The m1804 British naval cutlass

[M ELEY]

It has come to my attention that we've never discussed this pattern in much detail in the past and while no expert, I'd love to open the table for discussion on these interesting pieces.

First off, a little background for those seeking future information on these. The model 1804 British cutlass developed from the single disc knuckle guard pattern that predated it by fifty years or so (I'll display one shortly). Around the same time as the single disc came another pattern, so called the figure-of-eight pattern because it resembled the number 8 with it's double disc guard. Yet another pattern came from these early types, popping up around the time of the American Revolution and resembling the predecessor with the only exception being the grip. This pattern had a smooth iron core (see pic). Finally, after the beginning of the 19th century, we finally see our m1804!

[M ELEY]

Pics of the mid-18th century single disc guard cutlass. Note the rolled metal quillon, an extention of the sheet-metal cut guard, which transitioned over to the later models. Also of note was that these single discs were used by both the Brits and Americans. This point is important when we look at the m1804 and how the American patterns swords of the time (the so-called Baltimore pattern, see Gilkerson's Boarders Away) copied the same patterns-

[M ELEY]

The m1804 cutlass retained the figure of eight double disc to the knuckle bow and guard, but unlike its predessors, it developed a ridged/grooved iron grip. This cutlass developed during the time of the Napoleonic Wars and was also used during the War of 1812 against the Americans. It was a simple, yet sturdy edged weapon perfect for combat at sea. The blade was heavy and straight, blunt except for towards the tip. The weight of a good swing could break bone with the dull edge or cleave a skull with the sharpened tip (this weapon inspired enough fear that the American forces invented their own 'boarding cap/helmet' of thick leather to prevent such attacks). The plain iron weapons were painted black on the hilts to prevent rust and were rolled out in barrels to dispense to the boarding parties/defenders during combat.

[M ELEY]

Note the peened tang at the pommel and the simple cut sheet guard that was simply folded over the grip. The small open slot near the pommel was for a leather lanyard that a sailor could wrap around his wrist to keep him from losing his grip during battle on a moving ship in hand-to-hand combat and often with bloody hands! The guard of the cutlass could likewise be used as a weapon to punch adversaries in the face!

Markings on the m1804 vary. The classic fancy-scripted GR under a crown marking (for George Rex, Latin George III and IV for these pattern swords) are found on many of them. When i first purchased mine, the cutlass had block letter GR under crown, which both intrigued and concerned me. I had heard of spurious markings of this block letter type appearing on later swords of the m1804 pattern made by Schnitzler and Kirschbaum in Solingen after 1850. However, upon doing research, I soon came across information that many different cutlers and merhants were involved in supplying the British Navy and many of them used the exact marking (block letter GR with this specific crown) as found on my example-

[M ELEY]

The contractors for the 1804 Pattern cutlass as of May, 1804 are:

Henry Osborn, T Hadley, Woolley & Co, Craven and Co, and Dawes.
Whether these are just merchants selling to the naval department or actual producers of the weapons, I do not know. The significance is these firms frequently had their own varying GR government ordenance stamp.

The contractors for September 30th 1808 were:

Woolley, Gill, Dawes, Osborn, Hadley, Reddell, Cooper, and Bates.

It is also noted that Tatham and Egg also furnished this pattern. There were NO MORE cutlasses ordered by the Board of Ordnance for the 1814-41 period, after which a new naval pattern British cutlass emerged.

[M ELEY]

Not all m1804 pattern cutlass are stamped. This presents a puzzle, as the British marked everything government issue with either the GR or the broad arrow mark (for a great nautical book, see Heart of Oak:A Sailor's Life in Nelson's Navy by James McGuane. This book shows to what lengths the ordnance department stamped the broad arrow on everything from nails to glass panes to hard biscuit!). It can only be assumed that the unmarked 1804's were overstock and perhaps used for private purchase merchantmen and privateers of the British commerce fleet. As no new patterns were issued after 1814, perhaps these were 'late-comers' to the war effort and were sold to other nations? I don't believe they would have been issued to any of the other semi-naval departments (Revenue Cutters, Dock workers) for the exact reasons explained above.

