1780 heavy Cavalry Officer Sword

[Bryce]

G'day guys,
I recently added this interesting sword to my collection. I think it dates to around 1770-1780 and would have belonged to a heavy cavalry officer. This is the oldest British sword hilt I have seen that features honeysuckle in the design. Honeysuckle featured in British heavy cavalry officer swords from the 1796 undress sword onwards. Unfortunately parts of the guard are missing and the whole sword is very patinated. The long, slim blade is 92cm long, 2.8cm wide at the ricasso and double edged for the last 35cm. This particular blade design seems to have been popular in the period before the 1788 pattern became regulation. Also interesting is that a scarf weld is clearly visible at the ricasso. This is where the steel blade was welded to an iron tang. Most examples of this blade I have been able to find online, also show a scarf weld in the same position.

I am sure that in the past somewhere, I have seen a pristine example of this same style hilt, but I can't remember where? There is a similar hilt shown in Charles Martyn's "The British cavalry sword from 1600".
Cheers,
Bryce

[fernando]

Very nice sword, Brice. Thanks for sharing .

[Jim McDougall]

Bryce, this is truly a most exciting anomaly!! and an incredibly attractive hilt form which adds to the intrigues of the mysteries of 1788 heavy cavalry officers swords.
It seems there has never been any consensus on an actual 'pattern' for heavy cavalry officers swords of 1788,though as well known the light cavalry sabers known as '1788's were entirely unofficial...with the M1796 being the first 'regulation' patterns.
In Robson(1975, p60) noting instructions for light cavalry officers in 1788 to 'carry the same pattern as the men'.
"...the heavy cavalry officers also appear to have obeyed the instruction, at least when mounted, and to have carried the same cumbersome basket hilted pattern as the troopers".

I once had one of these 'basket' hilted types which was regarded 'loosely' as a 1788 'heavy' but unfortunately it is gone and cannot yet find photos. I do recall it had a monster of a blade (40")!! and that heavy cavalry swords tended to be quite long after 1750s (35-39" blades).

Attached is a 'horsemans' basket hilt of 1760s-70s (note horsemans ring) with blade @ 39.5". Presumably this may be the type basket hilt meant but is of course 'Scottish' form. The other type was more a branched guard.

In your example, the pommel is notable as the neo classic form of 'urn shape' which was pioneered by the Adam brothers in England c.1775 (Aylward,1945, p.63, fig.31,I) and popular on small sword hilts. British officers were inclined of course toward these stylish hilt fashions in these times.

But the complex half basket guard is more of a dilemma. I am not familiar with the Martyn book, but cannot imagine this hilt being c. 1600. While there are certain subtle resemblances to the mortuary half baskets, these were more 1630s at earliest into 1650s.
The scrolled arms on cavalry sword hilts seem to have been present on those of the Royal Horse Guards in 1788 but the hilt not quite as intricate and pommel is a gadrooned sphere. (Robson p.85)
There seems to be a bit more latitude and variation in these units with Household cavalry etc.

Returning to the pommel, which of course is not always reliable in dating hilt forms as they are obviously quite interchangeable, and often purchased from other vendors. ..
In Norman ("The Rapier and Small Sword 1460-1820, p.282, #92, #93) are two neo classic type 'vase' style pommels. In #93 it is noted that when the sides are vertically faceted the plan (shape) is polygonal. Also, that in the Boulton & Watt pattern book (small swords) there are examples similar that resemble a truncated cone from 1788. This seems to fall in line with the urn types of the Adam brothers c. 1775.
Producers of these were noted as Bland & Foster, which comes to mind as esteemed outfitter/cutlers of that period, perhaps a source for this hilt?

The rayskin grip and wire wrap is consistent with British swords of 1770s period.
With the 'honeysuckle' term, Robson notes this in describing some of the heavy cavalry sword patterns where in 1796 the 'ladder' style hilt pattern is noted and the later examples describe 'scroll' pattern where he regards the 'honeysuckle ' term more appropriate (p.157). Perhaps in searches the variation in terms might come into play.

These are just passim notes from my zero dark thirty foray into research on this fascinating hilt, which I could not stop thinking and wondering about
I hope some of it will be of some use.
Magnificent sword!

