1796 LCS - Early Woolley Blade with Later WDD Scabbard?

[efrahjalt]

Hi all,

I wanted to share a recent addition to my collection that sits a bit outside my usual focus. I typically am drawn to non-pattern arms, but this 1796 caught my eye and ended up with me.

The blade is marked simply “Woolley” on the spine, with no other visible characters. Based on what I’ve been able to find, that would date the blade to circa 1794–1798, prior to the firm becoming Woolley & Deakin in 1798, and then later Woolley, Deakin & Dutton around 1810. The sword retains its grip leather and appears mostly untouched, aside from some honest service wear. There is some active rust on the blade hilt and scabbard which I will gently clean soon, but it's all very shallow.

The interesting part: the scabbard is clearly stamped “Woolley Deakin Dutton”, which would place it much later—likely around 1810–1815. This leads me to believe the sabre saw continued service and was re-scabbarded at some point, possibly during the Napoleonic period. I've heard that practice wasn’t unusual, but I’d be interested to hear if others have seen similar pairings.

I’d love any confirmation on the blade dating or additional insights into the partnership transitions. Also curious if anyone has come across documented examples of sabres being reissued with later scabbards in British service.

Photos below for reference. Any thoughts appreciated!

[efrahjalt]

Started cleaning it up. Looking a little better. Still more cleaning to do, but in the process I noticed a couple more marks that could be helpful for dating/identification. Further up the spine there are two letter Bs marked. I’ve read today these are to make the balance point before and after hilting. I’m not sure if that is correct. I’ll have to check if that holds any water next time I handle the sword. Any further thought on dating or other details are welcomed.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
I have a 1796 H.C. sword the blade stamped for Gill with the War Office acceptance marks and the scabbard marked Osborn and Gunby Birmingham. Now whether this is a contemporary mating done at the time of use e.g. battlefield pickups or replacement or a later mating by an owner or even a dealer is impossible to know. I like to think they were put together after a battle when stray weapons were gathered together for future use. I got it from a credible source in Portugal so possibly a mating done during the Peninsular campaign as many such swords were used by both British and Portuguese troops.
Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

These old British cavalry swords are the most fascinating and historic weapons ever IMO, as my earliest collecting days began with them in the mid 60s.

I have a totally unmarked version of the M1796 light cavalry (iilustrated), so hard to tell of course if these are together as originally issued. It seems unusual to have the scabbard marked as to maker, as far as I have known only regimental marks and rack numbers were applied. I am curious if there are particulars in this use of scabbard markings.

I am also curious about these swords with unit marks on the hilt and contrary unit marks on the scabbard. I have thought that these situations evolved from field circumstances where a rider lost his sword, whether killed or wounded and his scabbard remained attached to him.

If in the aftermath swords were collected off the field, perhaps by forces retrieving them for further use? perhaps battlefield swords and scabbards taken from either killed or wounded were compiled into stores. Later it was a matter of simply matching suitable scabbards to like swords...markings irrelevant.

Theoretical.... as these types of circumstances as far as I have known are not part of studies of military units, battles, events. Another of those historic elements considered mundane and not pertinent to the larger scope of study.

I have a M1796 heavy cavalry sword with scabbard marked entirely different unit than on the hilt, and another's hilt was unmarked and only scabbard marked.

Regarding Wooley, his 1788 blades were marked on the spine simply Wooley, no scabbard on this.

The brass stirrup hilt (illustrated)was thought to be a cavalry saber when I got it back in the 70s, and is marked WOOLEY & DEAKIN. In those day(per Annis & May) the Wooley name in this pairing existed only 1800-1803.
Much research done since then has revealed far more detail which has the years of the partnership a bit more expanded.

The black fluted grip is interesting as this is a French convention, and Wooley, IMO, always seemed to follow that in the elements of his hilts, his use of the Montmorency blades. However I have seen another hilt like this but by EGG.
At present, I think this is a British officers cutlass, fighting version.

[efrahjalt]

Thanks for the additional examples gents. Jim, that fluted grip is a beauty!

Glad to hear you concur with my assumption that it is an early blade based on the marking being only Woolley. By your dating that puts it sometime between 1788-1800 if I’m following correctly. Very cool!

