# Communities > Antique Arms & Armour Community > Antique & Military Sword Forum >  Two unique Naval Cutlass to men that served in the 1st Naval Battalion New York

## GC Roxbury

Here are two unique Naval Cutlasses that I recently acquired.  Each one belonged to a member of the 1st Naval Battalion New York.  Winfield Scott Proskey served from 1893-1895 as a Seaman, Quartermaster, Chief Gunners Mate, and Ordnance Officer (Ensign).  Proskey would go on to serve in the Florida Militia as a Colonel and in the Florida Naval Militia as a Captain.  R.W. G. Welling served from 1891-1997 as a Chief Master-at-Arms.  Welling would go on the serve as an Ensign in the U.S. Navy during the Spanish American War.  Each of these men served together!!  See the excerpt from the Annual Report of the Adjutant-General of the State of New York for the Year 1893 for the first mention of them being together.  Additionally, I was able to obtain some documents and medals that belonged to Proskey from his Great, Great, Grandson.  Among the items was a leather bound history titled The Naval Militia 1894 in it there is pictured both Proskey and Welling on adjacent pages.  Proskey is also wearing one of the medals that I obtained. The cutlasses are unique in that they have officer blades with Pattern 1852 scabbards.  The grips are markedly different than their Civil War counterparts in that they are thicker and contain only 11 wraps of wire.  Each cutlass is identified in a different way, the Proskey cutlass has his name Winfield S. Proskey etched on the blade, the Welling cutlass has the following inscription on the top scabbard mount R.W.G. Welling / Master - at- arms. / 1st Naval Battalion N.Y. / 1891- 1897.   If the Proskey cutlass looks familiar, it was once part of the famous Philip Medicus collection and pictured in the book American Swords from the Philip Medicus Collection. The cutlass was in the collection of Norm Flayderman until his death and I obtained it from the collector that purchased it from his estate.

----------


## Glen C.

Outstanding!

The naval militia indeed.

Cheers

GC

----------


## Richard Schenk

Gene, two very nice officers’ cutlasses with great background material.  Does the Welling “SNY” cutlass have Ames and/or other retailer or maker’s names marked on the blade?

Most people believe production of the M1861 cutlass stopped in 1864, but as your swords show, there was some limited post-CW production.  In addition to your swords, there were the cutlasses procured to outfit the USS Niagara during the Spanish American War.  Although they were marked with the Hartley and Graham name on the ricasso, they were manufactured by Ames.



A similar cutlass was produced in WWI to equip the Aloha.





Both the Niagara and the Aloha cutlasses were purchased by wealthy private citizens to outfit the ships as a patriotic gesture.  There were, however, less fancy versions directly procured by the government in the late-19th/early 20th century.  On 12 May 1892, the Navy contracted with Ames for 95 “broad swords” to be delivered to the Naval Training Station, Newport, R.I.  Although not the usual term, I have seen other references to the cutlass as “broad swords” in 19th century Navy correspondence.  It is hard to imagine what else was intended if not cutlasses.  The Revenue Cutter Service also purchased cutlasses to equip several of its cutters.  Charles Pate tells me that his research in the National Achieves shows that between 1892 and 1903, the RCS purchased about 184 cutlasses from Ames.  The below cutlass appears to be one of the plain versions purchased by the Navy or the RCS.  It is completely unmarked but has the same distinctive grip as all the other above examples with 11 turns of the wire wrap as opposed to the 19 found on CW-era examples.



One thing that puzzles me about these late-date M1861 cutlasses is their apparent rarity.  In over 50 years of collecting I have only come across two – the above which I purchased from Shiloh Relics in 2015 (they had listed it as a CW import), and a second from another dealer who listed it as a Confederate copy.  If almost 300 were procured by the government, I would expect to see more, and I’m sure there are additional examples out there somewhere.  If any Forum members are aware of additional examples, I’d love to hear about them.