To show how popular the m1804 pattern was, here id a British private purchase sword which, although it has a sheet pattern guard, still retains the ribbed iron grip and straight bladed spear point of the discussed pattern. Note the weak punch mark. Is it a GR? WR? VR? Hard to tell-

[M ELEY]

Here are some great references for those interested in the subject matter-

Gilkerson's Boarders Away:With Steel
Heart of Oak, James McQuane
Naval Swords, P.G.W. Annis
Navies of the American Revolution, Prentice-Hall
British 18th & 19th Century Naval Cutlasses, Harvey Withers
Small Arms of the Sea Service, Rankin
British Naval Edged Weapons-An Overview (online article by Peter Tuite)

[Jim McDougall]

What an outstanding subject for a thread Capn!!! and these are fascinating weapons that hold amazing pasts in maritime lore!
While these are referred to as M1804, I wonder if, as with many 'regulation patterns' these were in use in some degree prior to bring recognized officially in 1804.

Are there prototypes of other hilt forms which might have led to the distinct double disc (thus figure 8) guards of the hilt?
The single disc American hilt you show is interesting, but perhaps the second disc was of course for better hand protection recalling the 'basket hilt'?

I admit I have always wanted one of these for the simple but rugged design which very much represent the great history of these ships. The early examples that had the makers name on the blade back are the most intriguing. As far as I have seen there are Wooley & Deakin; Bate (pre 1806) and J. Gill.

Were these used on private ships such as merchant vessels? also any evidence these might have been used by East India Co.?

[M ELEY]

Hello Jim, you old sea dog! Great to hear from you! Yes, these are definitely the questions I too want answers to. It is very possible that this pattern was floating around for a while before it became locked in stone as the model 1804. As noted, the earlier Brit cutlass had the figure 8 and a smooth iron core (different from even earlier figure-8's such as Thomas Hollier's swords of the early 18th with their antler or wood grips). I imagine with the smooth-gripped Rev War period Brit cutlass would be very slippery without the grooves so, thus, the 'new' model. Leave it to naval swords/cutlasses (which had no defined patterns until the last quarter of the 18th century, unlike every other branch of the military. Add to that the so-called private purchase one off swords, which again we typically don't see with any other military branch.)

I had totally forgotten about the whole East India connection! Still, I would think they would fall under control of the British monarchy and be so marked. To add even more confusion to the mess, we have the whole Schnitzler and Kirschbaum situation as detailed by Gilkerson. This firm had this model in their catalog circa 1850's AND it had a spurious block letter GR under crown on it/ Why would this be? Are we to assume the GR mark would be viewed as a sign of quality, much like the spurious Andrea Ferrera or Sahagan marking?

As far as the S&K swords, I'm wondering if the marking isn't spurious at all, but perhaps the cutlasses were simple overstock? Or perhaps the blades date to the wars and were refurbished in S&K made hilts? Better question yet, who was buying them then? Perhaps other country's merchant ships, but then why the GR to confuse things? I even started spinning off my gears thinking 'Were all of the m1804 blades German imports in the first place, with the said English suppliers just offering their wares as middlemen, as was pretty common back in the day! That might explain why the S&K had the GR, because they made and supplied the blades earlier. One thing is for sure to me. I don't believe S&K made these swords as a sort of historismus to the earlier wars. Had they been made a hundred+ years later, perhaps, but this was within a quarter century of the m1804's use. So hopefully someone out there has my answer!!

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Capn!
It does not seem that the early examples had German import blades as in this time period the 'sword scandals' of the 1790s with Gill, Wooley etc. had set in place British blade makers supplying to the Board of Ordnance. The only German imports were through J.J.Runkel as far as I know.
I havent seen any Runkel cutlasses I can recall.

It does seem curious that the GR was on blades so late, and it may be that these were simply 'surplus' as sold off to private merchantmen, as such markings were not really relevant and these were serviceable weapons.

The East India Co. thing is a kind of mystery as well. They must have had cutlasses on their ships, but I am not familiar with what they used. As this was not a British government situation, they would not have the usual markings.
However, as David Harding claimed, no swords were ever marked with the EIC balemark, only gun locks and firearms, however bayonets which fell into the firearms category were so marked.

Those references you note are excellent, but I dont have them at the moment. Do you have the Sim Comfort reference?

