this is an unusual sword - it is not the 1885 Pattern which saw service through the 1890's since it does not have the hilt pierced with a Maltese cross; it is not the 1899 Pattern Cavalry troopers sword since that did not have the bowl guard turned over at the edges; at 27 inches the blade is too short (specified length was 34.5 inches) for a cavalry sword; it is not the standard naval cutlass in having leather scale grips, not iron and it has a fullered blade which did not genrally appear on naval cutlasses. The scabbard looks like the 1858/9 pattern cutlass scabbard. I am pretty certain it is the Pattern 1900 Naval sword/cutlass which conforms in all respects as far as I can see to what you actually have, plus of course it is dated 1900, and has the N stamp which indicates naval service.
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
British Sword opinion
in Swords & Edged Weapons
Posted
hello,
this is an unusual sword - it is not the 1885 Pattern which saw service through the 1890's since it does not have the hilt pierced with a Maltese cross; it is not the 1899 Pattern Cavalry troopers sword since that did not have the bowl guard turned over at the edges; at 27 inches the blade is too short (specified length was 34.5 inches) for a cavalry sword; it is not the standard naval cutlass in having leather scale grips, not iron and it has a fullered blade which did not genrally appear on naval cutlasses. The scabbard looks like the 1858/9 pattern cutlass scabbard. I am pretty certain it is the Pattern 1900 Naval sword/cutlass which conforms in all respects as far as I can see to what you actually have, plus of course it is dated 1900, and has the N stamp which indicates naval service.