Thanks Adrian. Just when you think there is something definite!

I study the longarms more so than the blades and I do agree that, frustratingly, there almost always seems to be an exception to any 'rule'.

Interesting that the GR was still being used right through William's reign and into Victoria's.

William did have his own cypher placed on locks set-up to arms within his reign. However most barrels used in his reign were 'old' from Store & therefore have their original GR proof stamps. The only proof stamp that can confidently be ascribed to William is the 'crown/TP/arrow' stamp (sometimes in different config) and that can be found on the few 'new made' barrels from his reign, such as on the Manton P/1833 Cavalry Carbine. His reign was a 'quiet' time for arms manufacture as the old war store was still being 'run down' and experimentation was being conducted on the percussion system.

I know carving out the mirror image cypher onto a steel punch to form the stamp must have required a large amount of skill.
The stamps appear to have generally been ordered from makers, there are records of purchase but it does seems to have been rather frugal in the way we see old stamps being used much later.

There is a Victoria cypher which has been made by removing part of the W from a William cypher. I'll look out the pictures. Tends to support the theory that it took a while for new stamps to get made.

I would be most interested to see that - a separate thread perhaps. I doubt it would be a lock plate cypher, due to the engraving method of application at that time. I suspect therefore that you mean the Crown/MR proof stamp which is most often misinterpreted as Crown IVR and ascribed to William IV (Blackmore has that misinterpretation) or as VR and ascribed to Victoria, as it is often mis-struck but is different to her much later VR proof stamp. The Crown/MR stamp actually dates to no later than 1816. (ref Bailey, The Armoury Mills Kent, JAAS Vol 21 No.6)

Thank you, CC and Adrian, for your input. I, too, am flummoxed by the quite late usage of the block GR stamping! Is there any significance, though, to the fact that the early block letters found on blades were in-line to the hilt whereas these are perpendicular?

CC, That is an amazing and beautiful example of a Coastguard cutlass! You mentioned William stamps and I was wondering if you could have a look at the sheet metal cutlass I posted earlier(#6), which classically resembles a merchant type of the first quarter of the 19th, has a very weak crown stamp with either a WR or VR. I had assumed it was a later stamping, as it is weak and the style of sword from earlier. But with all of this new information on WR markings made into VR stamps and GR stamps still around in the mid-19th, the puzzle continues!

And do I dare say I've seen British 1845 cutlass marked simply with RN (Royal Navy? Yet, no crown or Victoria, or??? My head is about to explode!:eek:)

You mentioned William stamps and I was wondering if you could have a look at the sheet metal cutlass I posted earlier(#6), which classically resembles a merchant type of the first quarter of the 19th, has a very weak crown stamp with either a WR or VR.

As you suspect it is a VR stamp, if WR it would be too 'off center'.

Makes sense. Have you seen the RN stamps on any of the later Brit pattern cutlasses? A while back, there was an online auction with several naval pieces marked as such, but again, no gov't issuance mark?

Have you seen the RN stamps on any of the later Brit pattern cutlasses?

Not that I recollect, however my interest in cutlasses does not run to any great depth.


A while back, there was an online auction with several naval pieces marked as such, but again, no gov't issuance mark?

Whilst I am familiar with various items & ordnance intended for sea service often bearing the letter 'N' to distinguish that it is for Naval issue those items were Ordnance supplied and as such they bear Ordnance inspection stamps etc. An item dating from the Georgian to the mid/late Victorian period marked RN would therefore get my attention as being outside of this, and if it bore no Ordnance markings then I would consider it to be highly suspect as far as it being a British sea service item. For anything later, I do not know enough to do other than speculate.

Thanks, Adrian. Just wanted to get your opinion. Perhaps these cutlasses were more of the private purchase type for merchantmen or direct export and the RN might have simply been a maker's stamp?

The British 'Coastguard' cutlass has a ribbed steel grip and a brass guard, the blade suggests it was influenced by the 1796 LC sabre, but shorter. The scabbard was steel, with the centre section japanned black.


The sword was carried on horseback by the Coastal riders of the ;ate 18c & early 19c. They were essentially customs agents looking for smugglers. Much like the USCG, which started as the 'Revenue Cutter Service'. The Present UK Coastguard is not an armed service, unlike the USCG, which is.


the British Coast riders were recommended for disbandment in in 1783, but became the UK Coastguard, formed in 1822 from a merger of the Revenue Cruisers, the Riding Officers and the Preventative Water Guard. There were at their peak only 291 riding officers to guard the whole UK.

