Warranted 1796 Sword
 

Friends,
Once again I climb the learning curve of posting on this forum to seek expert insights on a sword I recently acquired. It is certainly a model of 1796 British light cavalry sword in overall nice shape. I bought it because it presents a nice etched panel saying "Tomlinson&Co, Warranted Never to Fail" I assumed that research on this mark would be easy, but searching has revealed very little. I am sure that panel is legitmate, but I wonder why there seems to be so little on these warrants and nothing on Tomlinson.
I will appreciate the groups insightful wisdom
Peter

warrant panel
 

I hope this image will arrive to show the warrant panel I just disussed
PB

another image
 

Dear Friends,
I hope I am asking a question that is appropriate to the list. Another image might show the location of the etched panel more clearly. It is on the left face of the blade, immediatly forward of the recasso.
Peter

Hello Peter. I'm not the one to ask on this type of sword, but I know that eventually, someone is going to ask you to post a pic of the whole piece to get a good idea of what we're looking at. I can say that sayings like 'warranted' and 'cast steel', etc, were frequently seen on early tools dating back well into the 18th century. I've heard of the warranted marking appearing on late 19th century swords, such as Civil War pieces, but am unfamiliar with any on such an early make of sword. Let's see what others have to say- :shrug:

Hi Peter,
This is truly an incredibly interesting anomaly as I have seen these 'warranted' inscriptions on British swords, but have never heard of this firm nor seen this this style of lettering in this period.

In 1788, the British board of ordnance began a survey of the quality of British made blades against the ever present import of German made blades. The key makers involved in this matter were Birmingham makers Samuel Harvey, James Wooley and the most outspoken proponent Thomas Gill. In 1788, the light cavalry sabres which are classified as pattern 1788 were made by James Wooley and Thomas Gill, and I am uncertain of which others or if Harvey was producing them.
The well known J.J.Runkel was a German importer living in England, and typically marked his name in script on the back of the blades as was the style for blades of the period.

To pronounce the superiority of his blades, Gill typically marked on the back of the blade 'WARRANTED NEVER TO FAIL'. Wooley did not use this guarantee but did place his name on the blade accordingly.

In 1796, the new model cavalry sabres began production at the behest of then LeMarchant who had proposed a new style sabre, and one of the first makers was Henry Osborn who had worked with him in developing the pattern. Apparantly the friction between the British and German blades prevailed still and it is known that Osborn often added 'warranted' to his name on the blades.
On the 1796 light cavalry swords Thomas Gill, still apparantly inscribed his blades, now on the face of the blade in this fashion, with 'Tho. Gills, Warranted Never to Fail'. These were believed to have been for a yeomanry contract as many of these swords and scabbards were numbered.

In 1792 a shortsword is recorded with Thomas Gills 'warranted never to fail on the blade back'.

While there were a number of makers producing the M1796 light cavalry sabres, most blades were simply stamped on the back with the makers name as remained a practice through the 19th century. I had honestly not seen M1796 sabres with this inscription until seeing this, but apparantly the Gill examples were the only ones using it, and in the cursive script of the period rather than block letters.

Robson ("Swords of the British Army", p.190) notes the written guarantee on blades and that Gill on some earlier blades had also issued 'warranted to cut iron' guarantees in the same manner (much akin to the German 'eisenhauer' =iron cutter, markings on blades). He also notes that swords were privately purchased by the regiments and that often these were bought in bulk by the Board of Ordnance, these examples often unmarked.

In these early times the swords that were marked were only briefly stamped with the last name or that and initial on the back of the blade, with the exception of these 'warranted' issues. It was unusual as far as I know for a maker using the '& Co.' suffix until later in the 19th century, and this was a practice usually indicated to outfitters or retailers.

The M1796 was replaced in 1821 by a three bar guarded hilt type sword with a narrower cut and thrust type sabre blade, though it remained in service considerably longer in yeomanry and auxiliary units and colonial service.

While the inscription here is most unusual, it does seem compelling, and I am wondering if perhaps an outfitter retailing these swords for units such as auxiliary types as these were transitioning out of service might have embellished the blade using this probably well known phrase in these times.