I find it unlikely that it ended up randomly with a scabbard from the same manufacturer. The fact that it’s the same manufacturer as the blade makes me think that it was an intentional paring. Perhaps added later if the original scabbard was lost or broken, or maybe left over production blade that never left Woolley until later and went out with a later production scabbard. There are no other regimental marks on it that I can tell. Not sure if that says anything about its history.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you so much!! especially for responding
I have had this saber since the 70s, and as I mentioned, it was termed a cavalry officers sword (?) but obviously this was atypical for any such thing.
The brass hilt, fluted grip and shorter blade clearly (as years later found) indicated a naval officers cutlass.
In a book by Wilkinson I found a match to this made by Durs Egg, identical ebony fluted grip etc. (cannot place title at the moment). As Egg did supply a lot of naval weapons it seems likely to support my idea (the one in the book was a frontispiece and not fully captioned).

I am inclined to agree on your date assessment, and Deakin as a partner only lasted until 1803. An article on this lurks about somewhere (I'll find it eventually). Wooley as I noted was heavily into the use of Montmorency section blades from the M1788s, and seems to have favored French affectations in hilts (his 1788 light cavalry hilt vs, Gill's which followed German form).

[Jim McDougall]

The center example of the fluted ebony grip brass hilt cutlass is one Mark Eley had and we discussed here in 2008. Note that his example of the same type hilt differs in having the regular hollow ground blade rather than the Montmorency (Wooley) I noted.
This suggests these were limited run of a type with cutlers using different blades, As indicated, I have seen one other example of these in Wilkinson,

[Akanthus]

[Now whether this is a contemporary mating done at the time of use e.g. battlefield pickups or replacement or a later mating by an owner or even a dealer is impossible to know. I like to think they were put together after a battle when stray weapons were gathered together for future use.

From the " son" of the 1796,the M1811 or Blüchersäbel ,it is known ,that lange numbers of it were sold from the prussian army to dealers around 1900.The six yet known tradingcompanies bought the surplus and also offered the swords for decoration. They bought up to 18000 weapons.I can imagine, that on this way many sabres and scabbards got mixed.In Prussia all M1811 had the same troop stamps on both,sabre and scabbard.

[Jim McDougall]

The occurrence of mismatched (by issuance numbers, units etc) swords and scabbards is of course well known but determining the circumstances of these cases surely has numbers of various possibilities.

It is unclear whether armies cleared the battlefields of weapons for further use in issue, though it would seem prudent to do so given the notable costs of these. Obviously the bodies of fallen troops were cleared into mass graves, but no note is made of the disposition of scattered weaponry. While the cannon were recovered, no mention is made of firearms or sidearms.

It does seem that many sidearms fallen into positions in mud or growth remained in situ for some time in many cases, however the recovery of visible weapons may have been taken as souvenirs. At Culloden in 1746, it was noted that 191 Scottish swords were retrieved from the field, which was remarkable since there were more than 4000 Scots there. This was the single instance I personally have found of weapons retrieval from battlefields, but clearly such practice was commonplace though more likely scavengers taking them.

There are instances of for example, a heavy cavalry sword (M1796) with rack (Bn number) marked in the hilt with unit number (previously noted) .......it was with a mismatched scabbard. Years later, a M1796 scabbard was found listed with the SAME Bn number in the holdings of a Scottish museum. Sadly, the item had been deaccessed so hope of reassociating was lost.

This suggests that the trooper was possibly wounded and sword dropped on the field. As the scabbard remained attached to him when he was off the field to medical care, it remained with him or the unit. His sword however was left to the elements on the field and likely found by scavengers (Waterloo) and sword and scabbard went separate ways over the next century and a half.

Among collectors, as unusual as it seems, there are those who actually collect scabbards alone. I have seen offers many times of these being sold in auctions along with 'parts' obviously for those persons restoring swords etc.
It would be impossible to tell the origin of sword and scabbard pairings with disparate issue numbers, but there are so many. Usually its a matter of dealers or sellers simply using a scabbard of the same type or pattern if possible to complete the example.

In my early days of collecting the sword examples WITHOUT scabbard were deemed incomplete of course, so luckily for me sold at much lower prices, often by huge difference depending on the scarcity of the type.

As previously noted, like the Bluchersabels, huge numbers of arms were sold off as surplus by the British at the end of the Napoleonic campaigns. Virtually the entire Mexican army was supplied with Brown Bess guns and sundry other such arms in the 1820s.However many swords ended up going to the various yeomanry units and other civil forces in degree. Many of the other ranks weapons, typically with brass hilts, were mostly fodder for the scrap metal forges.

