Gills Britah manufacturing sword

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The switch over to the 'G' on the 1798 sword is curious.....this must have been an officers blade of course as the date is noted.

As Bryce notes elsewhere, the G stamp is only fond on officer blades, Osborn and later Osborn and Gunby do not appear to have marked their troopers swords in this manner. Interestingly the Crown over HO appears to have been used on trooper swords as well, the Royal Armouries have several examples of a '1780s light dragoons sword' marked with that stamp.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It does not seem this convention of forte letter stamping is much understood, nor for that matter typically discussed in most references.
Obviously the letters would be presumed initials of the maker, i.e. G for Gill? HO for Henry Osborn............but then it seems the G and GG are predominate on Osborn blades.......not so much on Gills?

I think we need to accept that this far back in time, at least regarding swords, there were very few conventions to speak of. It wasn't until 1788 that we see the 'universal' sword regulations for troopers with the procurement moving from the regimental captains to the Ordinance board. The first official stamp is the crown over broadarrow sometimes seen on 1788 trooper swords:



This changes with the 1796 patterns (presumably as the process is improved ) when it becomes a crown over an inspectors number:



Again, no universal practice appears to have been applied with trooper swords being found without the inspector stamps and officer swords with them. The theory being that inspection was done before the blades were hilted.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

There are letters noted in Robson, such as E= Enfield as well as S=Solingen.
While Dawes was producing troopers M1796 swords.......it seems that blued and decorated blades for officers were being imported from Solingen and perhaps that might account for the S ?

I believe this practice started later than the period we are discussing (Thomas Gill Snr and John Gill), around the 1850s? Certainly Victorian era trooper swords have much clearer markings on them than the Georgian era swords. I don't think we should look at Victorian markings and apply those same ideas back to earlier times since we are looking at a progression of procurement practices as the army continues to evolve and 'modernaize'.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I guess we are getting away from the original topic here, which was centered on establishing proper markings on swords by Thomas Gill.

All the Thomas Gill Snr marked swords I have seen are clearly marked with his name and branding. Even on a smallsword where there isn't much space on the blade, he manages to get his message across

But I haven't seen any use of letter stamps. Only Henry Osborn and on a limited series of swords Sammual Dawes appear to have used the practice. And then predominantely on swords intended for commercial sale rather than government sales.

Tho Gill's Warranted never to Fail (1796 Pattern light cavalry sword):


Notice that there isn't an ordinance board stamp, so it could be private purchase for a Yeomanry troop or similar.

Three generations of Gill:

Elizabeth Gill (widdow of John Gill) - 1796 LC Officer named to Oldham Yeomanry Cavalry (OTYC).
John Gill - 1796 LC troopers sold to Dutch service.
Thomas Gill - 1796 LC troopers.

[toaster5sqn]

Auckland War Memorial Museum has an 1751 pattern British infantry hanger with a Gill blade. As with the OP's sword this hilt predates the blade, by the time Gill was making blades the use of infantry hangers was finished or all but.

[Peter Hudson]

see https://www.jbmilitaryantiques.com.a...2-1320x969.jpg

for examples of 5 ball hilt with pillow pommel and reeded grip ...This grip was exceptional for accurate allignment of the sword point.

Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

Radboud, these notes and observations are outstanding and I thank you so much for detailing them out so well, and well illustrated . While I have good familiarity with British military swords you and Bryce have truly focused on these kinds of peculiarities well...........busily adjusting notes!

It is these kinds of posts that become so valuable in our archives here, and essential in future research as more examples come into these pages.

It truly is interesting to see, as you well note, the 'conventions' really were not consistant before 1788 and the later regulation patterns and protocols.

Toaster, excellent example in perfect accord with the OP, earlier form hilt on later Gill blade, thank you.

Peter, great and unusual example of the five ball hilt. These are typically termed spadroons for the straight SE blades they were mounted with, so this saber blade is an anomaly. ....excellent perspective!

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

Auckland War Memorial Museum has an 1751 pattern British infantry hanger with a Gill blade. As with the OP's sword this hilt predates the blade, by the time Gill was making blades the use of infantry hangers was finished or all but.

Hi Robert, thanks for sharing this sword; very pertenant to the discussion. From memory the blade was marked I. Gill, which was how John Gill marked blades of his production (I the latin equlivent for J).

When Thomas Gill Snr died in 1801, the business was taken up by his three sons, Thomas Jnr, James and John. They operated in partnership until March 1802 when it was disolved. At this time the business continued to sell swords but it is not known if they produced new blades or simply sold pre-existing ones made under Thomas Snr.

Below is an example of one such blade, and to my eye it looks like the original makers name has been over stamped:



Of the three brothers; while they all intermittently sold swords, only John continued to produce sword blades until his death in February 1817, marking his blades I.Gill. This helps dates the production of that blade to between 1802 and 1816.

[Bryce]

G'day Phil,
I have seen a 1788 pattern heavy cavalry officer's sword marked to Gill with exactly the same format as yours. On the ricasso is marked "GILL'S British Manufacture". Along the blade spine is marked "WARRANTED NEVER TO FAIL 1792".
I guess this dates your blade to around the same time. The question is, has the blade been added to an older hilt? What does the peen look like? I am not very familiar with that style of hilt, apart from knowing it predates the 1788 patterns.

On the subject of the "G" stamp, just to reinforce what has already been said, this mark was used by Osborn and then Osborn and Gunby on their officers' sword blades. It was never used by Gill.

Cheers,
Bryce

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Bryce

On the subject of the "G" stamp, just to reinforce what has already been said, this mark was used by Osborn and then Osborn and Gunby on their officers' sword blades. It was never used by Gill.

Cheers,
Bryce

Thank you for joining in Bryce.

Other than the stamps already mentioned (Crown over HO, G and GG for Osborn and the rare S for Dawes) are you aware of any other makers using similar markings?

[Bryce]

G'day Radboud,
I have also seen swords of a similar vintage to the Crown over HO marked Osborns, that have a Crown over TG mark. Maybe this was used by Thomas Gill, but I haven't yet found one with a corresponding Gill mark to confirm this.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Jim McDougall]

In accord with the case with earlier hilts paired with later blades, this is a c1750 munitions grade British basket hilt of the form produced by Jeffries and Drury in London. These were known to be used by the Black Watch as well as several other infantry units.
At the end of the American Revolution the carrying of swords by infantry units effectively ended, with numbers of these swords of course being put into stores. At some point it appears several of these were paired with M1788 light cavalry saber blade......by whom or for whom is unclear.

I recall many years ago in my quest for the presumed M1788 heavy cavalry sword, which of course had the straight single edged dragoon type blade (despite the light cavalry moving to the hussar type saber).......I found an example of the claimed hilt form...basket type hilt. However, this had a heavy, curved saber blade.
Soon I decided this, with curved blade, did not seem quite proper for the example I needed (as per Robson, it was about 1977) so I let it go.

These are examples of hilts paired incongruently with other blades, and in particular the c. 1750s hilt mounted with 1788 light cavalry saber blade.

It would seem of course that these kinds of pairings might have to do with yeomanry units perhaps, or traditionally held hilts given newer blades.
Whatever the case, it does not seem an altogether unusual instance.

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Radboud,
I have also seen swords of a similar vintage to the Crown over HO marked Osborns, that have a Crown over TG mark. Maybe this was used by Thomas Gill, but I haven't yet found one with a corresponding Gill mark to confirm this.
Cheers,
Bryce

You've probably seen mine, a few owners down the road.