The m1804 British naval cutlass

M ELEY · 17th November 2022, 04:27 AM

Quote:

The forum is also a major factor in sharing knowledge and I was struck when discussing the Tower of London fire that information came from completely different sources depending on whether the perspective was from firearms or cutlasses. All improving the understanding.

I agree as well. Sometimes, you just don't know where a thread will take you! In regards to the Tower fire, I certainly think it possible that such stores of cutlass that were there would have been lost. As these utilitarian weapons were considered more 'munitions grade' and not as important (not my opinion, but many) as firearms, it wouldn't be a surprise if said losses were under-reported. I do want to thank everyone for their contributions thus far, but as CC pointed out, it would have been great to see a few other examples posted.

adrian · 17th November 2022, 10:44 AM

The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge.

Musket bayonets are also constructed with an iron socket, elbow & up to about a third of the blade of iron scarf welded to steel. Ramrods likewise were iron & steel - the stem being steel & the head iron.

However, having harped on about muskets so much I'd better post a few photos of a P/1804 cutlass that used to be in my collection (sold to help fund a musket purchase!)

CutlassCollector · 17th November 2022, 11:49 AM

Great example Adrian and with a rare scabbard too.
I can't make out the maker's name, do you recall it?

It is interesting that there are so many variations of the cypher, from the block GR to the fanciest scrolled text. This one is different as well. All 1804s would have been made during the reign of George III (1760-1820). Does this mean that manufacturers made their own interpretation of the cypher rather than a standard one?

CutlassCollector · 17th November 2022, 05:12 PM

The navy had been asking for an improved cutlass for some time as the double disk gave insufficient protection to the hand. The reduction in fleet size since the end of the Napoleonic wars meant the navy probably had plenty of 1804s in stock. There was plainly some long standing disagreement between the Board of Ordnance, the Admiralty and serving personnel.

In 1840 it was decided to modify 10,000 existing 1804s with a new grip and a steel half basket guard amply large. Only about a 1000 cutlasses had been modified and re-issued when the fire in the Tower put a stop to the modifications.

Referencing the recent discussion around the amount of equipment lost in the fire it has occurred to me that maybe the navy took the opportunity to exaggerate their loss in order to facilitate a new and improved cutlass! They had been trying since 1827 when Harry Angelo first pointed out that the 1804 could be improved.

I am not sure, but could this be one of the 1000 modified cutlasses.
It has a straight flat plain blade, slightly shorter than a standard 1804, the end has been reshaped into a more pronounced point and it has a large half basket guard and a finger sculpted grip.

The sculpted grip was definitely new and although it is often described as 'experimental' it does appear on private purchase cutlasses and also the 1850 Royal Artillery sword. It may be ok for hacking with a cutlass but not for any finer sword work and it was not adopted by the navy when the format of the 1845 was finally decided.

This cutlass is not so well balance as the original 1804 which may indicate it is modified but on the other hand it has no markings so could be private purchase. It is the only flat straight bladed cutlass with the later 1840s guard that I have ever seen.

adrian · 17th November 2022, 09:16 PM

I can't make out the maker's name, do you recall it?

HADLEY (the H quite faint).

adrian · 17th November 2022, 09:23 PM

I am not sure, but could this be one of the 1000 modified cutlasses.

Does it bear any Ordnance stamps? If it was an Ordnance made or altered sword one would expect to see an inspection stamp at least, especially if it dates to about the 1840-50s and it being a peacetime item. If a prototype or commercial item then an Ordnance view stamp would not be present.

M ELEY · 17th November 2022, 09:37 PM

Those are both incredible cutlasses! Adrian, I would have loved to have had that Hadley model!

CC, I would think a prototype is possible, but I also agree with Adrian that if it were used by any govertnment-associated parties, I'd expect to see the ordnance stamp. If purely a prototype that saw no service, then who knows? Still an amazing piece! Is it from your collection?

I think Gilkerson pointed out quite succinctly that the vast majority of ships that would have carried the m1804 were the merchantmen. Their ships vastly outnumbered the Britisuh Navy and were always under the direct threat of being attacked by the French (and their allies, Danish pirates, etc) and later American privateers during conflicts. Here's an old broadside from my collection stressing that point-

CutlassCollector · 18th November 2022, 12:13 PM

Does it bear any Ordnance stamps? If it was an Ordnance made or altered sword one would expect to see an inspection stamp at least, especially if it dates to about the 1840-50s and it being a peacetime item. If a prototype or commercial item then an Ordnance view stamp would not be present.[/QUOTE]

No markings and this is obviously the stumbling block!
The puzzle is the disparity between the 1804 blade and 1840s guard. Private purchase generally differ little from the military version, although the use of brass (it being cheaper than steel at the time) is sometimes seen on hilts and guards on private cutlasses.