When they were later disbanded & disarmed, many of the swords were reissued later to the hospital corps in the later years of the 19c.

Mine:

My main reason to post the Coastguard cutlass was to support Mark's view on the block GR by British manufacturers. I have to admit though that my knowledge of cyphers and crowns is limited. It would be a good thread on its own as Adrian suggests.

In the meantime this neatly brings us back to Mark's 1804 thread. There are at least two 1804's with a VR cypher. I owned one of them in the past and can vouch that it is a genuine 1804 cutlass and not a replica. It has been discussed before and opinions vary as to why an 1804 would have a VR stamp when no new cutlasses had been made for many years. Some think that the cypher is fake, but it looks OK to me - any thoughts?

My own theory for the contradiction follows. A large number of existing 1804 cutlasses had been sent to the tower for modification, which included a new hilt, when a serious fire at the Tower in 1841 destroyed large numbers of these. In order to make up the the serious shortage these were re-issued with a VR stamp in the 1840s. There is no proof of course and unless there was a stock of unmarked spares it does not explain why there are no signs of a GR or other markings.

The cypher seems to have been made by altering the W to a V. Perhaps because a new cypher was not yet made for the new monarch.

Hi Mark, I'm thinking VR as well although hard to tell. It looks more like the end of a V and note the 'modified' W above has a horizontal serif at the top.

Reference the VR cutlass. It was the faded cypher I owned and it was very well used and worn. I spotted the other one go through an auction and stole the pictures.
I'm told the crown is correct for the period a James Crown - again my knowledge is limited in that area. It does look similar to the crown on Adrian's two examples and the coastguard with the two crosses at the front of the same period.
But it is very different from the GR crown on Mark's 1804 in post 3.

It has been discussed before and opinions vary as to why an 1804 would have a VR stamp when no new cutlasses had been made for many years. Some think that the cypher is fake, but it looks OK to me - any thoughts?

Thank you for posting the photos of this intriguing WR modified to VR royal cypher. I can only draw a parallel with muskets of the same period. The war store of these (complete muskets) was so vast, by 1816, that it was not worryingly low until 1838, and measures were then undertaken to address that, while awaiting the new percussion arm to be finalised. The Store of parts was also vast, and it was that 'store' which provided barrels & locks for the new arms. The barrels had their GR era proof & view stamps, they were not erased & re-stamped, merely viewed & approved as regards their 'percussioning'. The locks did not anyway have any engraving & bore only an acceptance stamp - so they acquired the current royal cypher as part of the work of setting-up an arm. The number of muskets made using up the 'old' stock of barrels & locks comprised about eight patterns and numbered well over a quarter of a million muskets, the vast majority being Extra Service Muskets.

Quite why these blades have been stamped with a royal cypher is unknown to me, however it is clear that the cypher has been altered from WR to VR and that it looks to be authentic.



My own theory for the contradiction follows. A large number of existing 1804 cutlasses had been sent to the tower for modification, which included a new hilt, when a serious fire at the Tower in 1841 destroyed large numbers of these. In order to make up the the serious shortage these were re-issued with a VR stamp in the 1840s.

The fire at the Tower was, if one reads modern references, a major watershed in the direction of British Ordnance small arms due to it, supposedly, wiping out all percussion muskets made to date, wiping out a vast number of a new design of flintlock muskets that were going to be converted to percussion and wiping out a vast store of parts that were going to be used. This belief is largely false. I won't go into detail but would instead point any interested student of arms to a new book that will be published by the Royal Armouries next year in which chapter 7 covers that fire and the number of arms lost in detail, the book 'British Ordnance Muskets of the 1830s & 1840s'.
I have to say that it is unlikely that your quite sound theory will hold up to scrutiny as the official return for swords lost in that conflagration is 1,376 swords & 2,271 sword blades - it provides no distinction between sea service or land service, nor does it distinguish between those services for pistols, muskets, etc. How many of those 'swords' were cutlasses is therefore uncertain, but the overall number is anyway too small to have any import.

However, the Tower was only one of many Stores - which is why there was so little impact as can be seen by the aforementioned vast number of muskets made with barrels & locks from store, altered to percussion. So perhaps some cutlasses were made/altered at a different location, indeed I would have thought that Enfield, and not the Tower, would have been tasked with the changes you describe in your theory especially given the period under discussion.
Indeed there was 'Sea Service swords, alterations proposed on, by Storekeeper, Enfield. Approved by Admiralty.' and although that was in 1852 it is logical to speculate that this was not the first such instance of such work to sea service swords.

