Board of Ordinance Marking

CutlassCollector · 7th June 2017, 07:32 PM

This B O mark is on a boarding axe from the 1830s but as I have not seen an axe marked with B O before I would like to check its authenticity with anyone more familiar with this marking. From what I can see on the web it looks OK.
Any thoughts?

Thanks, CC

corrado26 · 8th June 2017, 05:00 PM

By "Blackmore, British Military Firearms 1650-1850" you find the BO mark as added.
101:Board of Ordnance ownership mark, superseded in 1855 by WD mark.
102:Obsolete, condemned or sale mark
corrado26

Jim McDougall · 8th June 2017, 06:07 PM

According to Gilkerson (p.38), earlier axes often marked with the Crowns broad arrow but "..seldom anything else". The second arrow (point to point) indicating sale or out of service is also noted. Rack numbers were in the handles.
Their is no mention of other markings except a rare instance of an axe with provenance to Trafalgar (1805) being marked with makers name, Sargant.
In latter 19th century some dates, names occur.

My guess would be, after reading about the volume of these 'tools' produced and the complacency toward them as rather insignificant implements (the reason so very few survive) that the BO/arrow was quite likely stamped in this manner. It seems about this period (1830s through Crimea), just about everything was stamped with the BO.

CutlassCollector · 8th June 2017, 07:36 PM

Corrado,
Many thanks for the drawing - I had not found that. It's a good match and makes me more confident it's a genuine mark.

And Jim,
Many thanks for your input always appreciated. I can understand that a lowly axe would not be so carefully marked as say a firearm.

I was a little hesitant as this is the first brit boarding axe I have seen with a BO mark and it is also not the standard shape.

Regards David.

Jim McDougall · 8th June 2017, 08:27 PM

David,
Could you show the whole axe, just for the record. I am curious on this as well, and hope maybe Cap'n Mark might show up with his thoughts.
I figure if you nautical guys aren't sure on this quandary, it would be good to follow up on.
I didn't mean anything disparaging on the axe, just paraphrasing Gilkersons notes on the reason so few of the huge numbers of these have survived.

All the best
Jim

CutlassCollector · 8th June 2017, 10:25 PM

Hi Jim,

I did not take it as disparaging at all! Yes, it's well understood that boarding axes are rare almost because they were so common. Guess it's why I like them.

Its an interesting find as it seems to indicate another Brit pattern between the two well known ones, which is why I wanted to make sure the BO mark was correct. I will put pictures up soon for further comment and you're right it will certainly interest the Cap'n.

Regards David.

7th June 2017, 07:32 PM	#1
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 343	Board of Ordnance Marking This B O mark is on a boarding axe from the 1830s but as I have not seen an axe marked with B O before I would like to check its authenticity with anyone more familiar with this marking. From what I can see on the web it looks OK. Any thoughts? Thanks, CC Attached Images Last edited by CutlassCollector; 8th June 2017 at 03:32 PM.

8th June 2017, 05:00 PM	#2
corrado26 Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Black Forest, Germany Posts: 1,226	By "Blackmore, British Military Firearms 1650-1850" you find the BO mark as added. 101:Board of Ordnance ownership mark, superseded in 1855 by WD mark. 102:Obsolete, condemned or sale mark corrado26 Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

8th June 2017, 06:07 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	According to Gilkerson (p.38), earlier axes often marked with the Crowns broad arrow but "..seldom anything else". The second arrow (point to point) indicating sale or out of service is also noted. Rack numbers were in the handles. Their is no mention of other markings except a rare instance of an axe with provenance to Trafalgar (1805) being marked with makers name, Sargant. In latter 19th century some dates, names occur. My guess would be, after reading about the volume of these 'tools' produced and the complacency toward them as rather insignificant implements (the reason so very few survive) that the BO/arrow was quite likely stamped in this manner. It seems about this period (1830s through Crimea), just about everything was stamped with the BO.

8th June 2017, 07:36 PM	#4
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 343	Corrado, Many thanks for the drawing - I had not found that. It's a good match and makes me more confident it's a genuine mark. And Jim, Many thanks for your input always appreciated. I can understand that a lowly axe would not be so carefully marked as say a firearm. I was a little hesitant as this is the first brit boarding axe I have seen with a BO mark and it is also not the standard shape. Regards David.

8th June 2017, 08:27 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	David, Could you show the whole axe, just for the record. I am curious on this as well, and hope maybe Cap'n Mark might show up with his thoughts. I figure if you nautical guys aren't sure on this quandary, it would be good to follow up on. I didn't mean anything disparaging on the axe, just paraphrasing Gilkersons notes on the reason so few of the huge numbers of these have survived. All the best Jim

8th June 2017, 10:25 PM	#6
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 343	Hi Jim, I did not take it as disparaging at all! Yes, it's well understood that boarding axes are rare almost because they were so common. Guess it's why I like them. Its an interesting find as it seems to indicate another Brit pattern between the two well known ones, which is why I wanted to make sure the BO mark was correct. I will put pictures up soon for further comment and you're right it will certainly interest the Cap'n. Regards David.