Late 18th Century U.S. Naval Cutlass ?

[Shakethetrees]

Just because the blade is a match for another cutlass with a different hilt, I would not be too quick to change it.

Blades were sold by importers loose in bundles and mounted here and in England with hilts of whatever form the contract called for. A lot of them were not government contract pieces but made for the privateer/merchant market and followed no set pattern.

The guard of simple stirrup form made of thin wrought iron is probably original to the blade. I've seen a number of unquestionably correct pieces over the years with this thin material, so tread lightly!

[M ELEY]

Nice sword, CC! I would agree with Shakethetrees on your sword in that the guard might be original to the hilt. We've seen the 'loose blade' phenomenon enough in the Colonies to know it was common practice. Of course, it might have been a refitted Rev War capture, etc. I would agree with you that it might be an officer's in that it's light, but definitely a naval piece.

TheSwordCollector, I would suggest getting your weapon looked at by a local naval museum (British Maritime Museum might be a good start, or send pics to the Smithsonian, who have a whole building dedicated to all things nautical). If that hilt is red maple, which I strongly suspect that it is, then you have an excessively rare sword as I described above (the 'Baltimore' pattern). These are the creme de la creme of naval pieces. The iron hilts are rare, but the wood gripped pieces fetch major prices. Good luck.

[CutlassCollector]

Good point guys, always best to keep an open mind. I was not thinking of messing with it though - it is as it is.

It could be original to the sword but being made by Harvey and with a crown mark I figured the hilt would have been better constructed. That's why I have always thought that the hilt had been repaired because it's crude and flimsy and looks messed with but it could just be bashed about.

Regards, CC.

[theswordcollector]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Nice sword, CC! I would agree with Shakethetrees on your sword in that the guard might be original to the hilt. We've seen the 'loose blade' phenomenon enough in the Colonies to know it was common practice. Of course, it might have been a refitted Rev War capture, etc. I would agree with you that it might be an officer's in that it's light, but definitely a naval piece.

TheSwordCollector, I would suggest getting your weapon looked at by a local naval museum (British Maritime Museum might be a good start, or send pics to the Smithsonian, who have a whole building dedicated to all things nautical). If that hilt is red maple, which I strongly suspect that it is, then you have an excessively rare sword as I described above (the 'Baltimore' pattern). These are the creme de la creme of naval pieces. The iron hilts are rare, but the wood gripped pieces fetch major prices. Good luck.

Thank you for your kind response and information. I will send photos to the Smithsonian and ask their opinion you are correct a very good suggestion. The hilt is maple I have studied sections of it for some time under high magnification and it does match maple 100%. It would be great if it is a Baltimore piece :-)

[theswordcollector]

Originally Posted by Shakethetrees

Just because the blade is a match for another cutlass with a different hilt, I would not be too quick to change it.

Blades were sold by importers loose in bundles and mounted here and in England with hilts of whatever form the contract called for. A lot of them were not government contract pieces but made for the privateer/merchant market and followed no set pattern.

The guard of simple stirrup form made of thin wrought iron is probably original to the blade. I've seen a number of unquestionably correct pieces over the years with this thin material, so tread lightly!

You are quite correct loose and mounted blades were imported into the colonies legally and illegally. I do have the provenance of this piece without publishing it publicly and it is without a doubt a correct period piece.