Thank you for posting that incredible modified WR marking! That really is an interesting adaptation from the original stamp! It is interesting that we obviously have the m1804s that are being used into William's and Victoria's era. No new pattern was created until the forth decade of the 19th, but still the odd fact that the GR was still being found on later pieces.

I had heard of the Tower fire, but always assumed it had mostly destroyed the stored guns. I wasn't thinking that there was a cache of the ole m1804's being kept there (duh!). That could explain the re-usage of the earlier blades when the stockpile was depleted and new ones weren't being issued. As Adrian points out, pure speculation, but at least a possible theory to this situation. I confess that it is mostly for selfish reasons why it bothers me! If the GR markings were used later (after Age of Fighting Sail), then they were used in an era where they were obsolescent. Likewise, how does one know if 'this cutlass over here' is of the period, but that one was post-1830 or whatever. I could see questioning the crown-marked Swedish imports or even the unmarked examples. But an 1804 with the GR has always been solidly assumed by most to be of the time period of the two Georges...until now, I guess!

This belief is largely false. I won't go into detail but would instead point any interested student of arms to a new book that will be published by the Royal Armouries next year in which chapter 7 covers that fire and the number of arms lost in detail, the book 'British Ordnance Muskets of the 1830s & 1840s'.

Any new research is, of course, always good and it will be interesting to see the results.

My theory, and it is just that, was based on the information in Swords for Sea Service (p80) whose authors had access to the relevant records.

'All available swords were to be sent to the Tower for modification. The modified cutlasses were coming into service by the end of March 1841, but before little more than 1000 had been modified and issued a fire at the Tower destroyed large numbers and left the Navy seriously short of weapons, and on 9th November, 1841 it was recommended that 10,000 new cutlasses be ordered.'

This was approved on 3rd December 1841.

Note that May and Annis are specifically talking about cutlasses there is no mention of firearms or other swords or how many were destroyed or unserviceable due to heat damage. According to the footnotes the information comes from War Office documents hence the exact dates. New information can always come to light with further research.

What is definite is the shortage of cutlasses at this time and the subsequent difficulty in obtaining new ones when none had been made for decades.

One of the stopgaps to cover the shortfall was making cutlasses by cutting down the blades of 1796 heavy cavalry swords (there were 12000 in storage) and fitting them with cutlass grips and guards. It is unclear how many of these were made but there are a few examples extant, but probably no where near the 8-10,000 ordered as the manufacturers were starting to get their act together and produce new cutlasses in quantity by 1845 or so.

'However, the Tower was only one of many Stores'
This is a good point - perhaps there were other 1804's in storage elsewhere that could have been brought into service, but again surely they would have been stamped with a cypher at manufacture not issue, like the large stocks of GR firearms you mention, that lasted into William's reign.

The VR 1804 remains a mystery, I guess.

CC

Thanks for posting that passage from 'Sea Service Swords', most interesting indeed.

All available swords were to be sent to the Tower for modification. The modified cutlasses were coming into service by the end of March 1841, but before little more than 1000 had been modified and issued a fire at the Tower destroyed large numbers and left the Navy seriously short of weapons, and on 9th November, 1841 it was recommended that 10,000 new cutlasses be ordered.

It indicates that these were being sent to the Tower in quite small batches, taking over ten months to achieve a number of 1,000 that had been modified & returned, that parallels similar practice with small arms modifications. So the aforementioned number of swords & sword blades combined, of 3,647 (contemporaneous quote from an official return of military and naval stores destroyed, an accurate figure and not a vague quantity), quite likely included several small 'batches', some hundreds. Not a large number by any means, unlikely to leave the Navy seriously short of weapons. It is difficult to determine the level of conjecture within that sentence without the inclusion of actual evidence that a large number of cutlasses/naval swords/swords, were destroyed in the Tower fire, which should ideally be quoted or referenced, especially if there is contrary evidence which can bring confusion. Does the book include a reference/citation for that sentence?


Drawing from research into the muskets of this period is a 'similar' passage in a very well know and excellent standard reference on British Military Firearms, by H.L. Blackmore, with, arguably, unparalleled access to Ordnance records, is written, ‘280,000 stand of arms, including most of the new percussion arms, were lost’. Simply put this has proved to be inaccurate but, and more importantly, it distorts the degree of significance of this 'event' as regards British Military arms manufacture. Had it been written that 'the Store was nearly depleted as regards serviceable flintlock muskets & only a small number of new percussion arms were lost' then the degree of significance in the mind of the reader is almost the opposite.