----------


## GC Roxbury

We have discussed the SNY cutlass in the past. The blade is totally unmarked, the only other mark is a number "1" where the normal CW period serial number would be.  I mentioned that I know of 2 others with the same SNY configuration. I will be examining one at the Gettysburg show next month and have been trying to examine another in Tidewater Virginia (that I was sent pictures of) but the owner has not yet committed to meeting with me.  I also find these last cutlass interesting and think they are definitely "sleepers" with there own separate history. I remember both of your last cutlasses being offered, only with I would have picked one up myself. In reference to the late contract information you discuss, do you know where that may be found, I would love to have a copy for my reference library. I will look at Fold3 to see it may be in there.  I am tempted by the Niagara cutlass that the Horse Soldier has but the Proskey cutlass just set me back a bit so I may have to wait for one. I also was going through some old catalogs and found that Dale Anderson offered a pair of "Aloha" cutlasses back in the 80s for 1,400. Wish I could have afforded them then.  (by the way my first name is Gerald and I go by Jerry)

----------


## Richard Schenk

I was having a bit of a senior moment when I wrote the above note.  Not only did I get your name wrong, but I also referred to the 1892 contract as being with Ames, whereas I know perfectly well it was between the USN Bureau of Clothing and Provisions and the William H Horstmann Co. It can be found in the National Archives RG 217, Entry 232, Box 125.  Why would the Navy want new swords, and why not order them directly from Ames?  My tentative response would be that after 30 years, the on-hand cutlasses were probably getting very dog-eared, and a spit-and-polish training base might want some shiny new ones for ceremonial use.  The question of why they would order them from Horstmann rather than directly from Ames is really puzzling.  Don’t really know, but ever since 1869 Horstmann had had the Navy contract for supplying swords to the Marine Corps, so maybe it was just comfortable to use their accustomed supplier.  I did some limited searching of the archives for contemporary correspondence from the Bureau on the topic, hoping to find some answers.  Unfortunately, so far I have found nothing relevant.  Charlie Pate suggested a couple other record groups to check, and I hope to do so when I next get to the Archives.

----------


## Richard Schenk

Jerry.  I know you are one of the most knowledgeable folks out there on Navy swords.  What do you make of this 1864-dated M1861 cutlass?




There are a couple strange things about it. First, it has no serial number.  Since it is dated 1864, it is unlikely one of the 600 or so sent out before Ames received the order from the Navy to serial number each cutlass. It is possible the 1864 blade could have been mated with an earlier hilt somewhere along the way.  It is not at all uncommom to see such mismatches, probably  made in the course of repairs/refurbishment, but it doesn’t seem to be the case in this instance.  The second thing is the single letter “D” for the inspector mark.  Almost all inspected cutlasses were stamped with the initials “D.R.” for contract arms inspector Danial Reynolds.  Clearly this was purposely struck as a single letter. My understanding is that the punches inspectors used to mark inspected weapons had all their initials on a single punch, so it is not likely a case of having forgotten to punch in the second initial. Sometimes an off-center mis-strike results in only a partial impression, e.g. the first letter of the mark, but clearly this wasn’t the case here.  So I’m curious to know the significance of the single “D”.  

I tentatively think it might be a US Revenue Marine/Revenue Cutter Service cutlass.  In previous correspondence with Charlie Pate, the well-known author on American military small arms, he stated the Revenue Cutter Service bought about 1000 cutlasses from Ames during the CW, including a significant number in 1864.  He was of the opinion these RCS cutlasses would not have had serial numbers.  I disagreed with him at the time, primarily because I thought unserial-numbered cutlasses would be much more common if the 1000 or so RCS-purchased examples lacked serial numbers.  Now I’m not so sure.  Since then I have encountered a number of seemingly genuine cutlasses without serial numbers, including this one.  I know of at least one other 1864-dated cutlass without a serial number, but that one had the usual “D.R.” inspectors mark.

What do you other Forum members think?  Is this a RCS cutlass?  What is the significance of the “D”?  Did the RCS perhaps have someone other than Daniel Reynolds inspect their cutlasses?

----------


## GC Roxbury

Richard,  We have discussed these in the past. I have one in my collection and have seen many for sale over the years. The markings are all the same with a single D. The Ames markings on the reverse are all in block letters and not the typical Ames scroll and none are serialized. They are all correct cutlasses. I hope they turn out to the RCS contract cutlasses as that could explain the lack of serial numbers however they are still marked USN. Maybe they went to the navy first as I believe the RCS fell under the Navy during the war (not certain of this).  Here are pictures of mine.

----------


## GC Roxbury

Here are some pictures of others from my files. Only difference I can see is the periods after the USN is not present on all examples.

----------


## GC Roxbury

Also I was able to get pictures of the third SNY cutlass that is in the New York collection. Identical in all respects. No number stamped on the guard like my presentation one. Blade identical, was not able to see the scabbard it was in fragile condition and the collector did not want to bring it, but by accounts it is identical. Here are picture of mine and this one, and the first example I discovered. Note the grips are also identical with the 11 wraps. Also took pictures along with the "Proskey" cutlass.

