|
Post by jose on Sept 8, 2019 18:29:28 GMT
I am hoping that someone is able to help me with the identification of a sword. I am taking the first tentative steps of sword collecting and have very little knowledge! At a general auction I saw this sword. The sword was catalogued as “British Naval officer’s cutlass”. Doing some basic research I found information on naval officer’s swords but nothing which looks quite like this. The blade is relatively short otherwise I would have thought that it looked more like a light cavalry sword. I am hoping that someone can give me an idea of age and if it is a naval officer’s hangar/cutlass/sword. Thank you all in anticipation!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 19:41:36 GMT
Welcome aboard The dimensions are very helpful. In the movie Master&Commander, a similar looking sword hilt is shown and perhaps that is part of why it is listed as such. It is not and had never been a typical British officer's sword or cutlass. The blade has been cut down and it is possibly also entirely a composite piece. Generally speaking, one would view such as an mounted artillery officer's sword, a flank officer sword, or a few other possibilities but British regulation patterns for their navy would eliminate this description for this sword. If window shopping, do yourself a favor and don't consider swords in rough shape unless you have the means to fix them. This one has a distorted hilt, cracked grip and as mentioned, a cut down blade. Someone running a general auction perhaps went by the seller's description or are simply a bit unaware. This can work to one's favor in finding a real bargain but this one has some pretty minimal value except as a relic. This one looks to be of the first quarter 19th century and likely a US mounted artillery officer's private purchase but even cut down the blade curvature is such that it might have once been a British infantry flank officer sword. There is no way to know for sure. Cheers GC www.qsl.net/wb1gfh/swords.htmlIirc, this is the sword Tony Swatton of Hollywood did for Master&Commander www.swordandstone.com/
|
|
|
Post by jose on Sept 8, 2019 20:07:32 GMT
Thank you for the information
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 8, 2019 21:10:17 GMT
Doing some basic research I found information on naval officer’s swords but nothing which looks quite like this. The blade is relatively short otherwise I would have thought that it looked more like a light cavalry sword. At this length, it would be usually described as a dirk rather than a sword. There was a tradition of curved naval dirks, used by the British and by others. These were usually worn by midshipmen, at the time apprentice officers rather than officers proper. They didn't carry proper swords since they weren't yet proper officers. Curved dirks appear to have been most common in British usage in the late 18th century, existing alongside straight (usually double-edged) dirks. Some examples: www.sailorinsaddle.com/product.aspx?id=1206www.andrewbottomley.com/x-x-x-sold-x-x-x--a-rare-18th-century-british-naval-dirk-from-the-napoleonic-era--battle-of-trafalgar-period-ref-6583-363-p.aspwww.andrewbottomley.com/x-x-x-sold-x-x-x--a-superb-mameluke-shaped-british-hilted-naval-dirk-dating-from-the-time-of-the-napoleonic-wars-circa-1780-1815-ref-7200-566-p.aspvictoriansword.tumblr.com/post/165330383016/british-naval-dirk-c1790-1800-georgian-navalThese often have (a) brass hilts and (b) white grips, often ivory (elephant or marine). Naval officers' swords in general often had brass hilts and white grips, whether ivory, bone, or white fish/ray skin. E.g., www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/430727151855726046/ While full-size swords typically had knucklbows or partial baskets, dirks usually had either a simple cross-guard or a knuckle-chain. This does lead to over-identification, with, e.g., Indian tourist souvenir knives with brass/bone hilts being labelled as "Napoleonic War naval dirk", something with will usually sell for more than "Indian souvenir knife, 20th century". (Similarly, "Confederate bowie" is a popular label.) In the absence of naval markings (such as the fouled anchor, etc.) or a reliable provenance, calling it "naval" is just a guess. But a fair guess. The alternative is that it is a much-shortened sword, probably either militia/yeomanry or flank officer's. How thick is the base of the blade, and how does the blade thin along its length?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 22:17:00 GMT
Excepting that 19" would be beyond a dirk's blade length, which would be tapered and pointy. You will also not find many dirks with langet and zero with P guards. The majority of the British ivory was mastadon from Russian mines. This changes in a treaty of 1807 but Mowbray sagely writes that African elephant ivory was not really a market at the time. ![](https://i.imgur.com/2sXkmF6.jpg) The officers mostly wore spadroons and well regulated in the 1804 pattern, replaced with a sabre in 1827. Cheers GC
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 8, 2019 23:30:05 GMT
Excepting that 19" would be beyond a dirk's blade length, which would be tapered and pointy. First, big British dirks tend to have blades from about 16" to 20" in length: collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-8746.htmlcollections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-8127.htmlcollections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-10813.htmland the late 19th century regulation dirk had a blade just under 18". Second, tapered and pointy is more common, including curved blades, but some are less tapered and pointy: collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/78518.htmlAFAICT from examples, curved dirks are usually shorter than the big straight dirks, commonly 13-15" for the big ones. There are bigger ones, though: www.militariahub.com/british-c-1850-naval-midshipman-lionshead-hanger-dirk/You will also not find many dirks with langet and zero with P guards. I don't know about zero, but a P guard is certainly unusual for a dirk (as already said). The size is unusual for a curved dirk, but far from impossible. The P guard makes it more likely that this weapon is a shortened sword (which further detail of the blade geometry might confirm). If it isn't a shortened sword, then it might be a naval dirk, possibly with a non-original hilt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 1:01:30 GMT
To be honest Timo, believe what you might. I see it more easily identified otherwise and believing Occam's razor in this case. You do link one with a more rounded point and would give me reason to pause but add 10" to the blade and it fits an infantry size sabre.