I mean no disrespect to the above authors, without such works our hobby would be a very hollow thing, and they are to be thanked & lauded for sharing the results of their long years of dedicated research and for their passion and enthusiasm which many benefit from & share. Scrutiny of a small sentence here & there such as we are doing now would simply not be possible without such important contributions and is a commendation of such works.

It will be interesting to see the new book.

The fact that the navy ordered 10,000 replacements after the fire is well documented and eventually resulted in the new model 1845 cutlass. The existence of cutlasses made with 1796 heavy cavalry blades as a stopgap supports the claim there was a real shortage.
How much of that was a direct result of the fire is now not clear, but as the fleet had shrunk from 840 ships at the height of the Napoleonic wars to around 140 in 1845 the navy should have had large stocks of spare 1804s. So the numbers lost would have had to be high to cause a shortage, unless of course they had previously reduced the total by scrapping some.


Does the book include a reference/citation for that sentence?

There are three references for that sentence - I have never followed them up!

P.R.O. W.O.47/1849 19th April 1841
P.R.O. Adm.2/1648 p.156, 2 December 1841 and W.O. 47/1917 December 1841,p 15881

I mean no disrespect to the above authors, without such works our hobby would be a very hollow thing, and they are to be thanked & lauded for sharing the results of their long years of dedicated research and for their passion and enthusiasm which many benefit from & share. Scrutiny of a small sentence here & there such as we are doing now would simply not be possible without such important contributions and is a commendation of such works.[/QUOTE]


While not toward the general discussion, I'd like to say this is beautifully written Adrian, and something that should always be remembered, that we owe all these authors a great debt of respect for what they got right. The things they had wrong, in whatever degree, were the benchmarks for what we pursued to make right.

Thank you for this detailed reply and it is good to read that there are references cited for anyone wanting to research the conclusion in more detail.


The fact that the navy ordered 10,000 replacements after the fire is well documented and eventually resulted in the new model 1845 cutlass. The existence of cutlasses made with 1796 heavy cavalry blades as a stopgap supports the claim there was a real shortage. How much of that was a direct result of the fire is now not clear, but as the fleet had shrunk from 840 ships at the height of the Napoleonic wars to around 140 in 1845 the navy should have had large stocks of spare 1804s. So the numbers lost would have had to be high to cause a shortage, unless of course they had previously reduced the total by scrapping some.

There was a shortage of muskets also at this time, the many hundreds of thousands of spare muskets in Store in 1816 was still quite high in 1829 at about 700,000, by 1838 it was so low that measures were taken to provide more flintlock arms until new muskets in percussion were available. From 1829 nearly 500,000 went to foreign allies. It would make sense that other arms were being included in such transfers, perhaps sea service swords also.

The Board ordered what amounted to over 100,000 P/1842 Muskets after the fire, however the pattern was sealed before the fire & parts arrived from contractors so quickly one gets the impression that their manufacture had been underway already. The fire had no bearing upon this yet is often assumed to be the reason for the new musket pattern.

Excert from The 1842 Rifled and sighted Musket which mentions the fire (debatable as a reason) ... and adds details.
It also mentions the RN Marines being issued percussion muskets in the full dissertation. Sadly, no mention of cutlasses...

================================================== ===============

... the Tower of London fire, which left the British short of infantry arms, and the Crimean War, which erupted in October 1853 and found the British military woefully unprepared to field and equip a large expeditionary force. As a result, the line infantry regiments went off to war carrying a mixture of older Pattern 1839, more newly produced Pattern 1842 and the newest Pattern 1851 muskets. By the end of the war, in March 1856 most of the regiments were no longer armed with smooth bore muskets and were primarily carrying Pattern 1851 and new Pattern 1853 muskets, as well as some rifled and sighted Pattern 1842 muskets.

The adoption of the Pattern 1851 Mini” Rifle meant the end of the smooth bore era in the British military. At the suggestion of Lieutenant Colonel Sandham of the Royal Engineers it was undertaken to upgrade some of the existing stocks of Pattern 1842 muskets by rifling and sighting them. A total of 26,400 of the muskets were modified between April 1852 and April 1855, allowing the newly improved guns to be issued simultaneously with the new production Pattern 1851 Mini” Rifles. The initial supply of rifled and sighted Pattern 1842 muskets were issued to the Royal Marines, but it appears that as the war in the Crimea erupted that additional rifled and sighted Pattern 1842 muskets were issued to line infantry regiments as well.