Attached: basket hilt heavy cavalry horsemans sword 1760-70s
Lionhead dragoon officers sword and troopers sword, both
'four slot' hilt design c. 1770s

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by Bryce

I think it dates to around 1770-1780 and would have belonged to a heavy cavalry officer. This is the oldest British sword hilt I have seen that features honeysuckle in the design. Honeysuckle featured in British heavy cavalry officer swords from the 1796 undress sword onwards.

That is a very nice sword, Bryce! When you say honeysuckle do you know if that is a literal representation of honeysuckle or just a generic term for any vine work? I have had an interest in floral representation on edged weapons that started in during research in university and has popped up periodically since then? To me it is reminiscent of work from the British Isles of two millennia earlier.

[Interested Party]

I may have answered part of my own question. This is from the New York Times:
"It is interesting to note the speed with which Lonicera has spread. Though there is some debate, William Kerr, a 19th-century collector for Kew Gardens in London, was probably responsible for honeysuckle’s first recorded appearance outside Asia, in 1806. The plant’s emergence in North America began in earnest in 1862, when George Hall, a physician and plant breeder, introduced a popular and vigorous variety. Japanese honeysuckle made its first dash for freedom in the New World along the banks of the Potomac River in 1882. The blame does not lie with plant collectors alone. Japanese honeysuckle was highly recommended for erosion control, and to add beauty to planting sites well into the 20th century."

Whether, 1806 is a North American centric date, as it is the date I have seen in other sources as introduction to N.A., is still a bit of an open question. Sorry for diving into the minutia.

[Jim McDougall]

I.P. actually I did mean to lead things 'down the garden path' (so to speak) but brought up the term to refer to the key words often used in searching resources, which is often futile with terms which are not broadly used or in different context. The 'honeysuckle' term is one used more often in collectors jargon or vernacular and it seems more to the 19th century heavy cavalry patterns, as Robson points out. Another example is the 'gothic' hilts in the 1822 pattern hilts, which of course is a bit disconcerting unless one is familiar with architectural peculiarities.

All minutiae is is important in trying to identify hilt patterns and decoration as these are clues that might lead to proper identification, thank you for this interesting information!

Bryce, trying to think of where I also have seen this pattern hilt.......perhaps Southwick? Neumann? You are far more the authority on these patterns, and Dellar and Robson tacitly avoid the 18th century and earlier in British pattern swords. This is understandable with the inconsistency and broad variations in the swords used in those times, as we can see with the 1788 dilemma.

[Bryce]

G'day Guys,

Jim, "The British Cavalry Sword from 1600" is the title of Charles Martyn's book, not the suggested date for this sword. I think a date of 1770-1780 is about right for my sword. Thanks for posting the photos of your swords. That basket hilt has the same style of blade as my sword and if you look closely at the photo, you can see it too has a scarf weld at the ricasso.

IP, not being from Britain I am not sure what plant exactly this refers too, but had always assumed "Honeysuckle" was native to Britain? Is it common honeysuckle Lonicerum periclymenum? I am mainly going on what other authors had mentioned including Charles Martyn.
Cheers,
Bryce

PS Actually looking at the photos again, all three swords have the same style of blade and the scarf weld is also showing on the 3rd sword.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Bryce,missed that, it was the title.
Interesting on the scarf welds, what was the reason for this? and it seems pretty prevalent.
I got Southwick, ("London Silver Hilted Swords", 2001) and these examples are I think pertinent.

The first in one which corresponds to the lion head dragoon officer I posted.
The next three (black & white) illustrate the 'scrolled' bar designs which seem to have a prevalence with outfitters for officers swords from about 1750s to 1780s including of course those presumed to be contenders for the pattern 1788 heavy cavalry examples. While these are clearly not exact match, they do show the general character of the form.

Most of these scrolled bars seem simple, however yours is far more intricate incorporating baroque floral designs into the half basket pattern with the bars included. It would seem the cutlers were competing using innovative designs. I agree yours would likely be in the 1770s with that 'Adam' type pommel.

I think I have seen a design like this too, but cannot place where it was.

[Bryce]

G'day Jim,

Yes the scrolling bars are basically the same shape and may derive from honeysuckle as well or perhaps both represent something unrelated to honeysuckle? I am not sure who came up with the first honeysuckle label?

