Revolutionary War to Federalist period cutlass

M ELEY · Today, 05:10 PM

Some might call these essatz types 'uglu ducklings', but I love them. Plus, I think it is monumentally important to consider when it is appropriate for an authentic item to be piece-meal made. If I found a sword with a ca. 1850 Mexican blade with a M1903 Patton guard, a Mason's sword grip, and a m1860 Staff & Field officer's sword pommel, I'd stay away! These put-together essatz types are still great wall ahngers, but have no narrative in the weapons/military world.

The exceptions are in areas of history where desparation and lack of resources led individuals to find ways to make appropriate weapons. These periods of history include the colonists during the American Revolution (who either had to use a much earlier pre-war type, steal one off of the enemy or have one made by a local blacksmith). Other ersatz wepons can be seen in colonial Spanish regions and encompass the so-called espadas (Jim McDougall, that's your que!

. Actually, Jim and I have discussed this present sword I'm posting indepth). Likewise, the Confederate States were also in a tight situation in regards to armament and many had to rely on primative examples 'made in the barn'.

Atop of all this, where there was scarcity of weapons and manufacture of local items, we have the navy and merchant class to consider! With these folks, there began a new definition of "primative"! Unlike a field regiment or platoon of foot soldiers, ships usually only required small batches of swords for either defence or privateering/boarding. Likewise, the naval powers were the last branch of the armed forces to start developing accepted patterns/models for their weaponry. Many had the attitude that the maritime types were not commonly used except in the rare instances of boarding, so why not make them as 'munitions-grade' as possible. Thus, we get these plain Jane types that are still so amazing as they are small-batch and no two are exactly alike!

M ELEY · Today, 05:17 PM

I guess what I'm saying is, these types are not to everyone's taste and I get that. As a collector of maritime items, though. these really speak to me. They are not shiny and clean. No officer or captain probably handled them. They are simple tools of war probably stored in barrels rolled up onto the deck during raids or defence or perhaps stored in a rack. They are cumbersome, deadly and I wouldn't want to get struck in the skull with one, that's for sure!

Here's a site with a few examples of American Revolutionary War types of colonial manufacture. They are almost folk-art in a way!

https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/...?auctionid=560

Today, 05:10 PM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,092	Cutlass continued Some might call these essatz types 'uglu ducklings', but I love them. Plus, I think it is monumentally important to consider when it is appropriate for an authentic item to be piece-meal made. If I found a sword with a ca. 1850 Mexican blade with a M1903 Patton guard, a Mason's sword grip, and a m1860 Staff & Field officer's sword pommel, I'd stay away! These put-together essatz types are still great wall ahngers, but have no narrative in the weapons/military world. The exceptions are in areas of history where desparation and lack of resources led individuals to find ways to make appropriate weapons. These periods of history include the colonists during the American Revolution (who either had to use a much earlier pre-war type, steal one off of the enemy or have one made by a local blacksmith). Other ersatz wepons can be seen in colonial Spanish regions and encompass the so-called espadas (Jim McDougall, that's your que!. Actually, Jim and I have discussed this present sword I'm posting indepth). Likewise, the Confederate States were also in a tight situation in regards to armament and many had to rely on primative examples 'made in the barn'. Atop of all this, where there was scarcity of weapons and manufacture of local items, we have the navy and merchant class to consider! With these folks, there began a new definition of "primative"! Unlike a field regiment or platoon of foot soldiers, ships usually only required small batches of swords for either defence or privateering/boarding. Likewise, the naval powers were the last branch of the armed forces to start developing accepted patterns/models for their weaponry. Many had the attitude that the maritime types were not commonly used except in the rare instances of boarding, so why not make them as 'munitions-grade' as possible. Thus, we get these plain Jane types that are still so amazing as they are small-batch and no two are exactly alike! Attached Images

Today, 05:17 PM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,092	More photos... I guess what I'm saying is, these types are not to everyone's taste and I get that. As a collector of maritime items, though. these really speak to me. They are not shiny and clean. No officer or captain probably handled them. They are simple tools of war probably stored in barrels rolled up onto the deck during raids or defence or perhaps stored in a rack. They are cumbersome, deadly and I wouldn't want to get struck in the skull with one, that's for sure! Here's a site with a few examples of American Revolutionary War types of colonial manufacture. They are almost folk-art in a way! https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/...?auctionid=560 Attached Images