The improvements were simply to rifle the bore, which slightly increased the nominally .75 bore (actually .753”) to about .758” with four grooves, and to add a Pattern 1851 adjustable backsight. After the adoption of the Pattern 1853 Enfield with three groove rifling, this pattern of rifling was adopted. Thus, earlier upgraded P1842s have four groove bores and later ones have three groove bores.

Although the Rifled & Sighted Pattern 1842 was produced in very small numbers for a rather brief period of time, it was an important stop-gap weapon at a time when Great Britain was in desperate need for modern rifled infantry arms. Even though the small-bore P1853 made it nearly anachronistic by the end of the Crimean War, the gun filled an important role and saw service during one of the toughest campaigns that the British military would endure until the Great War a half-century later.

Excert from The 1842 Rifled and sighted Musket which mentions the fire (debatable as a reason) ... and adds details.
It also mentions the RN Marines being issued percussion muskets in the full dissertation. Sadly, no mention of cutlasses...

There is no mention of cutlasses as the Royal Marines did not carry them, they were, in effect, Infantry & were armed in similar fashion. The cutlasses were carried by seamen, along with other small arms. In this period the intent was to arm the Royal Marines with the exact same pattern arms as the infantry, however for a short time the arms shortage of the mid 1850s saw them armed with Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Muskets.

The Extract from College Hill Arsenal contains several minor inaccuracies that new research corrects. Tim's write ups are first class and this does not disparage his work in any way. Just a couple of quick points: The Army did not fight with a mix of muskets & rifles, only the 4th Division had smoothbores, the other Divisions were armed with P/1851 Rifles until quite late in the war when the P/1853 began to be issued there; this was only battalions at the conflict, 'Home' battalions did have a mix of muskets & rifles though very few were rifles as most of their quota of P/1851 rifles was recalled & went with the fighting troops, muskets of a 'Home' battalion included a mix and the most extreme saw 'Home' Foot Guards with P/1838, P/1842 & even a few P/1845 Extra Service Muskets, other regts had the P/1839, P/1842 & a few regts also had a few P/1845 ESMs.

The Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Musket was not issued to land-based infantry in the Crimea - just imagine the ammunition calamity - it was for that reason it was forbade. The only force of import that was issued with it, besides the Royal Marines, were the Channel Island Militia who received 6,000 of the 27,400 AP/1842 RMs made. (All this is covered in detail in the aforementioned book coming out)

Apologies for again straying from the topic of cutlasses.

:rolleyes: I was not implying that UK Marines carried Cutlasses, they had bayonets. I just mentioned them as the main topic of this thread was cutlasses and there was no reference to cutlasses in that article being carried by anyone, let alone what model. The thread here was about cutlasses, not muskets. I was just emphasising that my excerpt had nothing to do with cutlasses, and was just adding to the item on muskets.

The 1804 is a great cutlass
 

........ and they are to be thanked & lauded for sharing the results of their long years of dedicated research and for their passion and enthusiasm which many benefit from & share.

I agree with this thought and have the utmost respect for those researchers who must have spent hours and days poring over documents, searching out examples and corresponding with museum curators. We have it a lot easier with the web, access to auction pictures and online museum collections worldwide.

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 was hoping that there would have been a few more 1804 cutlasses posted on Mark's excellent idea for a thread. But there are not so many 1804 survivors.

Often military firearms are talked about in the 100,000s while for cutlasses it is more like in the 1000s as they were assigned to ships not individuals. There is no standard because it would depend on the size of the crew but roughly 350 cutlasses for a British Ship of the Line and perhaps 280 to a frigate. A requisition order for the first three US Navy frigates states 550, which equates to around 180 per ship.

We know from Swords for Sea Service that a total of only 30,000 were ordered in 1804/1808 and Mark has listed the suppliers already in post 5. There are probably a few more than this number as it is also noted that Hadley was permitted to deliver more that his order of 2500 and there are also examples marked to Harvey, Eddels and Tatham and Egg.

The 1804 cutlass does not look pretty and the flat plain blade necessitates a fairly heavy blade for strength but it is still a very well balanced sword. Good enough to be in service for 30 years or so.

The construction is not as simple as it looks as the blade is made up of two parts. 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.

Sometimes, on worn blades, the scarf is visible with very faint lines and sometimes the texture of the surface is different because it has corroded in a slightly different way. The cypher is normally stamped into the softer steel.