17th November 2022, 10:44 AM	#2
adrian Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 135	The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge. Musket bayonets are also constructed with an iron socket, elbow & up to about a third of the blade of iron scarf welded to steel. Ramrods likewise were iron & steel - the stem being steel & the head iron. However, having harped on about muskets so much I'd better post a few photos of a P/1804 cutlass that used to be in my collection (sold to help fund a musket purchase!) Attached Images

17th November 2022, 05:12 PM	#4
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 369	1804 or Private purchase. The navy had been asking for an improved cutlass for some time as the double disk gave insufficient protection to the hand. The reduction in fleet size since the end of the Napoleonic wars meant the navy probably had plenty of 1804s in stock. There was plainly some long standing disagreement between the Board of Ordnance, the Admiralty and serving personnel. In 1840 it was decided to modify 10,000 existing 1804s with a new grip and a steel half basket guard amply large. Only about a 1000 cutlasses had been modified and re-issued when the fire in the Tower put a stop to the modifications. Referencing the recent discussion around the amount of equipment lost in the fire it has occurred to me that maybe the navy took the opportunity to exaggerate their loss in order to facilitate a new and improved cutlass! They had been trying since 1827 when Harry Angelo first pointed out that the 1804 could be improved. I am not sure, but could this be one of the 1000 modified cutlasses. It has a straight flat plain blade, slightly shorter than a standard 1804, the end has been reshaped into a more pronounced point and it has a large half basket guard and a finger sculpted grip. The sculpted grip was definitely new and although it is often described as 'experimental' it does appear on private purchase cutlasses and also the 1850 Royal Artillery sword. It may be ok for hacking with a cutlass but not for any finer sword work and it was not adopted by the navy when the format of the 1845 was finally decided. This cutlass is not so well balance as the original 1804 which may indicate it is modified but on the other hand it has no markings so could be private purchase. It is the only flat straight bladed cutlass with the later 1840s guard that I have ever seen. Attached Images

17th November 2022, 09:37 PM	#7
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,206	Those are both incredible cutlasses! Adrian, I would have loved to have had that Hadley model! CC, I would think a prototype is possible, but I also agree with Adrian that if it were used by any govertnment-associated parties, I'd expect to see the ordnance stamp. If purely a prototype that saw no service, then who knows? Still an amazing piece! Is it from your collection? I think Gilkerson pointed out quite succinctly that the vast majority of ships that would have carried the m1804 were the merchantmen. Their ships vastly outnumbered the Britisuh Navy and were always under the direct threat of being attacked by the French (and their allies, Danish pirates, etc) and later American privateers during conflicts. Here's an old broadside from my collection stressing that point- Attached Images

17th November 2022, 11:49 AM	#3
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 369	Great example Adrian and with a rare scabbard too. I can't make out the maker's name, do you recall it? It is interesting that there are so many variations of the cypher, from the block GR to the fanciest scrolled text. This one is different as well. All 1804s would have been made during the reign of George III (1760-1820). Does this mean that manufacturers made their own interpretation of the cypher rather than a standard one?

17th November 2022, 09:16 PM	#5
adrian Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 135	I can't make out the maker's name, do you recall it? HADLEY (the H quite faint).

17th November 2022, 09:23 PM	#6
adrian Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 135	I am not sure, but could this be one of the 1000 modified cutlasses. Does it bear any Ordnance stamps? If it was an Ordnance made or altered sword one would expect to see an inspection stamp at least, especially if it dates to about the 1840-50s and it being a peacetime item. If a prototype or commercial item then an Ordnance view stamp would not be present.

18th November 2022, 12:13 PM	#8
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 369	Does it bear any Ordnance stamps? If it was an Ordnance made or altered sword one would expect to see an inspection stamp at least, especially if it dates to about the 1840-50s and it being a peacetime item. If a prototype or commercial item then an Ordnance view stamp would not be present.[/QUOTE] No markings and this is obviously the stumbling block! The puzzle is the disparity between the 1804 blade and 1840s guard. Private purchase generally differ little from the military version, although the use of brass (it being cheaper than steel at the time) is sometimes seen on hilts and guards on private cutlasses.