The scarf welds appear to be quite common and I imagine it has something to do with an iron tang being less likely to break? Personally I have always thought that the ricasso is a bad place to place a weld and the smith would have to make damn sure that it is a very good weld.
Cheers,

Bryce

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Jim,

Yes the scrolling bars are basically the same shape and may derive from honeysuckle as well or perhaps both represent something unrelated to honeysuckle? I am not sure who came up with the first honeysuckle label?

The scarf welds appear to be quite common and I imagine it has something to do with an iron tang being less likely to break? Personally I have always thought that the ricasso is a bad place to place a weld and the smith would have to make damn sure that it is a very good weld.
Cheers,

Bryce

It is hard to know exactly when this term came into descriptive use toward the hilts of these British swords, and as always Victorian descriptions in observations often brought in colorful romanticized terms. Honeysuckle apparently gained popular attention in those times pertaining to some superstitious beliefs, but the designs using the scrolled designs were already well in use in the second half 18th c. with late baroque styling.

The first use of the term I know of personally was toward the hilt of the M1796 British heavy cavalry officers sword (undress) which also had the pierced 'ladder' design in the upper part of the pierced bowl. The term also referred to the similar hilt design of the heavy cavalry M1821/29 pattern.

It is interesting that the heavy cavalry term was not known or used in the time of these dragoon officers swords we are discussing (1750s-80s) and in 1756 units of 'light' dragoons were created. In 1788, reorganizing of cavalry units was completed and the units of light dragoons (becoming light cavalry and hussars later) and the other units were termed 'dragoon guards' later heavy cavalry.

What I had not realized is that there were no 'heavy cavalry' units in this period 1750-80 as such, so dragoon officers seem to have had pretty much 'carte blanche' in their selection of personal swords, as seen by the examples shown in our discussion.
That is perhaps why the designation of '1788 heavy cavalry officers sword' is such an apocryphal designation.

The lionhead example I posted has similar example in design shown in Southwick (a silver hilt) and noted Dru Drury as cutler.....while mine appears marketed by John Read, a Dublin outfitter, so it seems the designs were not limited to one cutler.

In measuring the blade, it is 38" so in line with the very long blades of 'heavy dragoons' popular in 1760s-70s.
On the blade, there are distinct marking upper part of blade near forte, an F and near it, what remains of a '3'.
Hoping I can find what these might mean.

The scarf welds you noticed are also a distinct curiosity, and I am with you, why would this be done at the join with the tang? There are certain swords in Oman which had longer tangs welded on because they were fitted with longer cylindrical hilts, but that does not seem the issue here. Also, these are remarkably long blades, so clearly not cut down.

Pics are the M1796 heavy cavalry officers sword, and the M1829 heavy cavalry officers sword; both with termed 'honeysuckle hilts'.

[Bryce]

G'day Jim,
I wonder if hilts like mine may have helped inspire whoever came up with the 1796 ladder hilt design?
Cheers,
Bryce

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Bryce,
It sure seems plausible in some degree, and hilt designs in certain categories might be similar structurally, but simple embellishments added or changed.
In that period of the 18th century, it does seem the officers were extremely focused on fashion, and followed the styling found with the gentleman's small sword hilts , with many parallels in the forms. I think the silver hilts as shown in Southwick as a key reference illustrates well these design orientations.

I think the more pragmatic designs in the troopers sabers on 1796 with simple strirrup hilt became embellished with simple added guard bars which became the M1821/1829 (production stalled c. 1825 with issues in both light and heavy troopers (bowl guard) versions). The officers sabers however remained as the M1822, also with three bar design. These added bars also formed the basis for the infantry officers saber hilt, which became later known as the 'gothic' hilt in the arms writer jargon in the same manner as 'honeysuckle' hilt probably in the same manner in the Victorian era.

For me the hilt design motivations were always intriguing, and I recall the mysterious 'five ball hilt' of the infantry officer 'spadroons' of c. 1780 and the 'five ball hilt'. I got the notion that there might be a Masonic connection with the number five that might be subtly represented ( Freemasonry was pretty well established with officers and gentry of the period). When I discussed the idea with Robson, he politely suggested the idea as a bit 'fanciful' and that the design was simply 'aesthetic'. It seems that Blair and May approached these hilts in a article in JAAS (cant recall issue offhand) but could not describe a reliable source for the design.

In further support of my 'Masonic' idea, there was a strong solidarity in Freemasonry between the British and French lodges which surmounted national or political disparities. In what appears a singular instance of the French adopting a design 'from' the British, they had hilts of this design which they termed l'Anglaise.

