1760-80's British Cavalry Sword

[Jim McDougall]

Will ,I retraced those older threads re: Wyatt and it seems while there no bell ringing answers there were some pretty compelling possibilities. I think most resounding was the fact that the linear name stamp resembled others in American convention for placement on the blade (British name stamps were on back of blade, but those were makers). I think these names were outfitters or sword slippers' (often including jewelers). I think one Wyatt found was a silversmith in Philadelphia c. 1790s. These guys often handled contracts for swords for colonels of units, and as often small numbers it is not surprising that even only one might survive. This was of course before arsenals or boards of ordnance issued weapons officially.

Technically even then, the 'American' people were culturally and effectively British, and still used British arms and materials largely.

Even into the early 19th century, British sword makers still supplied swords to America. As previously noted, the absence of markings on this blade suggests a Solingen import and likely in the period also suggested by Mark Eley.

[Will M]

Jim are you aware of other American swords that have been marked with a troop and rack number? I can't find any references to them being marked but could well be a carry over of British standards for marking.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Will M

Jim are you aware of other American swords that have been marked with a troop and rack number? I can't find any references to them being marked but could well be a carry over of British standards for marking.

Hi Will
I had to find my copy of Nuemann, and went through it just as I am sure you have, just to get a baseline for talking points. I cannot say I have any great exposure to American swords beyond occasional examples over years and mostly this book.
However I would be inclined to agree that any such marking that did take place would likely follow British conventions of such marking as the colonists were of course British and probably still adhered to established methods.

These kinds of markings were of course usually 'rack numbers' for issued weapons, and typically did not apply to officers arms as they were privately obtained. There do seem to be exceptions such as Nuemann 349.S an American officers sword c. 1775, with regimental numerics on the knuckle bow.

With your 'WYATT' sword, it does seem that it must have been as noted, a number of a small contract, perhaps even for an American unit which presumably either had that numeric or possibly it was a rack number of course. It is interesting that known makers such as James Potter of New York (who seems to have made a good number of swords) placed his name in this kind of block letters just under the guard on the blade. He appears to have deviated to his name in a scalloped cartouche at one point.
With Wyatt, whoever he was, he must have simply been following the set convention of blade marking accordingly.

It would be an interesting topic for research and discussion to discover more on American military organization and command of those times during and post Revolution through unit designations as found in such markings.