18th Century Machete ?

[thinreadline]

I was looking at my collection of machetes today and thought I would include one in a post for your opinions. It is a wooden handled typical machete but the blade is stamped with a Crown over GR , so do I have a Georgian Army issue machete ? . It is 65 cm long . I have a similar one with is stamped Crown over VR and is presumably Victorian.

[Vendric]

I think the monogram is George V (1911-1935).

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by Vendric

I think the monogram is George V (1911-1935).

No its not , the blade style etc is completely wrong for a WW1 period machete and the crown is completely different to the Kings Crown of the 290th century.

[Marcus den toom]

The GR sign does seems to be more likely.
I do have a absurd theorie about these machetes, they might be sword bayonets converted to a machete?
I don't have enough knowledge about either machetes or bayonets to prove this, but it just came to mind.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
This may be of some interest. I believe that crowned G.R. stamped machets/machetes/cutlass blades were exported to the 'colonies' even after the Georgian period had ended the stamp being looked at as a sign of quality rather than a period designation thus the blade you have could be earlier or later difficult to say.
Regards,
Norman.

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by Marcus den toom

The GR sign does seems to be more likely.
I do have a absurd theorie about these machetes, they might be sword bayonets converted to a machete?
I don't have enough knowledge about either machetes or bayonets to prove this, but it just came to mind.

No they were definitely never converted from bayonets . Sword bayonets of the 19th century were always either straight or yataghan shaped . This blade in addition is more like that of a hanger.

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi,
This may be of some interest. I believe that crowned G.R. stamped machets/machetes/cutlass blades were exported to the 'colonies' even after the Georgian period had ended the stamp being looked at as a sign of quality rather than a period designation thus the blade you have could be earlier or later difficult to say.
Regards,
Norman.

Yes , mine is most like 357 in your illustration. I take your point about the export to the Colonies , but that tended ( at least with firearms and bayonets ) to be of earlier patterned stuff now obsolete & superceded at 'home' , rather than earlier marks being stamped in order to enhance the perception of quality. I am not saying that the practice didnt go on , but the forging of Government Inspection marks ( which is what the Royal Cipher + number is ) was and is a serious criminal offence.

[M ELEY]

I am aware of the machete pattern existing in the period of which we speak (first half 19th century, GR III/IV and VR period) as seen in Brinckherhoff's book, but none with British markings. Could these be from cut-down sword blades? The profile and beefy tip on them reminds me of exported GR examples that we've come across on the forum over the years, noteworthy being a British blade mounted on a Brazilian cutlass in the past. England (and Germany, of course) were exporting blades to the Americas, and in particular, the Spanish colonies. Thus, a Georgian blade on a traditional Spanish-style machete sword seems reasonable-

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

I am aware of the machete pattern existing in the period of which we speak (first half 19th century, GR III/IV and VR period) as seen in Brinckherhoff's book, but none with British markings. Could these be from cut-down sword blades? The profile and beefy tip on them reminds me of exported GR examples that we've come across on the forum over the years, noteworthy being a British blade mounted on a Brazilian cutlass in the past. England (and Germany, of course) were exporting blades to the Americas, and in particular, the Spanish colonies. Thus, a Georgian blade on a traditional Spanish-style machete sword seems reasonable-

Yes I would agree with much of your thesis , and I have attached a picture of the 'Georgian' machete , alongside a brass hilted sidearm which came from a maritime collection in Liverpool . This sidearm purports to be an early 19th C British cutlass as used by merchant ships . What struck me is the similarity in blade form to the cutlass - particularly the single fuller close to the pipe back. I can well imagine that this illustrates your point of a British made sword blade recycled as a rehilted machete at a later date. Unfortunately the sidearm id too pitted to discern any markings.
However by contrast I illustrate the 'Georgian' machete alongside a Victorian marked machete . This is clearly a purpose made machete style blade and certainly bears no relationship to any British sword . So from this it must be taken that machetes were a Government issue item at least from the Victorian period .

[CutlassCollector]

Further to Norman's reply. This is a page from Schnitzler & Kirschbaum's catalogue of c.1850 which I copy from Boarders Away.

Note the 1700's style cutlass at the top and the 1804 pattern underneath it - makes you wonder, when we have reproductions themselves over 150 years old - also the use of cabalistic symbols on many blades.
Solingen cutlers had no qualms about including these ancient markings or the GR symbol to indicate a quality blade to the export market. I'm not sure what the numbers signify - possibly model numbers - although there are two marked 25 which are significantly different.

Regards, CC.

[thinreadline]

Yes that's extremely interesting , and does appear to solve the case convincingly. Much appreciated .

[CutlassCollector]

I did wonder if the 24 indicated a 24 inch blade as the two 25's appear about an inch longer. Did your 65cm refer to the total length or only the blade?
A long shot, I know, but it seems worth the trouble to ask if your blade is 22 inches.
CC

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by CutlassCollector

I did wonder if the 24 indicated a 24 inch blade as the two 25's appear about an inch longer. Did your 65cm refer to the total length or only the blade?
A long shot, I know, but it seems worth the trouble to ask if your blade is 22 inches.
CC

No that's a good hunch , however measuring it across the curve ( ie in a straight line ) it is 20.5 inches. Pity !

