Help identify cutlass marking please

[BBJW]

Does this marking look familiar to anyone? This English cutlass is marked W I D C No 38 at the back of the knuckle guard. I have found out that this stands for West Indian Dock Company, but the mark I haven't been able to identify. Also that the cutlass dates circa 1810 according to the curator at the WIDC museum. There is an H opposite the F on the other side of the sail that I just couldn't get to show in the photo. Thank you Jim for starting this discussion.

Cheers
bbjw

[Ed]

A boat with initials looks like.

[M ELEY]

Nice piece! Where is everyone getting these great maritime weapons! A little piracy and it would be mine! There is a sword in Annis' "Naval Swords" with a similar marking from the dockyard as noted, same period/dating with the block letters GR and crown. Hilt classic for the period, spiralled iron as found on so many of these cutlasses. The marking is intriguing, but I don't recognize it. Not that long ago, I saw a similar marking of a ship with initials, but NOT to confuse the matter, that was on a ship's lathing axe (not a boarding axe) from the U.S. circa 1850.
On most cutlass that went to sea, if they were Naval, they'd have a specific marking to such. Private purchase might have a partial marking, like a crown or maker mark. The point is, I don't think this piece was either of these, but very possibly made for the security that protected the waterfront/ships/cargo areas at the docks. As naval police, they would have carried something similar to their collegues, i would think. This would explain the unique marking of the ship. Just a guess, though.

[M ELEY]

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/l...jectID=3933713

[BBJW]

I did forget to add that the museum curator did say it was probably used by dock security, but it was the marking that has been driving me crazy for years. I have another unmarked cutlass very similiar to the one in auction picture link you provided. Thanx.

Cheers
bbjw

[Jim McDougall]

I'm glad to see you come in on this Mark, as you have great expertise on things maritime, and the observations and suggestions are well placed.
Thank you for posting the link to the stirrup hilted example of one of these swords, also listed as a dockyard sword of early 19th century. In seeing that I recall having one of these swords identical many years ago, and mine had a M1796 light cavalry sabre blade. There were no markings. It seems the research on that sword suggested it was a sabre used by mountain artillery gunners in India c.1850, about the time these units were established. In "Swords of the British Army" (Brian Robson, 1975, p.153) it is stated that these units carried a "...short, curved, brass hilted sword". He notes further that in the 1890's when permanent batteries were formed, the regulation sword issued was very similar to the earlier swords. Since these had the ribbed cast iron grips, it seems plausible these brass hilted, ribbed cast iron sabres may have been the ones carried by the Indian artillery units.

The brass hilted swords carried by these mountain artillery units are clearly rare, and undocumented, in Robson (op.cit.p.163) there is reference to the Royal Hospital Corps sword of c.1861, and shows a ribbed cast iron grip of this exact form, a brass hilt with similar knuckleguard and quillon, looking strikingly like the example BJ has. It is suggested that these may actually have come from stores of Coast Guard swords issued some time before. There are no illustrations of the noted coast guard examples, nor further data on how early the issue was. In checking "Boarders Away" (Gilkerson), there is no data on these Coast Guard swords either.

With this being the case, I am wondering if possibly the swords issued to these developing Indian mountain artillery batteries might have been dockyard sabres in stores? such as these stirrup hilt sabres.

The ribbed cast iron grips clearly correspond to the iron cutlasses of c.1804, as well as later forms, and suggest that these brass hilted sabres were quite possibly originally intended for maritime use, especially with the brass hilts (the iron hilt cutlasses were typically 'japanned' varnished black). The Robson references illustrate the 'redistribution' of earlier issued weapons to later established specialty units, which may have included these swords which might have had either Coast Guard or other maritime use.

With regard to the marking, which appears to be a stylized ship (?) and a drawn sail (?) over a cross, and the initials F H. There have been earlier suggestions that these initials may have been for Friedrich Holler, a Solingen bayonet maker c.1820-66, but this is simply mentioned for the case for this being a makers mark.

My own thoughts on the mark have been that since associated with the dockyards, and obvious commercial movement of goods, this mark may have some connection to early forms of trademark known as merchants marks. These from early times carried various applications of the cross, intended originally as protection from evil or disaster, and eventually became marks of property on goods. With that, it would take finding a merchant or firm who used West India Docks carrying these initials. It also begs the question of whether a sword carried by the employee of one company, would carry the broader marking of the docks organization.

Just my thoughts on swords similar that speak to this apparantly very seldom found form, and on the mystery of these markings.

All best regards,
Jim

[M ELEY]

Excellent points and information, Jim! You bring up an important aspect of many of these brass/iron ribbed hilt swords...that many of them weren't naval at all. That being said, with the dock marking, I feel safe to assume at least a partial maritime provenance. Another iron-ribbed British sword often seen (and many times falsely attributed to the "private purchase naval" catagory are police swords) A police-type sword would fit this pattern, in that the naval dock workers were essentially a division of the naval police authority(sort of like MPs, I guess?). The Indian mountain artillary gunners is a very interesting development and could very well define the pattern a little better. Indian weapons ed after Brit patterns, especially maritime, bear many close resemblences. Friedrich Holler as maker definately fits the timeline for the import blade. Very interesting item and I hope someone might be able to pinpoint this marking down more pat. (Jim, you said you had one of these and you didn't think about me at Christmas! Tisk tisk

[Ed]

I don't think that the boat is anything other than a makers mark. Am I misunderstanding something?

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Mark! I forgot about police swords, which do indeed fall into this civilian category that corresponds to maritime associated weapons. Since most of these are essentially private purchase of course, they are not as easy to identify as regulation.
This discussion really has gotten me intrigued with these rather obscure patterns, especially as they have so little data on them.

