Help identify cutlass marking please

M ELEY · 15th October 2008, 10:03 PM

Excellent points and information, Jim! You bring up an important aspect of many of these brass/iron ribbed hilt swords...that many of them weren't naval at all. That being said, with the dock marking, I feel safe to assume at least a partial maritime provenance. Another iron-ribbed British sword often seen (and many times falsely attributed to the "private purchase naval" catagory are police swords) A police-type sword would fit this pattern, in that the naval dock workers were essentially a division of the naval police authority(sort of like MPs, I guess?). The Indian mountain artillary gunners is a very interesting development and could very well define the pattern a little better. Indian weapons ed after Brit patterns, especially maritime, bear many close resemblences. Friedrich Holler as maker definately fits the timeline for the import blade. Very interesting item and I hope someone might be able to pinpoint this marking down more pat. (Jim, you said you had one of these and you didn't think about me at Christmas! Tisk tisk

Ed · 16th October 2008, 12:35 AM

I don't think that the boat is anything other than a makers mark. Am I misunderstanding something?

Jim McDougall · 16th October 2008, 04:32 AM

Thank you Mark! I forgot about police swords, which do indeed fall into this civilian category that corresponds to maritime associated weapons. Since most of these are essentially private purchase of course, they are not as easy to identify as regulation.
This discussion really has gotten me intrigued with these rather obscure patterns, especially as they have so little data on them.

Ed, I think the main problem is that although it looks like a makers mark, no match or similar mark has yet been found to correspond, and the nature of the mark looks very much like merchants marks as described. Since this appears to be a commercially connected sword, there is a strong possibility of the marking placed much as those of East India Company on its weapons and those of the Dutch VOC as well. As Mark has noted, the Friedrich Holler time frame does fit loosely into the period this sword might have been used, but no confirmation of that marking for Holler or any maker has been found in the standard resources.

All best regards,
Jim

BBJW · 18th October 2008, 12:28 AM

This cutlass I got along with the WIDC cutlass. No markings at all on it. I'm not certain what exactly it is.

Cheers
BBJW

Jim McDougall · 18th October 2008, 03:09 AM

Excellent! and great that these two came together in the same lot. This looks like the same basic stirrup hilt weapon discussed with the artillery swords issued to mountain batteries, but there is no quillon disc. The blade looks like early 19th century blade, similar to the 'Montmorency' cross section favored by Wooley, is there evidence any markings might have been at back of blade?.
This heavy blade suggests of course the possibility of being of the type used as discussed for private issue maritime use, and possibly later to mountain artillery units.

Jim McDougall · 17th November 2008, 06:01 AM

Bump!

Jim McDougall · 16th December 2024, 05:46 PM

This conundrum as can be seen remains perplexing, and I wanted to revisit to see if any further information or ideas might bring us closer to answer.
This cutlass pictured in OP (2008) has the markings WIDC , which can only refer to West India Docks and the security forces who guarded materials in transit to and from vessels.

This has a brass stirrup hilt, no langet, and extra guard bar. Robson (1975, p.163) pictures one of these same style hilts was given to Army Hospital Corps in 1861. It is noted that these were IDENTICAL to those issued to the Coast Guard (no date of these noted but probably early in the century).

These IMO may be deemed 'cutlasses' despite the fact that they have cavalry type blades typically around 29-30" blades.

In about 1850 the Indian Army began mountain artillery units with the Hazara mountain train, followed by Peshawar mountain train in 1853.
By 1889 there were 8 mountain train batteries.

In 1896, a pattern sword was issued for these units, with the same ribbed iron grip, and a brass stirrup guard for Indian units, iron for regular British.
The guard on these was fuller than the stirrup guard forms earlier in the century, and like all if these, there were NO langets.

I have had the sword I am posting here for at least 45 years, but have never been clear on what it is. My presumption has always been that it is likely one of the Indian mountain artillery swords of the mid 19th century. It has the simple brass stirrup hilt, ribbed iron grip, and what appears to be the M1796 light cavalry saber blade. These 1796 sabers were so ubiquitous, they seem to have appeared everywhere, especially after end of Napoleonic campaigns when they became surplus .

What is unusual with this saber is the LANGETS. The Coast Guard cutlasses had the extra bar on the guard and NO langets. It seems langets were absent of either cutlasses, and the later mountain artillery swords.

With the seemingly consistent pattern overall with these swords with ribbed iron grips and brass hilts, typically M1796 blades.......these langets are a distinct anomaly.

Could this be a private purchase cutlass? There are no ordnance marks, unit stamps or any sort of markings. Would the langet suggest earlier issue perhaps in accord with the extant M1796 cavalry saber? and perhaps private purchase cutlass ?