My apologies for the tirade on hilt designs, just expounding a bit on some of my obsessions over the years

[Bryce]

G'day Jim,
I have also wondered about Masonic connections with some sword decoration from the period.

The 1796 ladder hilt in the comparison photo I posted above was sold in a Wallis and Wallis sale in 1972. It is described thus "pierced honeysuckle guard", so the term was in use at least as far back as that.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Jim,
I have also wondered about Masonic connections with some sword decoration from the period.

The 1796 ladder hilt in the comparison photo I posted above was sold in a Wallis and Wallis sale in 1972. It is described thus "pierced honeysuckle guard", so the term was in use at least as far back as that.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hi Bryce,
Pretty sure John Wilkinson-Latham used the term in 1967 in his book, and if I recall he was profoundly influenced by Charles Ffoulkes who wrote in 1938, so hard to say just when the term entered the British arms lexicon.
Again, I had one of those ladder hilts years back, should never have let it go!

With the number five, it was both a sacred and mystical number well known in Freemasonry, and followed by the numbers 3 and 7. In the French versions of the beaded hilt some had seven beads.
As mentioned, and piquing my curiosity is the number 3 and the latter F seemingly randomly placed on the blade of my lionhead dragoon officers sword.
With the seal or star of Solomon on Wilkinson swords, I was assured by Mr.Wilkinson-Latham it had nothing to do with Masonry, but the ancient symbol of interlocking triangles. This use of ancient symbolism was of course inherent in Masonic doctrines.

Best,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Going through old files, I found this from nearly 30 years ago. It was listed as a dragoon officers sword when acquired in late 70s (1770-80).
Neumann (277.S) called it an English horseman sword 1780-95 with an identical hilt structure but with faceted pommel.
Robson, (1975) showed a similar hilt suggesting this was the M1788 'heavy' cavalry hilt if i recall.

As earlier noted, British cavalry were termed dragoons, with only the 'light dragoons' beginning after 1759, the heavier troops termed dragoon guards if I understand correctly. The terms light and heavy cavalry came into use with the 1796 regulations.

Obviously the spherical pommel is incorrect, and I never could figure where it might have come from.

[JT88]

Hi all, it's been awhile. I've been researching a new piece I own. It is a Drury-made eagle head with a short, cutlass/hanger-type blade.

I came to this thread because I noticed its guard I would call a "slotted S-type" very similar to these older cavalry blades.

However, the signature should date this to 1792 -

Despite no naval markings, the type of blade that is late points to naval service. The British infantry had already switched to a "cut and thrust" blade, and British naval swords wouldn't be standardized until 1805.

Now, there could also be a US connection, given the eagle/head. Someone knowledgeable about US weapons said the eagle head looked "Thurkle-like."

I'd possibly think a period composite, as Drury was a cutler and may have simply put the pieces together for a client. The peen is well-aged, and the gilt uniform where it is not worn.

Thanks for the look!

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting composite, and the pommel is indeed a 'Francis Thurkle" eagle head
("The American Eagle Pommel Sword 1794-1830" Andrew Mowbray ,1988, p.59-61).

Not sure why this blade would be deemed 'naval' though of course anything is possible. Officers had notable latitude in the style of their weapons, so the standardization of these typically did not apply beyond reasonable similarity to regulation forms.

Francis Thurkle was indeed a prominent supplier to US market and of course the 'eagle heads' were prevalent. While this style eagle head was attributed to Thurkle, it is known that Dru Drury Jr. and his son William, working at 32 Strand, corner of Villers street, Westminster, often subcontracted to goldsmiths/silversmiths to decorate their hilts.

Thurkle hilts seem to have been primarily ivory either reeded or checkered, and most often on spadroon type swords. The dragoon officer sword by Kinman I posted earlier had this type scrolled bars in guard and the banding over rayskin grip, but earlier than this example (1770s).

In the late 1790s these kinds of stepped tip (yelman, widened in the manner of Ottoman blades also as popular in India) were in vogue with British officers. This is likely a Solingen import using the talismanic/magic theme popular in Europe from mid 1700s.

This is apparently an officers sword using a Solingen blade and while mounted by the Drury firm using Thurkle pommel. I am not sure all eagle heads went only to American market, but obviously prevalent.