It is apt you mention no fouled anchor and one could suppose a down and out midshipman recycling a larger sword. This point is a little hard to see from that photo, as is the cross section but I see the remnants of the blade bumper/washer and a pretty darn square point. If I was more than supposing, I really suspect a broken blade that had been re-purposed but not likely a naval officers cutlass or (imo) dirk.
Nice stuff linked. I have a copy of Annis somewhere as a pdf and The Royal Armouries catalog is online. Between Gilkerson, Rankin and Tuite, I have the American dirks pretty well covered.
Cheers GC
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 9, 2019 1:19:16 GMT
To be honest Timo, believe what you might. What might I believe? I believe that there were dirks with blades of 19". I believe that there were dirks with curved blades, sometimes over 15" long. I believe that this was identified - quite possibly mis-identified - as a naval sword on the basis of weapons such as those I linked. The first two points are based on surviving examples, and arguing against hard evidence like that is just plain silly. The third one is opinion only - I can't telepathically determine why the original seller described it as such. Quite reasonable to think that this is more likely a shortened sword than a dirk. I think a naval dirk is a possibility (and it could be both a dirk and a shortened sword); you are welcome to believe that it cannot possibly have been a naval dirk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 1:39:33 GMT
I'm seeing more agreement than disagreement. Supposing it to naval needs the provenance you mention in your first reply.
More simply, I came to my conclusion to the most likely possibilities.
Cheers GC
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 9, 2019 2:35:00 GMT
Sorry, I misunderstood. "Believe what you might" is an unusual way to say "I agree", and I didn't read it that way.
Btw, if the OP gives us some blade thickness info, how thick, and how much taper in thickness, is usual for unfullered US militia swords c. 1810?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 4:47:29 GMT
Oh, I'm now more of the mind it is more likely yeoman militia than US use. The blade looks a lot like cast steel and unfullered. There is no maxim on the distal and I see more linear distal tapers in both the British and German made swords I have that post date 1800. ![](https://sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/attachment/download/58781) You can see some of the taper in the shot of the back of the hilt. ![](https://sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/attachment/download/58777) Also that it is polished bone we are seeing, not ivory. You can see furring and more prominently on the wear side. Some of the "flank officer" blades are quite short and my Peterson #5 sword has a blade barely 25". Some others of my sabres are in the blade range of 27". Cheers GC
|
|
|
Post by jose on Sept 9, 2019 6:47:23 GMT
Firstly allow me to thank you all for taking the time and trouble to give me all this most interesting information. If nothing else, I have learned that this subject is far, far more complicated than it seems at first appearance! I have attached some more photographs which show the width of the blade from the hilt to the tip and the back edge also from the hilt to the tip. I hope that helps !
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 9, 2019 7:54:40 GMT
From the thickness measurements, I think it's a shortened sword. As discussed above, we thought US or British militia/yeomanry likely. This makes it less likely to be naval; still a possibility, but probably not naval.
|
|
|
Post by Ann Lennon on Jun 24, 2024 16:31:13 GMT
am hoping that someone is able to help me with the identification of a sword. I am have British Naval officer’s sword
Office Royal Navy ol dress sword N2052
Hope you can help if you know who this belongs to or how we can found out whom it was belong to And any information ion the sword . Thank you all in anticipation!
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Jun 25, 2024 1:22:56 GMT
am hoping that someone is able to help me with the identification of a sword. I am have British Naval officer’s sword Office Royal Navy ol dress sword N2052 Hope you can help if you know who this belongs to or how we can found out whom it was belong to And any information ion the sword . Thank you all in anticipation! We can't really do anything without good photos...
|
|