Ed, I think the main problem is that although it looks like a makers mark, no match or similar mark has yet been found to correspond, and the nature of the mark looks very much like merchants marks as described. Since this appears to be a commercially connected sword, there is a strong possibility of the marking placed much as those of East India Company on its weapons and those of the Dutch VOC as well. As Mark has noted, the Friedrich Holler time frame does fit loosely into the period this sword might have been used, but no confirmation of that marking for Holler or any maker has been found in the standard resources.

All best regards,
Jim

[BBJW]

This cutlass I got along with the WIDC cutlass. No markings at all on it. I'm not certain what exactly it is.

Cheers
BBJW

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent! and great that these two came together in the same lot. This looks like the same basic stirrup hilt weapon discussed with the artillery swords issued to mountain batteries, but there is no quillon disc. The blade looks like early 19th century blade, similar to the 'Montmorency' cross section favored by Wooley, is there evidence any markings might have been at back of blade?.
This heavy blade suggests of course the possibility of being of the type used as discussed for private issue maritime use, and possibly later to mountain artillery units.

[Jim McDougall]

Bump!

[Jim McDougall]

This conundrum as can be seen remains perplexing, and I wanted to revisit to see if any further information or ideas might bring us closer to answer.
This cutlass pictured in OP (2008) has the markings WIDC , which can only refer to West India Docks and the security forces who guarded materials in transit to and from vessels.

This has a brass stirrup hilt, no langet, and extra guard bar. Robson (1975, p.163) pictures one of these same style hilts was given to Army Hospital Corps in 1861. It is noted that these were IDENTICAL to those issued to the Coast Guard (no date of these noted but probably early in the century).

These IMO may be deemed 'cutlasses' despite the fact that they have cavalry type blades typically around 29-30" blades.

In about 1850 the Indian Army began mountain artillery units with the Hazara mountain train, followed by Peshawar mountain train in 1853.
By 1889 there were 8 mountain train batteries.

In 1896, a pattern sword was issued for these units, with the same ribbed iron grip, and a brass stirrup guard for Indian units, iron for regular British.
The guard on these was fuller than the stirrup guard forms earlier in the century, and like all if these, there were NO langets.

I have had the sword I am posting here for at least 45 years, but have never been clear on what it is. My presumption has always been that it is likely one of the Indian mountain artillery swords of the mid 19th century. It has the simple brass stirrup hilt, ribbed iron grip, and what appears to be the M1796 light cavalry saber blade. These 1796 sabers were so ubiquitous, they seem to have appeared everywhere, especially after end of Napoleonic campaigns when they became surplus .

What is unusual with this saber is the LANGETS. The Coast Guard cutlasses had the extra bar on the guard and NO langets. It seems langets were absent of either cutlasses, and the later mountain artillery swords.

With the seemingly consistent pattern overall with these swords with ribbed iron grips and brass hilts, typically M1796 blades.......these langets are a distinct anomaly.

Could this be a private purchase cutlass? There are no ordnance marks, unit stamps or any sort of markings. Would the langet suggest earlier issue perhaps in accord with the extant M1796 cavalry saber? and perhaps private purchase cutlass ?

Photos and of Robson illustration 1896 sword

[kronckew]

[QUOTE=Jim McDougall;294834]... It is noted that these were IDENTICAL to those issued to the Coast Guard (no date of these noted but probably early in the century).
...
What is unusual with this saber is the LANGETS. The Coast Guard cutlasses had the extra bar on the guard and NO langets. It seems langets were absent of either cutlasses, and the later mountain artillery swords..../QUOTE]


See also Coast Guard Sword


The amalgamation of the various sections into the Coast Guard in 1822/23 saw the Coastal Riding service adopting their own sword shortly thereafter, as mentioned in "British Naval Swords & Swordsmanship" by Mc Grath and Barton, ©️2013, page 25. After 1856 these were repurposed for the mountain troops and the Hospital corps, the CG adopting the then current model Naval cutlasses. The CG became a civilian volunteer service and unarmed in 1923.


Mine: (I've cleaned off the rust on thscabbard & re-lacquered it since this photo - and It has a suitable belt frog.)

[adrian]

I am not a sword collector per se so I have very few reference books on the subject.
From researching firearms of this period I encounter material on other arms and I note that there were a few 'stand out' brief spates of concentrating on making arms for the Coast Guard and, as well as Muskets, carbines and pistols, swords/cutlasses were also included.

There were 1500 'cutlasses' to be made at Enfield in 1831, with some urgency (WO 47/2702, 21 Mar). At this time there were also a lot of pistols made for that service, P/1833 Coast Guard Pistols.

Next notable orders were 1000 x short flintlock muskets made in 1844, the P/1844 Coast Guard Muskets - the last Ordnance made flintlock muskets. In that same year 800 Coast Guard Swords were ordered to be mounted at Enfield from blades already in stock. The other materials for those were malleable cast iron grips from Thomas Clive, the grips Japanned by Charles Dunn & the brass guards were from Samuel Hargroves (WO47 1992-2027, 13 Mar).

Note that in this period the nomenclature was very 'loose', with 'sea service sword', 'cutlass' and 'sword' being used sometimes for the same weapon. Just as for land service 'scimitar' had been used fairly regularly for the P/1797 Light Cavalry Sword, and other cavalry swords etc.

Do modern sword reference books describe the two orders (1831 & 1844) of Coast Guard swords/cutlasses? And if so are they all the same, or are there small differences?

Are the blades of the Coast Guard swords/cutlasses made from altered P/1797 Light Cavalry Sword blades?