[Jim McDougall]

I think thats right, with these cutlers it does seem there was a bit of 'mix and match', and components such as pommels were likely among the easiest to place with other guards. In my earlier post with similar hilt and banded rayskin grip the dragoon sword has an lionhead, and is attributed to Kinman, with Drury (this would be Dru Drury Jr.likely).

Here is an example of the 'stepped back' late 1790s and a page from 'Swords & Daggers" (Wilkinson). In this period Henry Osborn had been working with LeMarchant in developing regulation pattern blade and had been considering Ottoman blade features among others. The 'stepped back' (yelman...widened point) was primarily to add weight impetus to the cut as I understand.

In the 1790s, a number of blades were procured by the Prince of Wales from Solingen for placement on sabers for his officers of the 10th Hussars. These had the stepped back point and talismanic motif described. In about 1807 he designed a new hilt with silver POW feathers in the langet, and this is believed to be one of those early sabers, a total of 27, with the order going to Prosser in London.

There were possibly a total number of 44 of these produced (Dellar), before the new 1822 patterns came in.

These are the only two examples I have of this feature, which as I noted seems to be aligned with such blades on some 18th c Indian tulwars, and more dramatically on Ottoman pala (kilij).

In looking at that scabbard as well as the shorter blade, I am inclined to agree this could very well be a naval officers. It is often noted that cavalry and naval officers swords were often in parity, and the absence of fouled anchor device is not at all disqualifying as a naval sword. However I once had a M1796 officers light cavalry saber (with pre 1801 arms in motif) which was notably short as this example. It seems I had read somewhere that officers were not necessarily expected to engage in combat, with sword primarily to direct etc., however it is of course well known that typically officers did indeed engage.

Toward the naval end, this Wooley & Deakin 1796 type saber (the date for that pairing generally held 1801-1803) when I acquired it long ago was listed as a cavalry officers saber. I always questioned this as the blade was much shorter than usual.
I would note here I have seen other examples like this, with reeded ebony grip and brass mounts, and I became inclined to think of it as naval, in this same manner.
One example with same hilt was in Wilkinson (ref not available) and to Durs Egg, who was noted for supplying naval swords if I recall.

What I have noted about James Wooley is that he seems to have followed French fashion, as seen in his M1788 sabers in the pommel form, langets and the blades, 'montmorency' section. I would point out this brass hilt saber also reflects the blade with that cross section.