "The American Eagle Pommel Sword" (1988) and the 'unthinkable', using the search here I found some interesting things.

In a brisk discussion between Bryce and Glen(2018), two of the local specialists here IMO of British and American swords, they revealed some most intriguing details, well supported by their in depth research:

ALL Osborn blades have G or GG, with no determination as to why these letter 'G' are singular or paired. Suggestions are made that perhaps the GG came after Osborn partnered with Gunby in 1808, nothing substantiates this . These letters seem to occur on officers sword blades, but not as far as seen on the troopers sword blades. As these are typically at the very highest part of the ricasso, so not easy to see with the langets typically on troopers hilts.

Osborn seems to have ended the convention between 1810-1816.

GILL: This is most disturbing, as Mowbray (1988, p.97, c.1805) states the 'G' was the house mark for Gill? All indicators at this point claim, as noted, NO Gill blades have a G.

There are notes that early, that O over a G occurs on an 1808 blade (Osborn&Gunby? Mowbray. p.112)while an 1805 blade (p.105 Mowbray) has a deep 'O';
On p.104,p.102 either O or Ob thought Osborn.

None of the other makers/cutlers (Gill and Osborn produced blades while others were typically cutlers) had these letters on blades, yet all were exporting swords to America.

One blade in this period has the number 12 in the same blade location.
On some occasions it seems I have seen a '3' on Gill blades.

So what we have here seems to be some sort of administrative system in blades being produced and exported to America with these makers. There was a notable commerce in these swords between England and America in the period 1794-1830s. It is important to remember that American colonists were still basically British culturally after the Revolution into early 19th c.and American industry and commerce was not yet well developed in many cases.
So British swords and blades were notably exported to America by Gill, Osborn, and a number of other makers at least until 1820s.

Interesting note on the term cutlass, and while pretty much everywhere the terms hanger and cutlass seem to have been interchanged almost invariably, aside from the Spanish....who had the term machete interpolated in the same capacity. Seems odd the British resisted the cutlass term so late and all sorts of speculation might be added here.

Gill is the only maker who used 'WARRANTED NEVER TO FAIL' on his blades, but others followed suit but more briefly with 'WARRANTED' alone.

Not sure on the changing of blades note, but it seems the reuse of blades and swords held in stores or rendered obsolete by changing patterns was well established. The M1796 saber was so ubiquitous that by the time it was superceded by the M1821 (1829) these ended up everywhere, America, India, Germany produced their own version the M1811 Blucher etc.

The 1821/1829 heavy cavalry saber when replaced by 1853 were in Tower stores and made into practice swords, even attempt to make cutlasses.
same was done with numbers of M1796 heavy cavalry in Tower, attempt to make into cutlasses but most of these destroyed in fire there.

Getting back to the original subject, this Gill blade on an unusually earlier style hilt, it is not unusual to see earlier hilts with later blades. In Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962) there are many later blades mounted on earlier hilts.
All conundrums.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

ALL Osborn blades have G or GG, with no determination as to why these letter 'G' are singular or paired.

Minor correction here Jim, but Henry Osborn initially stamped his blades with a crown over the letters HO. This changed somewhere around 1797 as there exists a 1798 dated Osborn sword with the G stamp.

My 1796 LC officers by Osborn is stamped with the Crown over HO proof.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

None of the other makers/cutlers (Gill and Osborn produced blades while others were typically cutlers) had these letters on blades, yet all were exporting swords to America.

I'm not sure if I read your sentence correctly, but officer blades produced by Dawes typically have an S stamp on the ricasso, close to the tang. This is not evident on his trooper swords.

[Peter Hudson]

Hello Jim and I forgot to give a nod toward Phil Read in my last post...Anyway out of interest I looked at https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yh...2a&action=view
Which is a very entertaining view by Matt Easton who compares two Spadroons of the Napolionic period and talks about sword design of this form in the context of 1896 ...What I found interesting was the style of Ivory hilt on one pattern being compared which esentially parallels in the hilt to the first sword I show on this thread (see post 5 above.) ... and which is by John Gill...that also includes his catchphrase Warranted Never to Fail...I thought to include his debate on the pros and cons of each as relevant to the Gill form. Thus members may look this up ...
Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson,
Which is a very entertaining view by Matt Easton who compares two Spadroons of the Napolionic period and talks about sword design of this form in the context of 1796 ...What I found interesting was the style of Ivory hilt on one pattern being compared which esentially parallels in the hilt to the first sword I show on this thread (see post 5 above.) ... and which is by John Gill...that also includes his catchphrase [B

Warranted Never to Fail[/B]...I thought to include his debate on the pros and cons of each as relevant to the Gill form. Thus members may look this up ...
Regards, Peter Hudson.

Thank you Peter!
These 'spadroons' are typically I think considered a 'pattern' of 1786 (unofficially) and were popular infantry officers swords which also became well known in naval contexts as well. Part of the unique hilt decoration included 'five spheres' giving the collectors rendition 'five ball or bead hilt) though there were of course variations.

I personally had not known of examples of these with blades by Thomas Gill so seeing one with said blade is interesting for me , though I am certain not to specialized collectors.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Minor correction here Jim, but Henry Osborn initially stamped his blades with a crown over the letters HO. This changed somewhere around 1797 as there exists a 1798 dated Osborn sword with the G stamp.

My 1796 LC officers by Osborn is stamped with the Crown over HO proof.



I'm not sure if I read your sentence correctly, but officer blades produced by Dawes typically have an S stamp on the ricasso, close to the tang. This is not evident on his trooper swords.

