British Tomahawk Boarding Axe

CutlassCollector · 25th February 2013, 10:50 PM

Thanks Mark I was hoping for your comments. Interesting points - so maybe not so definite after all then! I hope the other axe experts will chip in as well.
And Jim thanks for the date ref the end of BO.
CC.

M ELEY · 26th February 2013, 12:22 AM

Well, even as I say this, I have a tendency to wax and wane!

. In looking back on the profile, your ax does slightly raise up on the top/flat plain of the head, which it should if it is the earlier pattern. Really, my only concern/question is on the langets. As I said, they are longer than typically seen. The eye is right, the pick/spike is right, the aging looks good, etc. Has anyone else seen longer langets like this on a boarding piece? I did see one vaguely similar in Rankin's 'Small Arms for the Sea Services' that was an American copy of the British. Now that IS exciting! I know, the arrow and BO symbol make it Brit, but it points to my theory that this is a private purchase, circa 1800-20's refitted haft. OK, I start to repeat myself. It's an intriguing piece and you have a collection to be envious of (based on your other postings and my love of all things naval/pirate!)

Atlantia · 27th February 2013, 06:32 PM

I'm not going to comment, then see it on ebay am I?

Aside from the things that have already been mentioned, is anyone else worried by the copper rivets?

CutlassCollector · 27th February 2013, 08:06 PM

Hi Atlantia - the rivets are a different colour but definitely steel, which is another reason I think the haft has been replaced - they are definitely not copper. It's just my poor photography. And no, this one is a keeper but well spotted anyway.
I was wondering whether the langets got longer in later production to increase protection as it became more weaponised. The 1855 model had longer langets in proportion to the shaft. Both the examples shown in Gilkerson have differing shapes and lengths of langet even though as Mark points out they are both quite short. CC

25th February 2013, 10:50 PM	#1
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 355	Thanks Mark I was hoping for your comments. Interesting points - so maybe not so definite after all then! I hope the other axe experts will chip in as well. And Jim thanks for the date ref the end of BO. CC.

26th February 2013, 12:22 AM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,156	Well, even as I say this, I have a tendency to wax and wane! . In looking back on the profile, your ax does slightly raise up on the top/flat plain of the head, which it should if it is the earlier pattern. Really, my only concern/question is on the langets. As I said, they are longer than typically seen. The eye is right, the pick/spike is right, the aging looks good, etc. Has anyone else seen longer langets like this on a boarding piece? I did see one vaguely similar in Rankin's 'Small Arms for the Sea Services' that was an American copy of the British. Now that IS exciting! I know, the arrow and BO symbol make it Brit, but it points to my theory that this is a private purchase, circa 1800-20's refitted haft. OK, I start to repeat myself. It's an intriguing piece and you have a collection to be envious of (based on your other postings and my love of all things naval/pirate!)

27th February 2013, 06:32 PM	#3
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	I'm not going to comment, then see it on ebay am I? Aside from the things that have already been mentioned, is anyone else worried by the copper rivets?

27th February 2013, 08:06 PM	#4
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 355	Hi Atlantia - the rivets are a different colour but definitely steel, which is another reason I think the haft has been replaced - they are definitely not copper. It's just my poor photography. And no, this one is a keeper but well spotted anyway. I was wondering whether the langets got longer in later production to increase protection as it became more weaponised. The 1855 model had longer langets in proportion to the shaft. Both the examples shown in Gilkerson have differing shapes and lengths of langet even though as Mark points out they are both quite short. CC