Pattern British Sword?

[mgolab]

Just bought this and waiting for it to come in. Some pictures attached. Appears to have a Crowned G?

Appreciate any comments

[toaster5sqn]

It doesn't appear to be any of the pattern swords. The 1788 spadroons had a wide variety of guards but the pattern mandated a 32" blade so it's not one of those.
Of course there were a huge range of regimental and militia swords that did not conform to the patterns so it could certainly be one of those.
A straight backsword blade, looking to be quite broad but not overly long with a simple knuckle bow hand guard makes me think of pioneer swords and similar.

Hopefully someone with an idea of what it actually is may chime in.

Robert

[mgolab]

Thank you Robert. Could this be an infantry hanger given its dimensions? If you google 1780 British Infantry hanger something similar comes up.

[Radboud]

I agree with Robert; it's a pre-pattern British sword dating to around the 1780s. The Crown over G could be for Thomas Gill; I believe that he used a stamp like that before 1800.

If you search the Royal Armouries online catalogue, you'll find several examples of similar-looking swords described as "Light cavalry trooper sword". Although they have langets and the blades are different. You may also want to consider that the blade on your sword has been shortened.

[mgolab]

Thank you very much. That is great. now, hopefully it comes in the mail...

[Jim McDougall]

In this period of British sword making, technically there were no 'patterns' until 1796. Through the 18th century British cavalry were dragoons, and the favored swords were basket hilt types, with some variations in form, always straight blades

In the late 1750s there were moves toward light cavalry following European hussars with lighter swords. While Europeans used sabers, the British decided on lighter swords keeping straight blades. These were of the form termed four slot guards and several units of cavalry were appointed 'light dragoons'. By the 1770s these types of swords were in use, but not in any official pattern.

The first image is one of these by Thomas Gill, the date unclear, but GILL is stamped on the blade forte.....on the tang is a TG under crown (as seen in next photo on different sword).

In these times it seems unclear on the marking of blades, and again no strict regulation on application.

Next photo is a Thomas Gill spadroon (as previously mentioned). These were infantry officers swords of 1780s+.

Next image one of the four slot light dragoon swords 1770s

Next photo is a brass stirrup hilt with straight blade clipped point which has become considered by many a 1780 type which was to light dragoons, and following European saber hilt styling. Few of these were apparently issued, possibly to 15th Light Dragoons ?

By 1788, the first unofficial 'pattern' was developed following European hussar style and now with saber blades. The first by Gill seems to follow German style, the next by Wooley French style.

It seems doubtful to me that this was a pre pattern British style, but a later sword perhaps for other ranks, militia etc. using an 18th century blade, noting the wide back fuller. Perhaps the mark is actually TG under crown?
The curled in quillon is most unusual.

The relatively short blade does goes against cavalry swords of this period of 18th century, by then the call was for longer blades, some up to 39".

[mgolab]

Thanks Jim.

If it is a later sword, any thoughts on how much later? American? British?

The seller has confirmed that it came out of a very old estate in East Northport, NY....for what that is worth...

[Jim McDougall]

While I am by no means any sort of expert, I have been interested in swords of these types since the 1960s, and have a 'working' knowledge of the basics. The real experts are those who specialize in certain fields, and here Bryce and Radboud and several others come to mind. Still, Ive never been shy about speculating, and always learn from the corrections that often ensue.

Having said that, my feel, mostly from looking through "Swords and Blades of the American Revolution" (George Nuemann, 1973), there many hangers/short sabers etc. with these kinds of pronounced single back fullers, most are with slight curve and varying lengths. These are typically 1750s-70s and of course fall into British, French and German categories, naturally many listed as American. Keep in mind that Americans in those times were 'colonists' and essentially British. British materials including arms were imported into America through the 18th century and still coming in through the War of 1812.

With the focus primarily on the blade, it seems that British blade makers, who were few, were Samuel Harvey, Nathaniel Jeffries and a Dawes., with Gill, Wooley and Osborn coming in later by 1770s. It is unclear whether these men were cutlers or actually producing blades, and the practice of 'salting' stock and finishing of raw blades was well known from the times of Hounslow and Shotley in the 17th c.

It seems that by 1784, Gill MUST have been producing blades as he pronounced that British blades (focused on his) were superior to the German imports that were prolific. This would suggest of course that Harvey, Wooley and Osborn were as well.
I would point out here that it seems that Harvey had an unclear connection with the Oleys of Shotley Bridge to the north, who seems to have been supplying blades as well.

The reason for bringing up the conundrum of British blade production in these times is looking at the character of the blade on the sword discussed.
If this indeed has a crowned letter, if a G or TG it of course suggests Thomas Gill and his period of work. The crowned initials, or in cases numbers (suggesting inspectors) were a notably British convention then, but there were inconsistencies.

The provenance to New York while helpful, does not actually lend to determining the classification or analysis of the sword, It may have ended up there in many circumstances.

The hilt type is of 18th century European cavalry saber style which as noted did arrive in England for the 1780-88 'patterns', but does not correspond enough to either to be placed among these forms.

The hilt seems to have the quillon 'bent in', and frankly might be from European context, perhaps even Dutch, where many swords were always coming into America. The idea of the blade being British and from mid to late 17th c. is my primary motivator.

Basically, the blade seems pretty set, the hilt added is the issue, and regardless of outcome, I think it falls into c. 1800 context. Stirrup hilts had become so ubiquitous in many nations, then factor in the militia and other sectors it becomes a true challenge. I feel that it is British, but hard to say more defined.

The reason I added the four unofficial (post #6) 'patterns' of British hilts of 1770-1790s was to give context.

[Jim McDougall]

Just wanted to add:
After 1750s the British army brought emphasis on longer blades for the cavalry, which at this point were being inclined to combat from horseback in the European fashion. This broke from the characteristic 'dragoons', who actually used the horse as transportation primarily, and dismounted for action. Obviously this was the practice, outside incidental circumstances.

Blades for horsemen were increased to lengths ranging from 35 inches to 40 inches. I have seen M1788 heavy cavalry swords with such 40" blades, which are pretty imposing.

This example is a Glasgow type basket hilt for horsemen of the standing dragoon style units which remained in place as 'heavy' cavalry through the 18th century, even as 'light dragoon units' were evolving post 1760s.
This is believed of the form used by Royal Scots Greys (then Royal North British Dragoons) from then into 1770s.
Note the oval aperture in the hilt, which has now been agreed to have been for the horseman to secure his reins while discharging holster pistols.
Though these apertures have been regarded to have been from c.1750s, much earlier examples are known.

To the original query on the interesting sword shown in OP, I just wanted to illustrate that in character, the cavalry option appears unlikely. However, I might suggest there is even the potential this could be a private purchase, or ersatz version of a cutlass for naval use c.1800. British naval cutlasses of this period had straight blades of about this length. Naturally these areas are pretty clouded, and there are easily as many exceptions as there are norms, but wanted to present options.