[JT88]

Thanks for the response Jim.

I agree the head must be a Thurkle.
Drury was a cutler, so I find it entirely possible someone commissioned an eagle-headed hanger from him and he contracted out the eagle head.

I lean towards Naval service because of when the sword was made. If it were 1760-70s I'd agree it could be an infantry hanger; however, in 1792 on, infantry had moved to small swords, "cut and thrust" swords.

If you're aware of anything similar with the blade I'd be interested to see. Maybe some of the early revolution French swords have similar styled blades.

The blade is small only 23.5 inches. The half basket is very small, my XL hand does not fit in there.

Cheers.

[fernando]

Members are recommended to reduce the size of each quotation to the part of the texts they wish to emphasize !

[Jim McDougall]

I think thats right, with these cutlers it does seem there was a bit of 'mix and match', and components such as pommels were likely among the easiest to place with other guards. In my earlier post with similar hilt and banded rayskin grip the dragoon sword has an lionhead, and is attributed to Kinman, with Drury (this would be Dru Drury Jr.likely).

Here is an example of the 'stepped back' late 1790s and a page from 'Swords & Daggers" (Wilkinson). In this period Henry Osborn had been working with LeMarchant in developing regulation pattern blade and had been considering Ottoman blade features among others. The 'stepped back' (yelman...widened point) was primarily to add weight impetus to the cut as I understand.

In the 1790s, a number of blades were procured by the Prince of Wales from Solingen for placement on sabers for his officers of the 10th Hussars. These had the stepped back point and talismanic motif described. In about 1807 he designed a new hilt with silver POW feathers in the langet, and this is believed to be one of those early sabers, a total of 27, with the order going to Prosser in London.

There were possibly a total number of 44 of these produced (Dellar), before the new 1822 patterns came in.

These are the only two examples I have of this feature, which as I noted seems to be aligned with such blades on some 18th c Indian tulwars, and more dramatically on Ottoman pala (kilij).

In looking at that scabbard as well as the shorter blade, I am inclined to agree this could very well be a naval officers. It is often noted that cavalry and naval officers swords were often in parity, and the absence of fouled anchor device is not at all disqualifying as a naval sword. However I once had a M1796 officers light cavalry saber (with pre 1801 arms in motif) which was notably short as this example. It seems I had read somewhere that officers were not necessarily expected to engage in combat, with sword primarily to direct etc., however it is of course well known that typically officers did indeed engage.

Toward the naval end, this Wooley & Deakin 1796 type saber (the date for that pairing generally held 1801-1803) when I acquired it long ago was listed as a cavalry officers saber. I always questioned this as the blade was much shorter than usual.
I would note here I have seen other examples like this, with reeded ebony grip and brass mounts, and I became inclined to think of it as naval, in this same manner.
One example with same hilt was in Wilkinson (ref not available) and to Durs Egg, who was noted for supplying naval swords if I recall.

What I have noted about James Wooley is that he seems to have followed French fashion, as seen in his M1788 sabers in the pommel form, langets and the blades, 'montmorency' section. I would point out this brass hilt saber also reflects the blade with that cross section.

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I think thats right, with these cutlers it does seem there was a bit of 'mix and match', and components such as pommels were likely among the easiest to place with other guards.

Here is an example of the 'stepped back' late 1790s and a page from 'Swords & Daggers" (Wilkinson). In this period Henry Osborn had been working with LeMarchant in developing regulation pattern blade and had been considering Ottoman blade features among others. The 'stepped back' (yelman...widened point) was primarily to add weight impetus to the cut as I understand.

In looking at that scabbard as well as the shorter blade, I am inclined to agree this could very well be a naval officers. It is often noted that cavalry and naval officers swords were often in parity, and the absence of fouled anchor device is not at all disqualifying as a naval sword.

I think it likely this sword is from the 1790s, perhaps from a naval officer who saw some Indian service, thus aware of eastern yelman-designs.

But much of this is supposition. The peen appears well-aged, so I do not think its a modern composite of old parts. I think, as you said, it is most likely Drury made this piece with a Solingen blade, Thurkle eagle, and did the rest himself for private purchase.

The naval possibility is wholly due to the size and type of blade, very much like a non-regulation officer cutlass. We saw them in the US Navy quite late as well, even post-regulation, but are very rare and desirable to collectors.