[M ELEY]

I missed out on the opportunity to buy Mr. Comfort's volume when I had the chance (at $100 on it's release, I thought it too high! Oh boy, do I regret that decision!) I hope to find a used copy someday, as I know the books sell for an arm and a leg (pirate joke!) these days!

[kronckew]

I've read somewhere that the Board of Ordinance, being Army, insisted that all swords produced for them at the time would have a slot for a sword knot near the pommel.

The Navy order their 1804s without a sword knot slot because the seaman didn't rate one.

So the Army bean counters gave them one anyway. Which then, of course, some bright sparks in the navy actually used with a braided leather sword knot justincase someone dropped theirs accidentally.

My 1804 cutlass, blade, serrated grip, cleaned of red primer smears and retaining its dark patina, and spectacle guard painted flat black with MOD spec paint. NO markings other than a double 'sold out of service' broad arrow of the BOE. It has a very faint maker's stamp on the spine ??????LEY. I accidentally found a period braided, ball end, cutlass knot, a bit stiff, which I used to hang it on for the picture.

[M ELEY]

Excellent example, Wayne! It seems that either the GR or the broad arrow were the preferred BOE marks. Thank you also for that information on the sword knot slot. I always felt it was rather redundant as well. These cutlass are so heavy, I think if one slipped from your fingers during a swing and you were tethered to the beast, you'd either break your wrist or be flung in the current dirrection it was headed! Could the partial name be Hadley? He was one of the suppliers, from what I understand.

[CutlassCollector]

Great post Mark, good to see cutlasses.
These are my three. The top one is a Harvey marked on the spine and the second Thomas Craven marked on the blade. The third is the Norwegian/Swedish almost exact copy - a little later 1810.

What always surprised me about the 1804 is that although it was heavier and longer than many other cutlasses it still feels good in the hand. Well balanced and 'light'.

[M ELEY]

Hello CC and great to hear from you! Thanks for posting these and it is great to see the subtle differenes to the pieces based on each maker. They are not all 'cookie cutter', as some would surmize. I had quite forgotten about the the Swedish varient of the m1804! Do we know how these were contracted out? As they still fell into the time period of Fighting Sail, did England purposely stock them to help protect Swedish shipping from Napoleonic privateers? I've seen the Swedish crown marking and, I believe, some with the king's initials? CR or ??? My memory is a little lax right now-

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... Could the partial name be Hadley? ...

Could be. I had a brain fart that maybe it was M Eley . Could be Woolley too.


p.s. - tethering yourself to a lump of steel when you might fall in the big briney, especially for a paniced sailor who probably can't swim, is not recommended. I do note the 'knot' I have does knot have a slider knot to 'lock' it to your wrist like a sword knot usually does.

[M ELEY]

p.s. - tethering yourself to a lump of steel when you might fall in the big briney, especially for a paniced sailor who probably can't swim, is not recommended. I do note the 'knot' I have does knot have a slider knot to 'lock' it to your wrist like a sword knot usually does.

Gotcha 100%!!

[Jim McDougall]

The lanyard, sword knot thing with these is most interesting. Wayne makes a good point about not having these tethered to ones arm when possible fall into water loomed. The thing with cavalry sabers is more pragmatic as being on a fast moving horse and losing your weapon would be disastrous in a melee.

The idea of the blood, sweat, moisture issues compromising hold is surely viable given the potential of those factors being present, whether the frequency was regularly seen or not.

What I have found interesting in reading more on these is that it seems there were numerous cases of these being captured, or otherwise acquired by American naval vessels. It was interesting to note a hole drilled in the forward section of the main guard disc, said to be done by sailors for the very reason of holding the cutlass securely as discussed.
Yet, these already have the aperture at the top of the knuckleguard section near the pommel, so it would seem redundant.

Thank you CC for adding these examples, and I have wondered just how many makers were supplying these in these early years, now I can see Harvey added to the list along with Craven et al. It is puzzling to me that some have the marking J.Gill. As far as have known J. Gill was marked using the letter seen now as 'I' in place of J in alphabets of the period. I have a M1796 heavy cavalry by Gill marked I Gill (=John) from 1814.