----------


## GC Roxbury

This is the first one that I was sent pictures of.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Richard,  We have discussed these in the past. I have one in my collection and have seen many for sale over the years. The markings are all the same with a single D. The Ames markings on the reverse are all in block letters and not the typical Ames scroll and none are serialized. They are all correct cutlasses. I hope they turn out to the RCS contract cutlasses as that could explain the lack of serial numbers however they are still marked USN. Maybe they went to the navy first as I believe the RCS fell under the Navy during the war (not certain of this).  Here are pictures of mine.



You are correct, during the CW the RCS was under the Navy.  Just as the Coast Guard now falls under the operational control of DoD in war time, so did the RCS fall under the command of the Navy in wartime.  I don't remember the exact details, but this was directed by an Act of Congress, I believe it was in 1797.  In the War of 1812 it was a RCS vessel which captured the first British ship, and in the CW, it was the RCS's ship Harriet Lane which fired the first shot of that war.

Based on your comments, I would be surprised if these odd non-serial numbered cutlasses were not from the large RCS purchase made in 1864.  Charlie Pate did some fairly extensive research in the National Archives on RCS weapons procurement.  He gave me a year by year breakdown, but I can't find it right now.  IIRC, however, it seems to me some 600+ of the 1000 cutlasses RCS purchased were ordered in 1864.  Since the RCS was operating under the Navy at the time, the "USN" stamp would make sense. Since they were apparently procured under a separate contract, it would be reasonable if they were not serial numbered in the same series as the Navy-contracted cutlasses.  I would guess the "D" is for whomever inspected the swords.  Perhaps it was Daniel Reynolds who used the single  initial to differentiate these cutlasses from the ones he inspected for the Navy contract.  All this is speculation, of course, until someone can find a period document addressing the issue.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Richard,  We have discussed these in the past. I have one in my collection and have seen many for sale over the years. The markings are all the same with a single D. The Ames markings on the reverse are all in block letters and not the typical Ames scroll and none are serialized. They are all correct cutlasses. I hope they turn out to the RCS contract cutlasses as that could explain the lack of serial numbers however they are still marked USN. Maybe they went to the navy first as I believe the RCS fell under the Navy during the war (not certain of this).  Here are pictures of mine.


Is there an inspection mark on the pommel of your sword?  There is none on the pommel of the cutlass I pictured.

For what it's worth, the 1864-dated cutlasses Ames made for the Army also had the Ames name in block letters rather than the usual scroll.  I don't know if there is any significance to this since the block letter variant is also found on some serial-numbered Navy cutlasses.

----------


## GC Roxbury

There are no inspector marks on the pommel of my cutlass nor do I recall there being any on the other examples I have examined in person. I hope to find an Army cutlass for my collection oNE of the's days. Shold have bid higher on that one!!!!

----------


## Richard Schenk

> There are no inspector marks on the pommel of my cutlass nor do I recall there being any on the other examples I have examined in person. I hope to find an Army cutlass for my collection oNE of the's days. Shold have bid higher on that one!!!!


So you were my competition on the Army cutlass!  I had hoped no one else would notice it was an Army cutlass, not a run-of-the-mill Navy, and that I would get it dirt cheap.  Unfortunately for me, that didn't happen. I still think the price was very reasonable for such a rare sword.  My top bid was actually considerably higher - I really wanted this one.

----------


## Richard Schenk

As we discussed above. there are1864-dated Ames M1861 cutlasses with no serial numbers and with a single “D” inspector’s mark.  I speculated these were part of the 1864 RCS purchase of cutlasses, and that “D” was the individual the RCS/Navy used to inspect them. I hoped to find evidence to support this hypothesis in the RCS records in the National Archives and alsoto  perhaps identify who this inspector "D" might be.  Haven't done so yet.  

I had not previously seen this “D”-mark on other swords, but I recently encountered an 1862-dated Ames M1840 musician’s sword with what appears to be an identical mark – could possibly have been made with the same punch.  If so, it would indicate “D” wasn’t someone brought on board by the RCS or the Navy in 1864 specifically to inspect cutlasses, but rather someone already employed to inspect weapons at the Ames facility.  What do you think?  Have any Forum members encountered other examples of this "D" mark?