The topic in the original post is an intriguing one, and in the case of this example with the Birmingham maker James Wooley with apparent variation between sword and scabbard markings to him by firm name designated, it is a fascinating conundrum which has remarkable potential for resolution.

[Jim McDougall]

It seems that the James Wooley & Thomas Deakin partnership long held to be in years 1800-1803 (Annis & May)actually predated that to 1790.

James Wooley supplied bayonets during c.1793.
Obviously we know he was making M1788 light cavalry sabers.
The first mention of WOOLEY & DEAKIN was in "Chapmans Birmingham Directory" in 1800.
The earliest Board of Ordnance reference to this name combination was 1803.
One reference noted Wooley's partnership with FRANCIS DEAKIN ended in 1812?
Possibly a family member ?

YET,
By 1808, there is a dated M1803 field, flank co. officers sword to
WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON.

By 1810 M1796 light and heavy cavalry swords to
WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON AND JOHNSON (who appears to have joined after 1808)

another anomaly is a 1796 lt. cav. saber
WOOLEY DEAKIN AND DOBBS on scabbard
However in notations a 'B' on blade spine is noted as =Birmingham
while other indications are that is indicating 'bend' mark.
It seems that convention was used later than this but cannot recall.

So it would seem that WOOLEY DEAKIN & DUTTON would be pre 1808.

One Wooley M1796 had scabbard engraved C.M.MENZIES, CARR BRIDGE

A M1796 saber is to WOOLEY & SARGANT (1814-1816) with notation this firm was formerly WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON, has the crowned 4 attributed to Wooley & Sargant...
The scabbard is marked solely WOOLEY.

In conclusion, I would presume a scabbard marked WOOLEY DEAKIN DUTTON would date 1803-1808 as in 1808 Johnson joined firm.

Here I would note that the dynamics of these partnerships suggest that a pairing of an unmatched scabbard using other wording from essentially the same firm was likely use of an extant one still held in the stores of that firm and during the production of swords of the said pattern. Scabbards are external to the sword itself of course, so are hard to use in the date assessment of the sword. However the pairings are interesting in the history of the sword in speculating possible avenues of the pairing.

This material from" "New Light on the Partnership of James Wooley and Thomas Deakin", Philip Lankester, Arms & Armour, Vol.1, #2, 2004, pp.159-164.
Also various auction entries from Christies, Bonhams et al

[Hotspur]

Then there are Wooley Deakin&Co. blades on non Wooley hilts.

I've book notes on dates but off the top of my head, the 1810 seems about right.

The &Co supposedly puts this blade below marked no later than 1806.

Cheers
GC

[Jim McDougall]

Good note Glen!
As this is an eagle head, and Im deferring to you as you know these better than anyone else, would these be an American example using British (obviously) blade? If I recall Gill and Osborn used specific blade marks for blades to America but not aware of Wooley (this in Mowbray, not handy at moment).

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Good note Glen!
As this is an eagle head, and Im deferring to you as you know these better than anyone else, would these be an American example using British (obviously) blade? If I recall Gill and Osborn used specific blade marks for blades to America but not aware of Wooley (this in Mowbray, not handy at moment).

I don't know who furbished that sabre. I can only place it in time by the style and Mowbray likes these backstrap examples as post 1818, but we have the 'absolute' of those wd&c marks as from 1803-1806. That's a pretty narrow window. That blade is cast steel but there is no mark indicating that.

I know nothing of trade blades being specifically marked as such. There is a Thillman note about a particular French Fourbisshier and ACW officers swords but there is nothing I've read on 18th or early century swords. I can though spot surplus Napoleonic era blades in use as late as the 1850s.

Cheers
GC

[Hotspur]

I was going back through some shared pictures from 2004. The pages were written by a Philip Lankester, Weapons Department, Royal Armouries 2004

In those brief pages, he describes the Woolley/Deakin association and the business agreement that Deakin's partnership was to continue with Wooley's estate. The first ordnance order was for hangers in 1797, albeit we know Wooley on his own predates that and Deakin starts with him in 1790.

I swore not to share the four pages and it does not define the timeline of the sword presented here.

From Langham's and Oldswords

Cheers
GC