[toaster5sqn]

Jim, I've tried to make sense out of the I Gill, J Gill, T Gill situation with regard to dating an 1851 pattern hanger and I came away more confused than when I started, The original Gill was a file cutler and I can't even find agreement on when the family added swords to their product list.
If anyone knows a good source I'm all ears.

Robert

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

Jim, I've tried to make sense out of the I Gill, J Gill, T Gill situation with regard to dating an 1851 pattern hanger and I came away more confused than when I started, The original Gill was a file cutler and I can't even find agreement on when the family added swords to their product list.
If anyone knows a good source I'm all ears.

Robert

Morning Robert, Steve Langham has done a lot of research on British cutlers and maintains an excellent online database:

'Gill Cutlers'

If you click on the I in the corner Steve lists his sources

So from Steve's research, the earliest evidence we have is that Thomas Gill Snr advertised himself as a maker of swords (plus more) in 1788

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thanks Capn!
It does not seem that the early examples had German import blades as in this time period the 'sword scandals' of the 1790s with Gill, Wooley etc. had set in place British blade makers supplying to the Board of Ordnance.

Jim, this is not true. The 'sword scandals' came much later in the Victorian era and extended to include bayonets as well.

In the era that we are talking about blades of German manufacture were broadly viewed as being of better quality and cheaper to purchase than British-made blades. The whole point of the tests that Gill initiated was to prove his blades were as good as, if not better than the Solingen blades and the continuation of tariffs on imported blades was warranted.

What the tests did show is that many of the blades from other British manufacturers were of inferior quality to both his and Runkels' which sparked a whole public row between Gill and Wooley.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I admit I have always wanted one of these for the simple but rugged design which very much represent the great history of these ships. The early examples that had the makers name on the blade back are the most intriguing. As far as I have seen there are Wooley & Deakin; Bate (pre 1806) and J. Gill.

Jim, do you happen to have any photographs of the J. Gill stamp?

There is evidence that James Gill did continue as a cutler for a time after the passing of his father, however, it is believed that the blades he used were supplied by his brother, John. It would be great to see evidence that supports the possibility that John made his own blades as well.

Richard Dellar has a great chapter on the Gill family in his book on British Cavalry sabres.

[toaster5sqn]

Thanks Radbound, I notice that among the sources is an 1800 advert that notes the swords are fitted with German blades suggesting that the Gill family did not start manufacturing blades till after this date.

Robert

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

Thanks Radbound, I notice that among the sources is an 1800 advert that notes the swords are fitted with German blades suggesting that the Gill family did not start manufacturing blades till after this date.

Robert

Thomas Gill Snr. Was most certainly manufacturing his own blades before his death in 1801, since this was the whole point of the tests, to prove that the blades he made were the best available. (It is widely believed that Thomas Gill was the original source of the "Warranted Never to Fail" quality mark that became popular in the period).

Although there is evidence that he wasn't above selling German blades as well, seeking to acquire some of the stock that had been confiscated from J J Runkel for avoiding duty on his imports.

[toaster5sqn]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Thomas Gill Snr. Was most certainly manufacturing his own blades before his death in 1801, since this was the whole point of the tests, to prove that the blades he made were the best available. (It is widely believed that Thomas Gill was the original source of the "Warranted Never to Fail" quality mark that became popular in the period).

Although there is evidence that he wasn't above selling German blades as well, seeking to acquire some of the stock that had been confiscated from J J Runkel for avoiding duty on his imports.

The more you learn the less clear cut it becomes!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Jim, do you happen to have any photographs of the J. Gill stamp?

There is evidence that James Gill did continue as a cutler for a time after the passing of his father, however, it is believed that the blades he used were supplied by his brother, John. It would be great to see evidence that supports the possibility that John made his own blades as well.

Richard Dellar has a great chapter on the Gill family in his book on British Cavalry sabres.

Richard Dellar's book is outstanding!! as is the supplement added later.
This image is from a M1796 heavy cavalry disc hilt made in 1814, According to my understanding of Dellar's chapter, John was indeed the one making blades .
He passed in 1817, and his widow Elizabeth took over the business. It is unclear who made the blades at this point.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Jim, this is not true. The 'sword scandals' came much later in the Victorian era and extended to include bayonets as well.