This piece was listed in a French auction as a British cavalry sword, which after your comment does make me wonder. The blade is far far too short for actual battle service and is designed to be a battle blade, so I do find this very unlikely. Though the size of the basket tells us it was made for a small man, my hand will not fit in it at all.

Thanks for the thoughts!

Cheers

[Hotspur]

Langham's research shows it would be 1802ish, as the only time Drury listed as his majesty. A goldsmith, etc. What I believe to be a similar situation is my rather plain saber but fire gilt.

A great sword shown here! I have also seen rougher castings.

I was struck by a sidebar of design and style. I would be remiss not to mention Speltz's drawings. Some annotations are now wrong but he was working with known knowledge at the time and supplied appendices and a bibliography.

https://archive.org/details/stylesofornament00speluoft

So, my Thurkle, and an 1821/45 ('69 Wilkinson) I had to have. Plenty of half baskets got fancy. Even Edward Popham and his kastane saw a lot of styles. photo from the Royal Armouries

Cheers
GC

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Jim,

Yes the scrolling bars are basically the same shape and may derive from honeysuckle as well or perhaps both represent something unrelated to honeysuckle? I am not sure who came up with the first honeysuckle label?

The scarf welds appear to be quite common and I imagine it has something to do with an iron tang being less likely to break? Personally I have always thought that the ricasso is a bad place to place a weld and the smith would have to make damn sure that it is a very good weld.
Cheers,

Bryce

From Robert Wilkinson-Latham, British makers were doing soft welded tangs well into the 19th century, with patent hilts an iimmediate change of thoughts.

There was a fellow in the U.S. named Pettibone and he submitted a patent re welding soft tangs to his cast steel billet blades. Everything is videos these days and I think Matt Easton's might be worth it but there are articles and discussion. Some claim the ricasso counter polish is to get close to the hilt. My opinion is that is, that obvious, a case of polishing out the welds.

That's a great sword there Bryce!

Cheers
GC

[Hotspur]

A five baller for Jim. I swear it must have been for the Knights of Columbus!

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Langham's research shows it would be 1802ish, as the only time Drury listed as his majesty. A goldsmith, etc. What I believe to be a similar situation is my rather plain saber but fire gilt.

This Langham's source? https://swordresearch.org/SwordSearc...pDtbWf2fHH2Rgs

This listing says 1792- don't see anything specific about "to his majesty."

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by JT88

This Langham's source? https://swordresearch.org/SwordSearc...pDtbWf2fHH2Rgs

This listing says 1792- don't see anything specific about "to his majesty."

You have to click the blue circle i in the right hand corner and you get this

[JT88]

Good stuff, thanks! That sure does narrow it down. Although I think I've seen some other pieces online labeled as such and given a different time.

[Bryce]

G'day Jack,
I think your sword is probably older than 1792. There were several Drurys and I would place yours closer to 1780 than 1790. It looks like an infantry officer's hanger of the type that would normally have a lion head. I wonder if it has been regripped and the eagle head added later on? The blade certainly looks older.
Cheers,
Bryce

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Jack,
I think your sword is probably older than 1792.

Hi Bryce,
Thanks for the post. I've found no other Drury's specifically in the timeframe he had the status of "Cutler to his majesty" and in the Strand location.

I agree the style is of earlier infantry hangers, but as pointed out, by the 1790s, these had gone out of style, and the infantry were under regulation.

The peen is old, and the gilt uniform in the few places it is not worn. This sword has seen some heavy wear to the gilt. So I'd call it a period composite.

My naval hypothesis only derives from the period it comes from, as naval officer swords were still not under regulation. Some officers did have cutlasses made, although not common. The eagle head is a bit of a scratcher; while not common in the Royal Navy at this point, it is still possible. Or perhaps a US Naval officer had a British sword made? Possible. Everyone seems to conclude it is a Thurkle-made eagle head.

We can only point to specific pieces of this sword and give date ranges. The rest is all conjecture. The blade is excellent; it reminds me of the French "Sartine" style cutlasses. It was attained out of France, not that means anything.

Cheers

Edit: the blade is incredible, the entire reason I purchased it.

[Bryce]

G'day Guys,
A similar sword to the one that opened this thread has popped up at an auction. Although it has been heavily restored, and has a replacement blade, it does show what my hilt would have looked like when complete.
Cheers,
Bryce