Pattern British Sword?

Jim McDougall · 16th August 2025, 05:48 PM

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 · 17th August 2025, 04:09 PM

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.

kronckew · 17th August 2025, 11:32 PM

See also:

British Dragoon Sword

My American Dragoon Sword

mgolab · 18th August 2025, 12:29 PM

found this online

https://fineart.hallsgb.com/auction/...ot=144110&sd=1

Jim McDougall · 18th August 2025, 07:55 PM

Thanks Wayne,
The slotted hilt on that recalls the M1803 Flank Co. officers sabers.

MG,
That fighting saber is of a type (not official pattern) of these favored by naval officer in early years 1800+ in England. The 'montmorency' cross section on blades on these were favored by Wooley as seen in several examples of that early period (this one Wooley& Deakin, 1801-1803).

With your sword, the blade just reminds me of those type straight blades on the naval cutlasses c.1804, but the back fuller recalls the hanger blades 1740+

mgolab · 18th August 2025, 09:17 PM

Thanks Jim.

Finally received it. Seller was only 1 hr. or so from my house but USPS took three days...I should have picked it up.

anyway, there is a crown over TG. I assume Thomas Gill?

Jim McDougall · 19th August 2025, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgolab

Thanks Jim.

Finally received it. Seller was only 1 hr. or so from my house but USPS took three days...I should have picked it up.

anyway, there is a crown over TG. I assume Thomas Gill?

Thats great! Then it IS a Thomas Gill! Very nice! That puts the blade roughly 1784 and straight as were popular for dragoon swords, however these cavalry swords were of course longer. If the blade was indeed shortened that would go to the 'possible' naval' connection, but might have had other options as well. The brass hilt would be unusual for cavalry in these years. though certain anomalies did exist, but with much fancier blades.

According to various reading if I recall, there were certain tendencies toward cavalry type swords in naval contexts, and many in the 1800 period had stirrup hilts, just as seen in your previous post of the 'montmorency' blade saber shown as naval fighting sword .

When I got the Wooley & Deakin example I posted in comparison back in the 70s, it was listed as a cavalry officers saber.

I have seen these exact sabers, brass stirrup hilt, fluted ebony grip and montmorency blades, it seems a number produced by Wooley and Deakin c1800, as well as another the same by Durs Egg.

As I mentioned earlier, James Wooley of Birmingham seems to have certain preferences for French sword elements, as seen in his versions of the M1788 light cavalry saber (Thomas Gill followed German). This nuance I have never seen addressed, but I noticed it years ago, but being another of my petty quirks, was never really pursued.

Along with these preferences, Wooley also favored montmorency blades, but will place this later in separate thread.

Back to your sword, and again the blade, it seems likely the blade probably is something used in a rehilt about 1800 in any number of scenarios...the blade itself with profound intrinsic historic value.

16th August 2025, 05:48 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,619	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. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 16th August 2025 at 06:02 PM.

17th August 2025, 04:09 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,619	Addendum: British cavalry swords 2nd half 18th c. 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. Attached Images Last edited by Jim McDougall; 17th August 2025 at 04:22 PM.

17th August 2025, 11:32 PM	#3
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,253	See also: British Dragoon Sword My American Dragoon Sword Attached Images

18th August 2025, 07:55 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,619	Thanks Wayne, The slotted hilt on that recalls the M1803 Flank Co. officers sabers. MG, That fighting saber is of a type (not official pattern) of these favored by naval officer in early years 1800+ in England. The 'montmorency' cross section on blades on these were favored by Wooley as seen in several examples of that early period (this one Wooley& Deakin, 1801-1803). With your sword, the blade just reminds me of those type straight blades on the naval cutlasses c.1804, but the back fuller recalls the hanger blades 1740+ Attached Images

18th August 2025, 12:29 PM	#4
mgolab Member Join Date: Jun 2023 Posts: 118	found this online https://fineart.hallsgb.com/auction/...ot=144110&sd=1

18th August 2025, 09:17 PM	#6
mgolab Member Join Date: Jun 2023 Posts: 118	Thanks Jim. Finally received it. Seller was only 1 hr. or so from my house but USPS took three days...I should have picked it up. anyway, there is a crown over TG. I assume Thomas Gill?