The 1804 is still one of my favourites.

Wow, CC! I had no idea about the two-part construction of these cutlasses! Makes total sense in that a heavy blade imparting with something hard (someone's skull, for instance!:rolleyes:) would put a great deal of shock to the tang. As you point out, these are 'beefy' weapons, very heavy and built to do some serious damage! Thank you for this information and for your kind words.

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.

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!)

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?

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.

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

HADLEY (the H quite faint).

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.

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-

So, I hate to be redundant and beat a dead horse, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around a few final questions. CC, on your m1804 with the crown mark only. Do we know that this model was only exported to Sweden? In other words, this type probably didn't go to Portugal or another friendly nation? Were they used by their navy or strictly their merchant fleet? Were they only distributed during the time of the troubles or did they continue to produce this type (as indicated by another source I read claiming large purchases into the 1830's?). I would assume with rare exception that swords marked GR, WR and VR were used by the British naval ships only. Would you mind showing us a closeup of the Swedish crown marking for posterity? (sorry to trouble you. I myself am not so great at posting pics, let alone using software/electronics/social media, etc, etc. As I always say, "Luddite and proud!" :D

In looking at the 'oddball' S&K model from Boarders Away (pg 88 and the spurious GR marking on 86), Gilkerson implies that the reason the German manufacturer, who made these up until mid to late 19th, apparently, used the obsolete marking was to show "quality". Hmm, well it was an ordnance stamp showing government use and much as the broad arrow, was meant to detract from blokes stealing the swords after their tour of duty ended. I personally believe this GR stamp was used both out of reverence for the old popular British model and a reminder of Great Britain's kind friendship in helping her allies. One will note this spurious crown, as it is different from most others. It is three 'lobed', tilted slightly backward to show the inner rim of the interior and has a small cross at it's peak. Familiarizing oneself with this mark and also noting the subtle differences in this German model's design should help distinguish models made in England during the period and those that created at a later time.

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.

I have never solved the Swedish? crown on the 1804.

I think that some 1804s may have been sold off from Britain but most were copied and manufactured by different countries.
SSS has a picture of one in the National Maritime museum which was dated as 1820 by the Norwegian donor. Norway started up a manufacturing factory at Kongsberg in 1814 and I think the Norway version was produced there but I can't find where I know that from at the moment!

SSS also says Spain and Sweden followed British patterns of cutlass in the 19th century but whether that means exact or not is unclear.

Sim also shows an 1804 with similar crown but only identifies it as Scandinavian(?) and he also thinks that there were signs of a previous cypher polished out of the blade.

So conflicting information all of which can probably be resolved by a Swedish or Norwegian expert!

Here are pictures of the crown from my example and Sim's book.

Thank you for posting these, CC! These crowns look nearly identical to the 'spurious' crown marking on the S&K in Gilkerson! Maybe we are onto something! Note the crown is tilted to expose the interior rim and both have the small cross at the top. As you pointed out, apparently other markets were making the m1804, so perhaps S&K used the crown mark on their exports and just added the GR for reminiscence sake!

I think indeed you guys might be onto something. It seems of course that it was long a Solingen convention to use spurious markings and other favored phrases etc. to appeal to certain clientele. For example, the fabled ANDREA FERARA for Scottish blades and SAHAGUN, the Spanish maker for North Europe.

In the 19th century Solingen produced many blades for Mexico, America and others using their symbols, devices and motif. Why not use a Swedish crown for cutlasses going there?

Hi Mark,

Look closely at the crown in Boarders Away it only has 3 lobes the Swedish one has 4.

I have done a bit more research. If you look up the online collection in Swedish Marine museums there are a number of 1804s with this crown. Interesting that their other cutlass models do not have it. It may indicate that these were manufactured in Britain and sold to Sweden to help arm them against Russia (history repeats, I guess).
https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024801576/huggare

I was correct about the Norwegian 1804 in SSS. These were produced at Kongsberg 1817/18 and were copied from captured British 1804s. The Greenwich museum has it online now - I believe the same sword as in SSS. It has markings on the hilt - no Swedish crown.

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/ob...c-object-78687

So much more to the history of the 1804!!

CC

Hi Jim, our posts crossed, but yes there is no indication that the Swedish model was made in Britain so could well have been supplied from Solingen with the crown added. Other Swedish cutlasses do not have the crown.
CC

Thank you CC, I totally missed your response.
Solingen did seem most obliging in producing blades with whatever identifying markings or phrases were favored or required by clientele.