[M ELEY]

I had forgotten about Kirshbaum's swords and their spurious 'GR' markings! Yes, it would seem that the mystery is solved. Throughout the 19th century, Germany (or the Hapsburg Republic, pre-Germany) was importing swords to the Spanish colonies. I used to own a Span late-18th c. broadsword with a finely marked German blade. The makers of that piece, whom I had researched, had stationed themselves in Columbia and were active merchants to the colonies. Likewise, in my collection I have a German-made 'private purchase' cutlass, pipe-back broad unstopped fuller like yours, with 'VR' marking. It wasn't govm't issue, but it very well might have served on an English ship.

[CutlassCollector]

That's interesting as although manufacturers were using GR marks illegally in mid-century I was assuming that they were less likely to risk sanctions if they refrained from using the marks of the current monarch.
Mark, are you thinking that your blade was spuriously marked or was initially purchased and issued by the Brit government?

Quote:
No that's a good hunch , however measuring it across the curve ( ie in a straight line ) it is 20.5 inches. Pity !

Oh and thanks Thinreadline for checking the length - it was just a thought, 20 inches makes more sense for a machete anyway!

CC

[M ELEY]

Hello CC,
Sorry for the delay, as I was away. The whole controversy of markings is enough to write a book on, as Gilkerson himself admits. In the case of my cutlass with VR markings, I'm just not confident enough to be sure. The style of cutlass is early 19th, but it bears the very faint marking indicating British private purchase. There aren't enough visible details with the rubbed stamp to make it clear, I'm afraid. I say that this piece was at least in part German-made because another just like it is pictured in Norm Flayderman's 'American Swords', ex. 95a. The ribbed iron cast grip and hilt components are listed as being German-made, but considering the fact that Germany was making MOST of the swords for Britain and America at the time, its still not clear if it were used by Brit merchants/privateers or simply marked as such for 'quality' purposes and sold abroad.

As far as the 'GR' markings go, we could also have a lengthy conversation about both spurious markings and real markings for private purchase pieces. For instance, I have a m1803 Brit cutlass with block-letter sans serif GR under crown. As most examples had a scripted fancy GR, one might immediately assume mine is a Schnitzler example. Upon closer examination, however, the markings on mine are different. The German example's GR are uniform and the crown is slightly leaning backwards, to expose the open rim of the interior. Likewise, a small cross can be seen. The mark on mine has the G with the R slightly lower. I call this a falling 'R' and it is the same mark as seen on the m1814 Brit cutlass in Gilkerson's book. The crown on mine is different than the Schnitzler, with no open rim, tipped forwards and lacking the small cross. Even the 'lobes' of the crown are different. The mark on mine, letters and crown alike, match the m1814, leading me to believe that later examples of the m1803, being made by multiple makers as noted, would have included block letter GR markings absolutely contemporary with the sword. Of course, block letter GR's are seen on other swords of the period, particularly cutlass made by Wooley.

Not to detract from this thread, I still am not sure if these machetes were produced in England during the reign of either of the two George's or whether they were made in Solingen and thus marked to show quality.
I am unaware of any machete being issued to Brit soldiers at the time. However, considering the sheer number of colonies they were occupying at the time, it stands within reason that they might have been purchased for over-seas troops, perhaps in the jungles of India or in Africa?

[M ELEY]

Concerning the use of GR as a mark of quality, I have also seen numerous swords marked with the VR under crown, as mentioned here. Those swords were of the period and had block lettering. I guess what I'm hinting at is, if the widespread use of GR represented quality, where does the Victorian pieces fit in to this equasion? Where they also spurious? Or real Brit pieces sold off in private purchase? I think the only way to truly pin this one down is for someone with access to alot of said pieces to display the markings. Schnitzler and Kirshbaum sword markings are different from traditional Brit stamp marks. It would be interesting to compare other GR/VR markings to try and find the real from the copies. The crown might be the clue to solving the mystery.

[CutlassCollector]

Hi Mark,

Yes, this is a big subject and I'm still puzzling over some of your comments about GR in your previous post - I need to sit down and have a closer look at Gilkerson. Perhaps we should start a new thread for the cyphers as in later years it may be hard to find under 'Machete'!
A collection of pictures of royal cyphers would be very useful and as a relatively new collector I certainly have some questions about the crowns.
I did not know for example that the ring underneath sometimes indicated a tilted crown - thanks for that.
I also do not know how to tell male or female crowns apart but I have heard it mentioned.
CC

[Richard G]

For what it's worth, don't forget George I, II and III were also the Kings of Hanover.
Regards
Richard

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by Richard G

For what it's worth, don't forget George I, II and III were also the Kings of Hanover.
Regards
Richard

Good point Richard .