----------


## GC Roxbury

That would appear to be an identical stamp. Great detective work.  I saw another 64 marked cutlass in an auction listing this past November. The only variation I have seen on these markings is that some have periods after the U.S.N. and some do not USN.  I know there is a good story behind these cutlasses and I'm sure you will smoke it out.

----------


## Richard Schenk

A well-known dealer has the below-pictured cutlass listed as an "Experimental US M1860 Cutlass" and states it was a prototype for the officer's version.  It clearly is not that.  My first reaction was that it was a fantasy piece, a total fake.  Looking at the grip, however, I wonder if it could possibly be a late production piece made for a Naval militia group or similar.  The grip has the same fewer/wider bands as the NY Navy militia and other late-production examples shown in the above posts.  No idea why they would add groves to the cup, but who knows?  The sword is totally unmarked.  What do you think?

----------


## GC Roxbury

I have seen this one on their website. I think it is correct but like you say not what he says it is. I remember going to Robert Abels shop in the early 70s and he had one of these although can't remember the grip configuration.)  Additionally, I know of another collector that has one just like it. he actually told me about it after I showed him by SNY cutlass and he mentioned his had the same grip configuration. Will you be at Baltimore? I will have a display with the NY Naval Militia cutlasses.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> I have seen this one on their website. I think it is correct but like you say not what he says it is. I remember going to Robert Abels shop in the early 70s and he had one of these although can't remember the grip configuration.)  Additionally, I know of another collector that has one just like it. he actually told me about it after I showed him by SNY cutlass and he mentioned his had the same grip configuration. Will you be at Baltimore? I will have a display with the NY Naval Militia cutlasses.


Thanks for the info.  With other examples out there, I would agree it is probably authentic, but an authentic "what?" is the question.  I would guess a Naval Militia/National Guard element cutlass, but that is just a guess with no evidence to support it.  If they would drop a "0" from the price I might buy it just to examine it closer, but not at the current asking price.  I wouldn't pay that much if it was in fact a prototype and had faultless provenance and documentation.

----------


## GC Roxbury

Well here is another New York Naval Militia piece, this time a M1852 variant!  SNY in place of USN, SNY etching on the blade. No wire left and no scabbard. Retailed by Ridabock & Co. New York.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Well here is another New York Naval Militia piece, this time a M1852 variant!  SNY in place of USN, SNY etching on the blade. No wire left and no scabbard. Retailed by Ridabock & Co. New York.


You beat me to it!  I was just going to post pictures of this sword to this thread.  Were you the high bidder?  If so, congrats.  All I have are the photos.

You say the sword has no scabbard, but one was pictured with it in several of the auction photos. 

 

It is obviously different than the standard M1852 scabbard, but I wondered if it could still possibly be original to the sword.  I was quite skeptical it was, however, given how closely the rest of the sword followed the USN pattern.

----------


## GC Roxbury

The scabbard is definitely wrong for the sword. The length does not match the blade and the curvature of the sword blade does match the straight scabbard.  Mounts were also reversed.  Anyway I bought it for the sword to go with the SNY cutlass.

----------


## George Wheeler

Very neat!  I have not seen this SNY Officer sword before.  Heck, I did not even know they existed.

Congratulations.

----------


## Richard Schenk

Another late-date M1861 Navy cutlass was sold at the 18 Aug 2020 Morphy Auction.  It had the distinctive late-date grip with 11 wire twist vice the 19 on CW vintage grips.  It has no serial number and no other marks whatsoever.  This is the fifth cutlass of this type I have found, all with the same 11-twist grip and with no serial number or makers name or other marking.  I believe these are either examples of the 173 cutlasses the RCS purchased from Ames to outfit its ships from 1897 and 1903, or one of  the 95 "broadswords"  the Navy purchased from Horstmann for NTS Newport in 1895.  

Although it is believe all of the post-CW M1861 cutlasses were made by Ames, it is interesting only the officers model from the Medicus collection inscribed to Winfried Proskey (pictured above) is inscribed with the Ames name.  All the others are marked with the Hartley Graham retailer name, e.g. the Niagara cutlasses, or are blank, e.g. the current example and Roxbury's NY Naval Militia sword.  This seems strange since Ames seems to have marked all their other products.

----------


## GC Roxbury

I missed that one. I guess because it was paired up with a that French Artillery sword. By the way where did you find the reference for the RCS 1897 and 1903 purchase of cutlasses as well as the NTS Newport purchase in 1895. It certainly makes sense that these cutlasses could be part of those contracts.  Also that 1864 dated "D" inspected cutlass that was at Little John's Auction last week is now on ebay!