Thank you for this key information! and correction is excellent, not only much appreciated but very much sought after.
I had not known of the Osborn letter stamping on blades, which in this case obviously stood for Henry Osborn (HO)

As Osborn was the key figure in working with LeMarchant in developing the M1796, which was of course the first 'regulation' British cavalry sword, it seems reasonable that date period would stand.

The switch over to the 'G' on the 1798 sword is curious.....this must have been an officers blade of course as the date is noted.

It does not seem this convention of forte letter stamping is much understood, nor for that matter typically discussed in most references.
Obviously the letters would be presumed initials of the maker, i.e. G for Gill? HO for Henry Osborn............but then it seems the G and GG are predominate on Osborn blades.......not so much on Gills?


There are letters noted in Robson, such as E= Enfield as well as S=Solingen.
While Dawes was producing troopers M1796 swords.......it seems that blued and decorated blades for officers were being imported from Solingen and perhaps that might account for the S ?

I guess we are getting away from the original topic here, which was centered on establishing proper markings on swords by Thomas Gill.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The switch over to the 'G' on the 1798 sword is curious.....this must have been an officers blade of course as the date is noted.

As Bryce notes elsewhere, the G stamp is only fond on officer blades, Osborn and later Osborn and Gunby do not appear to have marked their troopers swords in this manner. Interestingly the Crown over HO appears to have been used on trooper swords as well, the Royal Armouries have several examples of a '1780s light dragoons sword' marked with that stamp.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It does not seem this convention of forte letter stamping is much understood, nor for that matter typically discussed in most references.
Obviously the letters would be presumed initials of the maker, i.e. G for Gill? HO for Henry Osborn............but then it seems the G and GG are predominate on Osborn blades.......not so much on Gills?

I think we need to accept that this far back in time, at least regarding swords, there were very few conventions to speak of. It wasn't until 1788 that we see the 'universal' sword regulations for troopers with the procurement moving from the regimental captains to the Ordinance board. The first official stamp is the crown over broadarrow sometimes seen on 1788 trooper swords:



This changes with the 1796 patterns (presumably as the process is improved ) when it becomes a crown over an inspectors number:



Again, no universal practice appears to have been applied with trooper swords being found without the inspector stamps and officer swords with them. The theory being that inspection was done before the blades were hilted.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

There are letters noted in Robson, such as E= Enfield as well as S=Solingen.
While Dawes was producing troopers M1796 swords.......it seems that blued and decorated blades for officers were being imported from Solingen and perhaps that might account for the S ?

I believe this practice started later than the period we are discussing (Thomas Gill Snr and John Gill), around the 1850s? Certainly Victorian era trooper swords have much clearer markings on them than the Georgian era swords. I don't think we should look at Victorian markings and apply those same ideas back to earlier times since we are looking at a progression of procurement practices as the army continues to evolve and 'modernaize'.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I guess we are getting away from the original topic here, which was centered on establishing proper markings on swords by Thomas Gill.

All the Thomas Gill Snr marked swords I have seen are clearly marked with his name and branding. Even on a smallsword where there isn't much space on the blade, he manages to get his message across

But I haven't seen any use of letter stamps. Only Henry Osborn and on a limited series of swords Sammual Dawes appear to have used the practice. And then predominantely on swords intended for commercial sale rather than government sales.

Tho Gill's Warranted never to Fail (1796 Pattern light cavalry sword):


Notice that there isn't an ordinance board stamp, so it could be private purchase for a Yeomanry troop or similar.

Three generations of Gill:

Elizabeth Gill (widdow of John Gill) - 1796 LC Officer named to Oldham Yeomanry Cavalry (OTYC).
John Gill - 1796 LC troopers sold to Dutch service.
Thomas Gill - 1796 LC troopers.

[toaster5sqn]

Auckland War Memorial Museum has an 1751 pattern British infantry hanger with a Gill blade. As with the OP's sword this hilt predates the blade, by the time Gill was making blades the use of infantry hangers was finished or all but.

[Peter Hudson]

see https://www.jbmilitaryantiques.com.a...2-1320x969.jpg

for examples of 5 ball hilt with pillow pommel and reeded grip ...This grip was exceptional for accurate allignment of the sword point.

Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

Radboud, these notes and observations are outstanding and I thank you so much for detailing them out so well, and well illustrated . While I have good familiarity with British military swords you and Bryce have truly focused on these kinds of peculiarities well...........busily adjusting notes!

It is these kinds of posts that become so valuable in our archives here, and essential in future research as more examples come into these pages.

It truly is interesting to see, as you well note, the 'conventions' really were not consistant before 1788 and the later regulation patterns and protocols.

Toaster, excellent example in perfect accord with the OP, earlier form hilt on later Gill blade, thank you.

Peter, great and unusual example of the five ball hilt. These are typically termed spadroons for the straight SE blades they were mounted with, so this saber blade is an anomaly. ....excellent perspective!

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

Auckland War Memorial Museum has an 1751 pattern British infantry hanger with a Gill blade. As with the OP's sword this hilt predates the blade, by the time Gill was making blades the use of infantry hangers was finished or all but.

Hi Robert, thanks for sharing this sword; very pertenant to the discussion. From memory the blade was marked I. Gill, which was how John Gill marked blades of his production (I the latin equlivent for J).

When Thomas Gill Snr died in 1801, the business was taken up by his three sons, Thomas Jnr, James and John. They operated in partnership until March 1802 when it was disolved. At this time the business continued to sell swords but it is not known if they produced new blades or simply sold pre-existing ones made under Thomas Snr.

Below is an example of one such blade, and to my eye it looks like the original makers name has been over stamped:



Of the three brothers; while they all intermittently sold swords, only John continued to produce sword blades until his death in February 1817, marking his blades I.Gill. This helps dates the production of that blade to between 1802 and 1816.