Photos and of Robson illustration 1896 sword

18th October 2008, 12:28 AM	#4
BBJW Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Idaho, USA Posts: 228	This cutlass I got along with the WIDC cutlass. No markings at all on it. I'm not certain what exactly it is. Cheers BBJW Attached Images

16th December 2024, 05:46 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Dilemma, cutlass or mountain artllery? This conundrum as can be seen remains perplexing, and I wanted to revisit to see if any further information or ideas might bring us closer to answer. This cutlass pictured in OP (2008) has the markings WIDC , which can only refer to West India Docks and the security forces who guarded materials in transit to and from vessels. This has a brass stirrup hilt, no langet, and extra guard bar. Robson (1975, p.163) pictures one of these same style hilts was given to Army Hospital Corps in 1861. It is noted that these were IDENTICAL to those issued to the Coast Guard (no date of these noted but probably early in the century). These IMO may be deemed 'cutlasses' despite the fact that they have cavalry type blades typically around 29-30" blades. In about 1850 the Indian Army began mountain artillery units with the Hazara mountain train, followed by Peshawar mountain train in 1853. By 1889 there were 8 mountain train batteries. In 1896, a pattern sword was issued for these units, with the same ribbed iron grip, and a brass stirrup guard for Indian units, iron for regular British. The guard on these was fuller than the stirrup guard forms earlier in the century, and like all if these, there were NO langets. I have had the sword I am posting here for at least 45 years, but have never been clear on what it is. My presumption has always been that it is likely one of the Indian mountain artillery swords of the mid 19th century. It has the simple brass stirrup hilt, ribbed iron grip, and what appears to be the M1796 light cavalry saber blade. These 1796 sabers were so ubiquitous, they seem to have appeared everywhere, especially after end of Napoleonic campaigns when they became surplus . What is unusual with this saber is the LANGETS. The Coast Guard cutlasses had the extra bar on the guard and NO langets. It seems langets were absent of either cutlasses, and the later mountain artillery swords. With the seemingly consistent pattern overall with these swords with ribbed iron grips and brass hilts, typically M1796 blades.......these langets are a distinct anomaly. Could this be a private purchase cutlass? There are no ordnance marks, unit stamps or any sort of markings. Would the langet suggest earlier issue perhaps in accord with the extant M1796 cavalry saber? and perhaps private purchase cutlass ? Photos and of Robson illustration 1896 sword Attached Images

15th October 2008, 10:03 PM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,156	Excellent points and information, Jim! You bring up an important aspect of many of these brass/iron ribbed hilt swords...that many of them weren't naval at all. That being said, with the dock marking, I feel safe to assume at least a partial maritime provenance. Another iron-ribbed British sword often seen (and many times falsely attributed to the "private purchase naval" catagory are police swords) A police-type sword would fit this pattern, in that the naval dock workers were essentially a division of the naval police authority(sort of like MPs, I guess?). The Indian mountain artillary gunners is a very interesting development and could very well define the pattern a little better. Indian weapons ed after Brit patterns, especially maritime, bear many close resemblences. Friedrich Holler as maker definately fits the timeline for the import blade. Very interesting item and I hope someone might be able to pinpoint this marking down more pat. (Jim, you said you had one of these and you didn't think about me at Christmas! Tisk tisk

16th October 2008, 12:35 AM	#2
Ed Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 260	I don't think that the boat is anything other than a makers mark. Am I misunderstanding something?

16th October 2008, 04:32 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Thank you Mark! I forgot about police swords, which do indeed fall into this civilian category that corresponds to maritime associated weapons. Since most of these are essentially private purchase of course, they are not as easy to identify as regulation. This discussion really has gotten me intrigued with these rather obscure patterns, especially as they have so little data on them. Ed, I think the main problem is that although it looks like a makers mark, no match or similar mark has yet been found to correspond, and the nature of the mark looks very much like merchants marks as described. Since this appears to be a commercially connected sword, there is a strong possibility of the marking placed much as those of East India Company on its weapons and those of the Dutch VOC as well. As Mark has noted, the Friedrich Holler time frame does fit loosely into the period this sword might have been used, but no confirmation of that marking for Holler or any maker has been found in the standard resources. All best regards, Jim

18th October 2008, 03:09 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Excellent! and great that these two came together in the same lot. This looks like the same basic stirrup hilt weapon discussed with the artillery swords issued to mountain batteries, but there is no quillon disc. The blade looks like early 19th century blade, similar to the 'Montmorency' cross section favored by Wooley, is there evidence any markings might have been at back of blade?. This heavy blade suggests of course the possibility of being of the type used as discussed for private issue maritime use, and possibly later to mountain artillery units.

17th November 2008, 06:01 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Bump!