----------


## Richard Schenk

Oops!  A typo on the date on the date of the order for NTS Newport it was 1892, not 1895.  It is located in NARA RG 217, Entry 235. Box 125. The Chief of Bureau of Provisions and Clothing ordered Horstmann "furnish and deliver at such place in the Naval Training Station Newport, R.I. as the commanding officer may direct within the time below specified the following class of articles and at the price set opposite each item respectively.  ... Class 1, Requisition No. 58 Nov....95 broad swords light as per sample submitted by Horstmann Bros, 40 to be delivered within 15 days of date of contract, the remainder within seventy-five days after date of contract.  Unit Price each $2.25 Total $213.75."

I'll have to dig out the refs to the RCS orders - I originally got them from Charlie Pate.

I did not see the Little John Auction.  Do you have a link?  How much did the 1864 "D" fetch?  Good condition?

----------


## GC Roxbury

I can't find the auction results for little john's but it is now being offered on ebay, it is the same one from the auction:  here is the link 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/U-S-Civil-W...8AAOSwnwpfPGPF

----------


## Richard Schenk

Thanks.  Pretty sorry state of preservation. i doubt the seller is aware there is anything special about this sword and is just dilutional about its value.  I won't be bidding on it. 

I wish I had picked up the piece from the Morphy sale, but I was pulled away for the live bidding segment.  I has put in presale bid but it fell short. I doubted either the sales folks at Morphy or the likely bidders were aware their sword was a rare variant, so I lowballed the bid - oh well...

----------


## GC Roxbury

I located the original  auction. It sold for 240.00

https://www.proxibid.com/Firearms-Mi...ation/55449233

----------


## Paul G.

Gentlemen.. What are your thoughts on this grip on a post war Ames 1861 ?  I count 17 wire wraps.

----------


## GC Roxbury

I'm guessing you are calling it post war was because it is completing devoid of marks.  I have had and have seen many completely unmarked 1861's that I believe were the ones that they advertised in their 1881 Ames Sword Company catalog. My 1861 cutlasses have 18 wraps vice 17? Sure its not a re-wrap?

----------


## Richard Schenk

Well this is embarrassing.  I've been repeating the number 19 so long, and actually going back and counting them shows it may not always be right.  Paul shows one with apparently 17 turns.  I looked over mine and found what seems to be 17,18, and 19 turns.  



Another photo of the 17-turn wire grip.

----------


## GC Roxbury

So not an exact science when it came to wrapping the grips!  Will have to check some more of mine.

----------


## Eric Fairbanks

Richard and Skipper a most interesting and excellent thread. Eric

----------


## Paul G.

Correct  No manufacturers or naval markings But interestingly it has several hand stamped marks IDed to the USS Olympia. To me some look spurious  but some definitely look right. I might have posted this sword before but cant remember. I will post pics of the markings.  Great thread!

----------


## Will Mathieson

I had previously posted this cutlass:
http://www.swordforum.com/vb4/showth...will+mathieson
serial number 14, can this place the cutlass to a particular ship? It appears to be one of the first 600 with a later blade.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> I'm guessing you are calling it post war was because it is completing devoid of marks.  I have had and have seen many completely unmarked 1861's that I believe were the ones that they advertised in their 1881 Ames Sword Company catalog. My 1861 cutlasses have 18 wraps vice 17? Sure its not a re-wrap?


The 1880s Ames catalog illustration of the M1861 cutlass appear to show narrow bands as found on CW-vintage swords, not the broad bands of the late-date examples.  Wonder when they changed?  The 1882 catalog illustration is number 540.  In 1902 the Revenue Marine Service ordered 73 "Model 540" cutlasses, thus showing Ames was still using that designation for the M1861 cutlass.

----------


## Richard Schenk

Jerry, congrats on the great article on NY cutlasses in this month's "Man-at Arms" magazine.  Like mentioned before, most collectors are totally in the dark on post-CW M1861 cutlasses.  Hopefully your article will raise the awareness and interest in these rare birds.

----------


## GC Roxbury

> Jerry, congrats on the great article on NY cutlasses in this month's "Man-at Arms" magazine.  Like mentioned before, most collectors are totally in the dark on post-CW M1861 cutlasses.  Hopefully your article will raise the awareness and interest in these rare birds.


Thank you.

----------

