Warranted 1796 Sword

Jim McDougall · 1st April 2010, 03:48 AM

Hi Peter,
I am really glad you posted this, and the great thing is that the 'learning curve' applies to us all, and we get to learn together. As noted, I have not ever seen this name nor this particular type of panel on blades of this period, and it was reassuring that Richard had not either. He has outstanding expertise on regulation military swords, and the author of many impressive articles on them, so if he concurs I feel confident that we are on the same page.

I think this is likely contemporary with the M1796 issues or slightly after and using this 'guarantee' was intended to align with Gill's lead in the climate of the time. These were the first 'official' issue swords and during considerable competition for contracts, and from what I understand the regimental commanders puchased them from the Board of Ordnance, who had in turn received them in bulk orders from contractors.

What puzzles me is that these are essentially blank blades, as it does not seem that Tomlinson was a maker. Blanks would have come from Germany as if made in England they would have had a makers name on the back of the blade as was the practice. This panel is basically a 'marketing panel' and with a company name rather than makers, and certainly it would have been in poor form to place the 'guarantee' of Gill's ilk on a German blade. Yet this does seem of the period and I think the observations on the wear are quite viable, especially coming from professional context.

The use of this 'warranted' phraseology seems to have waned after the first decade of the 19th century, and it is not known on British blades after this pattern (as far as I know).

The British M1796 was a somewhat widely exported sword, and the blades were in use even more as these sabres were surplussed and entered many colonial regions. The blade form itself was even produced for Indian colonial use in the latter 19th century. What eliminates the plausibility of these later circumstances is the period that the 'warranted' phrase puts the context of this panel in, which is c.1800-1810.

Photos of the entire sabre will help, and further review is needed regarding the other examples known with this panel and name. Most firm names in these times were engraved in cursive script it seems and in cartouche on the scabbard throats of usually officers swords. Troopers swords of course were bulk purchase and not afforded this attention.

It truly is a fascinating example and good discussion, so I really look forward to further developments.

BTW, thank you for the note on the Villasur site!!! You know that got my attention !!!

All the very best,
JIm

Richard · 1st April 2010, 07:10 AM

Hello Jim and Peter,
For obvious reasons I was reluctant to raise the suggestion that the Tomlinson panel was fake. In fact, I don't think it is but it is very unusual in its form, being so large, crude style etc. and not at all the normal type or style of maker's cartouches from this period. I do therefore think that it is a strong possibility that the panel was added by Tomlinson after the blade was made.

Jim, I had thought that the trade "factor" was some sort of merchant. "Corn-factor" is a term that one comes across frequently in this period. Below are panels from Thomas Gill 1798, James Woolley c. 1797 and John Gill c. 1805 - all from P1796 swords (I have an Osborn photo somewhere and I will add if I can find it)

May & Annis still remains the standard reference work for makers along with Leslie Southwick's London Silver Hilted swords as far as London makers are concerned. But there is nothing like checking original sources such as trade directories.

Richard

Jim McDougall · 2nd April 2010, 03:42 AM

Well observed Richard, and it is great to view a sampling of this guarantee on contemporary sword blades. It does seem clear that this apparant outfitter or retailer of the time applied his business panel on unmarked blades, but the real question is, who made the blades. In these times I have understood that makers in England of course marked thier blades, usually simply with thier name stamp on the blade back, and these lots were sent to the Board of Ordnance to be proved and sold to regimental buyers.

The only blades that came as 'blanks' were typically from Germany, as in the ones that were brokered by J.J.Runkle, and I am unclear if others. In any case, it seems that it would be the height of irony to have a German made blade marked with this English guarantee.
There truly is nothing that compares to these kinds of sword anomalies!! and it will be fascinating to see what more develops.

You really brought in a good one Peter!!! Thank you.

All the best,
Jim

1st April 2010, 07:10 AM	#2
Richard Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Aquae Sulis, UK Posts: 46	Hello Jim and Peter, For obvious reasons I was reluctant to raise the suggestion that the Tomlinson panel was fake. In fact, I don't think it is but it is very unusual in its form, being so large, crude style etc. and not at all the normal type or style of maker's cartouches from this period. I do therefore think that it is a strong possibility that the panel was added by Tomlinson after the blade was made. Jim, I had thought that the trade "factor" was some sort of merchant. "Corn-factor" is a term that one comes across frequently in this period. Below are panels from Thomas Gill 1798, James Woolley c. 1797 and John Gill c. 1805 - all from P1796 swords (I have an Osborn photo somewhere and I will add if I can find it) May & Annis still remains the standard reference work for makers along with Leslie Southwick's London Silver Hilted swords as far as London makers are concerned. But there is nothing like checking original sources such as trade directories. Richard Attached Images

1st April 2010, 03:48 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Hi Peter, I am really glad you posted this, and the great thing is that the 'learning curve' applies to us all, and we get to learn together. As noted, I have not ever seen this name nor this particular type of panel on blades of this period, and it was reassuring that Richard had not either. He has outstanding expertise on regulation military swords, and the author of many impressive articles on them, so if he concurs I feel confident that we are on the same page. I think this is likely contemporary with the M1796 issues or slightly after and using this 'guarantee' was intended to align with Gill's lead in the climate of the time. These were the first 'official' issue swords and during considerable competition for contracts, and from what I understand the regimental commanders puchased them from the Board of Ordnance, who had in turn received them in bulk orders from contractors. What puzzles me is that these are essentially blank blades, as it does not seem that Tomlinson was a maker. Blanks would have come from Germany as if made in England they would have had a makers name on the back of the blade as was the practice. This panel is basically a 'marketing panel' and with a company name rather than makers, and certainly it would have been in poor form to place the 'guarantee' of Gill's ilk on a German blade. Yet this does seem of the period and I think the observations on the wear are quite viable, especially coming from professional context. The use of this 'warranted' phraseology seems to have waned after the first decade of the 19th century, and it is not known on British blades after this pattern (as far as I know). The British M1796 was a somewhat widely exported sword, and the blades were in use even more as these sabres were surplussed and entered many colonial regions. The blade form itself was even produced for Indian colonial use in the latter 19th century. What eliminates the plausibility of these later circumstances is the period that the 'warranted' phrase puts the context of this panel in, which is c.1800-1810. Photos of the entire sabre will help, and further review is needed regarding the other examples known with this panel and name. Most firm names in these times were engraved in cursive script it seems and in cartouche on the scabbard throats of usually officers swords. Troopers swords of course were bulk purchase and not afforded this attention. It truly is a fascinating example and good discussion, so I really look forward to further developments. BTW, thank you for the note on the Villasur site!!! You know that got my attention !!! All the very best, JIm

2nd April 2010, 03:42 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Well observed Richard, and it is great to view a sampling of this guarantee on contemporary sword blades. It does seem clear that this apparant outfitter or retailer of the time applied his business panel on unmarked blades, but the real question is, who made the blades. In these times I have understood that makers in England of course marked thier blades, usually simply with thier name stamp on the blade back, and these lots were sent to the Board of Ordnance to be proved and sold to regimental buyers. The only blades that came as 'blanks' were typically from Germany, as in the ones that were brokered by J.J.Runkle, and I am unclear if others. In any case, it seems that it would be the height of irony to have a German made blade marked with this English guarantee. There truly is nothing that compares to these kinds of sword anomalies!! and it will be fascinating to see what more develops. You really brought in a good one Peter!!! Thank you. All the best, Jim