Tiffanys cutlass real?

[History_1879]

An interesting sword. It does not look like a repro but I'm not sure exactly what it is. The Medicus collection included a Tiffany-marked M1861 cutlass, but from the photo in the Fledermann book it is hard to tell details. I have also heard a member of the Sword Forum International site had an example in his collection, but he never posted a photo. I am fairly confident your cutlasses is not a wartime Ames product. First it lacks the Ames name and the inspection/acceptance marks found on wartime produced swords. (Granted these could have been worn/polished off or purposely removed.) Second, it lacks the serial numbers normally found on cutlasses made under Navy contract during the war. In June 1861 the Navy instructed Ames to serial number all cutlasses delivered. These are the numbers found stamped on the quillon in the format 12M/345. The sword with this marking would be the 12,345th​ cutlass produced by Ames. The cutlass shown by UCV above is stamped 20M/95 which shows it was the 20,095th​ cutlass produced for the Navy. (These numbers are often erroneously referred to as "rack numbers".) One occasionally finds unserial numbered cutlasses. Ames also produced 300 M1861 cutlasses for the Army which were not serial numbered but which were inspector marked "A.D.K.". The US Revenue Marine/Revenue Cutter Service (USRM/RCS) was the predecessor to the Coast Guard. During the CW it bought about 1000 Navy-style cutlasses to equip its cutters. It is believed these were also not serial numbered. Third, and in my view most important, Ames wartime cutlasses had 19 turns of wide on their grips; this cutlass appears to have only about 13 or 14.
View attachment 339288

Although most collectors think production of the M1861 cutlass ceased in 1864, in fact a small number were produced later in the century. These include the special-order cutlasses produced for the USS Niagara and USS Aloha around the turn of the century as well as the Medicus-pictured Ames Sword Co officer's cutlass named to Winfried Proskey. They were etched with the name of the ship or the officer, but no serial numbers. In the 1890s the RCS and the Navy also ordered a small number of additional cutlasses, all apparently completely unmarked. Finally New York and possibly other State Naval Militias ordered a small number of cutlasses for their units. Aside from markings (or lack thereof), the main difference from the CW examples is the number of turns of wire on the grips is reduced.
View attachment 339289

I suspect your cutlass may be from this later era and is probably an Ames product. If so, it may have been purchased through Tiffany, just as the Niagara cutlasses were procured through Hartley Graham, in which case the Tiffany markiings would be genuine. Alternatively, someone may have wanted to improve on unmarked Ames by stamping it with the prestigious Tiffany name. I tend to doubt this. The Horse Soldier Tiffany cutlass is quite different construction, and I have no idea why or for whom it was made. The blade etching appears to by a style found on late-century officers' swords.

.

Thank you so much for your comments! And thank you for providing a source of information, will definitely check it out.

 

[Richard E. Schenk]

Question: Is the wire wrap still present on your grip or are we just seeing the imprints of the wire which was formerly there? Also, does the leather still have its original surface or does it appear to have been coated at some point?

Some background for my questions extracted from my 2017 article on the M1861 cutlass published in Man-at-Arms magazine:
"M1861 cutlasses originally had leather-covered wooden grips with twisted brass wire wrapping. Some commenters contend that there never was a wire wrap, and that examples with purported "original wire wrap" are incorrect later "restorations." The existence of clearly genuine examples, such as the USS Hartford pair discussed below, seems to refute this, as does the fact that the imprints of the wire are clearly visible in the leather on most surviving examples. The wire-wrapped leather grips were, however, problematic in that the brass would corrode in the salt air. As a result, at some point, probably after the Civil War, most of the Navy cutlass grips were "jacked," i.e. the wire wrap was removed and the grip was polished and coated with a tar-based protective solution. Given the near-universal and uniform nature of the modification, it seems likely there was a Naval Ordinance Directive ordering it, but I have not found one."

Here are photos of an original and a modified grip:

The Medicus example apparently so modified. If yours was as well, it might suggest the original owner was either the Navy or the RCS because it is unlikely cutlasses owned by private parties would have received the Navy modification.

 

[History_1879]

Question: Is the wire wrap still present on your grip or are we just seeing the imprints of the wire which was formerly there? Also, does the leather still have its original surface or does it appear to have been coated at some point?

Some background for my questions extracted from my 2017 article on the M1861 cutlass published in Man-at-Arms magazine:
"M1861 cutlasses originally had leather-covered wooden grips with twisted brass wire wrapping. Some commenters contend that there never was a wire wrap, and that examples with purported "original wire wrap" are incorrect later "restorations." The existence of clearly genuine examples, such as the USS Hartford pair discussed below, seems to refute this, as does the fact that the imprints of the wire are clearly visible in the leather on most surviving examples. The wire-wrapped leather grips were, however, problematic in that the brass would corrode in the salt air. As a result, at some point, probably after the Civil War, most of the Navy cutlass grips were "jacked," i.e. the wire wrap was removed and the grip was polished and coated with a tar-based protective solution. Given the near-universal and uniform nature of the modification, it seems likely there was a Naval Ordinance Directive ordering it, but I have not found one."

Here are photos of an original and a modified grip:

View attachment 339645

The Medicus example apparently so modified. If yours was as well, it might suggest the original owner was either the Navy or the RCS because it is unlikely cutlasses owned by private parties would have received the Navy modification.

Only the indentations caused by the brass strands are present. About the possible coating I can not tell there is some peeling that would suggest a coating of something but I'm not sure if is just the leather peeling. However the other 2 cutlasses I bought are in the same shape, without the brass wiring. I attached some close up pictures of the handle. Thanks again for the awesome information.

 

[Richard E. Schenk]

Thanks. Based on the photos, I'm fairly certain your grip underwent the post-CW Navy modification. The more I look and think about it, the more I believe these Tiffany cutlasses are a wartime product and were likely used by the RCS or, less likely, the Navy. The grip modification was apparently made in the immediate post-war period. If the Tiffany cutlasses were not produced during the war, they wouldn't have been on hand to modify. Similarly, it is unlikely the Navy would be modifying cutlasses made for private parties. However why the RCS would have bought cutlasses from Tiffany is a mystery to me. Charlie Pate, who has done considerable research on USRM/RCS weapons procurement, tells me the RCS had no problem obtaining cutlasses from Ames in 1861/2-timeframe. The need for the Navy to have procured cutlasses through Tiffany seems even less likely. Hopefully some day we'll find the answers.