In the era that we are talking about blades of German manufacture were broadly viewed as being of better quality and cheaper to purchase than British-made blades. The whole point of the tests that Gill initiated was to prove his blades were as good as, if not better than the Solingen blades and the continuation of tariffs on imported blades was warranted.

What the tests did show is that many of the blades from other British manufacturers were of inferior quality to both his and Runkels' which sparked a whole public row between Gill and Wooley.

"Swords of the British Army" Brian Robson, 1975, p.15:
"...at its second meeting on 7 June, 1788 the Board went into the thorny question of German versus British manufacture. It took evidence on the British side from three manufacturers- Thomas Gill, Samuel Harvey and James Wooley- from Birmingham and on the German side, J.J.Runkel".

Possibly the term 'sword scandals' might have caused you to misunderstand what I was talking about, but as I expressed 1790s, it does indicate I meant a period long before Queen Victoria's time (Victorian period 1837-1901). To be sure, there was considerable consternation about British sword blades through the Victorian period as well and quality issues, but these had nothing to do with Gill, Wooley, Runkel or the testing in 1788.
The tests and aftermath led Gill to begin using the term 'warranted' on his blades, and a number of other British makers followed suit, with this convention waning in the early years of the 19th c.

Thomas Gill had passed in 1801- and John in 1817.

These tests I referred to as 'scandals' were brought about when Gill led the outrage vs. German blade makers saying British could produce not only as well, but better. The ongoing row with this led to many issues about the staging of the tests, animosity between the British makers (there were blades from Oley in Newcastle included as well, but this is in other records).
J'.J.Runkel never made blades but imported them from his contacts in Solingen.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Thomas Gill Snr. Was most certainly manufacturing his own blades before his death in 1801, since this was the whole point of the tests, to prove that the blades he made were the best available. (It is widely believed that Thomas Gill was the original source of the "Warranted Never to Fail" quality mark that became popular in the period).

Although there is evidence that he wasn't above selling German blades as well, seeking to acquire some of the stock that had been confiscated from J J Runkel for avoiding duty on his imports.

Thomas Gill II was indeed making swords as early as 1780, in fact was already involved in petitions etc regarding issues with importing German blades to be hilted by English cutlers. By 1787 there was a trial against J J Runkel for damages favor of the five known makers in England at the time.

Gill definitely had some questionable actions involving these matters, and there were claims that Gill even may have had connections to Matthew Boulton (London inventor and swordsmith) who is believed to have invented the machine used.
Thomas Gill II is the Gill we are discussing, it gets confusing as his son Thomas III was involved for a very short time in the business.

[Jim McDougall]

The J Gill thing was my own faux pas guys! I was thinking out loud of John, and should have used 'I 'as marked. Oops

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

These tests I referred to as 'scandals' were brought about when Gill led the outrage vs. German blade makers saying British could produce not only as well, but better. The ongoing row with this led to many issues about the staging of the tests, animosity between the British makers (there were blades from Oley in Newcastle included as well, but this is in other records).
J'.J.Runkel never made blades but imported them from his contacts in Solingen.

I get the impression that you are mixing your history together. The so-called 'Sword Scandals' are a specific event that occurred in the 1880s which Matt Easton describes in the following video:

When 'Made in Germany' Meant Bad!

Essentially cheap mass-produced German swords and bayonets were found to be of unreliable quality resulting in a number of noticeable failures in the field. Hence the 'Scandal'.

The tests you are referring to were initiated by Gill after much lobbying to the Ordnance board (who refused to conduct them as it was a matter for the supply officers) and were finally done for an order placed by the East India Company, were a response to complaints by British Cutlers.

The cutlers were complaining that existing taxes on German blades should be lifted because they were protecting inferior British-produced blades. Gill, seeing that his business was threatened, lobbied that his British-made blades were superior to the German imports, and challenged the Ordnance board to test his claims.

When Gills swords were tested, they were shown to be markedly better than the ones supplied by J J Runkel and Wooley (I have posted the numbers previously). However, the Runkel blades performed much better than the Wooley ones, confirming that, except for Gills blades, the German-made blades were better than those manufactured locally. This is the opposite of what happened with the actual 'Sword Scandals' in the 1880s.