18th Century Machete ?

[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 .