In any case a very intriguing example and I look forward to other thoughts and information. Most of what I have noted here is from collecting British military swords many years ago.

All best regards,
Jim

Hello Peter,
The only two references that I can find to a Tomlinson are in 'Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland' by Bezdek. There was a cutler named Samson Tomlinson working at Coleshill Street in Birmingham from 1803-1821. There is a further reference to Samsom Tomlinson in the same book:
William Bickley & Samson Tomlinson of Moor Street, Birmingham 1792-1800.

There is also another example of a British P1796 light cavalry sword by Tomlinson & Co. on the excellent 'Old Swords' web site.

Ian

Hi Ian,
Thank you for adding the references to Tomlinson. I didnt have Bezdek and forgot about Mark Cloke's site which truly is an outstanding resource. It would seem that the Tomlinson & Co. was contemporary, and what is most interesting is the warranted phrase. Up until this point I had thought only Gill used it, with the word 'warranted' sometimes added to Osborn's blades, but this sword truly adds dimension to the endurance of this conflict and its breadth.
Peter, it appears to have latched onto an important piece, and agree with your observations on the apparant dearth of information on Tomlinson. I had always thought that I was familiar with virtually all of the names that appear on these British swords, but apparantly Bezdek's work is far more comprehensive than I realized, and I should have checked Old Swords. :)

Thank you again Ian!

All very best regards,
Jim

Hello Jim,
You are welcome. I can't contribute to most threads so it is nice when someone asks a question that I can help with. :)
Ian

Hi All,
This is a puzzle, I have never come across a Tomlinson before on a P1796 (or any other sword for that matter) but of course that doesn't really mean anything at all. However, I certainly do not consider Bezdek as an authorative source on anything (and for various reasons I regret my collaboration with him) so, upon checking the Birmingham trade directories between 1797 and 1821, I can say that there is no Tomlinson listed as a sword maker. As Ian says, there is a Samson Tomlinson listed and also a Tomlinson & Bickley but both of these are listed as "Factors", not "Sword Makers" (I'm not 100% sure what the trade of "factor" is). However, I guess the sword stands as it own evidence but this Tomlinson has certainly borrowed Gill's slogan "Warranted Never to Fail" and I am wondering if maybe he has also "borrowed" blades actually made by other people and proclaiming as his own. Anyway, below is the list of sword makers in Birmingham from Chapman's Directory of 1800 and later from the 1816-17 Commercial Directory. Interesting to note how the list has contracted in later years.

Hi Richard,
Thank you so much for entering in on this and for the information on this interesting anomaly, and it makes me feel better knowing that you had not seen this name either. I felt a bit awkward after my speculations, but now seeing that with your long standing experience with these swords had not revealed this 'maker' enforces my original thoughts.

From what I understand, a 'factor' is an agent in mercantile matters, and I had suggested perhaps this firm had assembled a stock of these swords and marketed them privately. I did not see mention of government proof stamps mentioned on these so marked swords. The warranted guarantee was most heavily used by Gill, who was the most outspoken proponent for British sword blades during these issues on sword quality. While I have seen 'warranted' alone with Osborn blades, I honestly was not aware of this guarantee used by the other makers involved.

Actually I was surprised when I saw that Thomas Gill was still placing this warranted never to fail in panels on the 1796 swords as I had only seen it on light cavalry sabres of 1788. It is interesting that the guarantee (as far as I know) did not appear on heavy cavalry officers blades.

I do not have any personal experience with Mr. Bezdek, although I do have his book on German swords, which seems fairly comprehensive as a simple compilation of data. The only reference I have had for makers was the venerable volumes of May & Annis ("Swords for Sea Service") which I do not have handy these days. I understand that there have been considerable revisions concerning many of the makers, such as Craven in particular.

Thank you again for the valuable input here Richard, its always great to have you here!!!!:)

All the best,
Jim

The forum Works!
 

Dear Friends,
I have read this evolving discussion with deep appreciation.
Thank you all!
I fret over the posting of images.I truly am well out of my element with 19th Century English blades so feared I was asking a silly question. Thank you all for your kind treatment and your deep expertise.
After I acquired this sword, I looked carefully at the panel. It certainly seems like a stereotypical rendering - - the sort of think a faker would come up with. And it is a rather simple etch so I began to fear that it could have been added later - even recently. The sword came to me with an "appraisal" written in the 1980's, tho, so the etching could not be 'brand new.'
Beyond that, while on an archeologcial junket to search for the 1720 Villasur battlefield (yes, Jim, that one) my colleague Doug Scott applied the logic of forensic tool mark analysis to the panel. He argues that the wear is consistent with age. I beleive that the first image I posted shows that there is serious wear on the lower ridge. He convinced me that the panel seems legit!
I will try to post an overall image this weekend.
Again, thanks for a wonderful read!
Peter

Hi Peter,
I am really glad you posted this, and the great thing is that the 'learning curve' applies to us all, and we get to learn together. As noted, I have not ever seen this name nor this particular type of panel on blades of this period, and it was reassuring that Richard had not either. He has outstanding expertise on regulation military swords, and the author of many impressive articles on them, so if he concurs I feel confident that we are on the same page.

I think this is likely contemporary with the M1796 issues or slightly after and using this 'guarantee' was intended to align with Gill's lead in the climate of the time. These were the first 'official' issue swords and during considerable competition for contracts, and from what I understand the regimental commanders puchased them from the Board of Ordnance, who had in turn received them in bulk orders from contractors.

What puzzles me is that these are essentially blank blades, as it does not seem that Tomlinson was a maker. Blanks would have come from Germany as if made in England they would have had a makers name on the back of the blade as was the practice. This panel is basically a 'marketing panel' and with a company name rather than makers, and certainly it would have been in poor form to place the 'guarantee' of Gill's ilk on a German blade. Yet this does seem of the period and I think the observations on the wear are quite viable, especially coming from professional context.

The use of this 'warranted' phraseology seems to have waned after the first decade of the 19th century, and it is not known on British blades after this pattern (as far as I know).

The British M1796 was a somewhat widely exported sword, and the blades were in use even more as these sabres were surplussed and entered many colonial regions. The blade form itself was even produced for Indian colonial use in the latter 19th century. What eliminates the plausibility of these later circumstances is the period that the 'warranted' phrase puts the context of this panel in, which is c.1800-1810.

Photos of the entire sabre will help, and further review is needed regarding the other examples known with this panel and name. Most firm names in these times were engraved in cursive script it seems and in cartouche on the scabbard throats of usually officers swords. Troopers swords of course were bulk purchase and not afforded this attention.

It truly is a fascinating example and good discussion, so I really look forward to further developments.

BTW, thank you for the note on the Villasur site!!! You know that got my attention !!! :)

All the very best,
JIm

Hello Jim and Peter,
For obvious reasons I was reluctant to raise the suggestion that the Tomlinson panel was fake. In fact, I don't think it is but it is very unusual in its form, being so large, crude style etc. and not at all the normal type or style of maker's cartouches from this period. I do therefore think that it is a strong possibility that the panel was added by Tomlinson after the blade was made.

Jim, I had thought that the trade "factor" was some sort of merchant. "Corn-factor" is a term that one comes across frequently in this period. Below are panels from Thomas Gill 1798, James Woolley c. 1797 and John Gill c. 1805 - all from P1796 swords (I have an Osborn photo somewhere and I will add if I can find it)

May & Annis still remains the standard reference work for makers along with Leslie Southwick's London Silver Hilted swords as far as London makers are concerned. But there is nothing like checking original sources such as trade directories.

Richard

Well observed Richard, and it is great to view a sampling of this guarantee on contemporary sword blades. It does seem clear that this apparant outfitter or retailer of the time applied his business panel on unmarked blades, but the real question is, who made the blades. In these times I have understood that makers in England of course marked thier blades, usually simply with thier name stamp on the blade back, and these lots were sent to the Board of Ordnance to be proved and sold to regimental buyers.

The only blades that came as 'blanks' were typically from Germany, as in the ones that were brokered by J.J.Runkle, and I am unclear if others. In any case, it seems that it would be the height of irony to have a German made blade marked with this English guarantee.
There truly is nothing that compares to these kinds of sword anomalies!! and it will be fascinating to see what more develops.

You really brought in a good one Peter!!! Thank you. :)

All the best,
Jim