EXCLUSIVE: USNA Annapolis Academy’s collection full length photos of M1830 and M1841 .

[Father V]

As promised, here are the photos that were sent to me with official permission to publish here for the first time. They may or may not post them separately at their own discretion.  Before we get to the details, let’s get the required attribution notice first.

 

Images Courtesy of United States Naval Academy Museum

All photographs courtesy of USNA Museum Curator Grant Walker

 

Publication here does not constitute permission to reproduce or alter any image. All rights remain in the hands of the Academy and you’ll need permission to do anything with them beyond viewing them here. I also promised, if there was room, to include accession numbers and other information, which I believe is satisfied by this table:

USNA 1830:1841.docx

 

The model types are my own opinion, though formed in part from Tuite and other sources. For my complete understanding of the differences in both types, please see my dedicated posts:

https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/402133-origins-of-the-m1830-usn-officer’s-sword/

https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/403283-origin-of-the-m1841-usn-officer’s-sword/

Where information about them was included in Tuite, that is included on the chart. 5 of these swords did not have dimension data from Tuite (in some cases he didn’t appear to know about them) and that information was graciously provided by the Academy.  The table generally follows accession numbers, which in turn are based on the date they received the individual items, with the exception of the X. which signifies that they were found in the collection at some point but had no accession data when they were noticed. Two more swords do not have photos provided, Rodgers’ sword which is in the Superintendent’s office and thus beyond the reach of casual study, and a possible Dahlgren sword which couldn’t be located at the time the photos were provided. The Gregory sword of this type doesn’t actually belong to the Academy, but was on loan before 2004 when Tuite’s book was published. That has since been returned to the owner, but that owner provided some photos to the Academy which I share here as well, subject to withdrawal at the request of the original owner.

 

The photos will be posted here in Sgt. Booker style, that is @hhbooker2 who posted a lot of graphic heavy files on uniforms and insignia in the Forum & Internet Archive, one follow-up post per sword, but with multiple photos per post. Instead of a strict accession number order, instead I will order them first by model type, then accession order, then presentation swords last, so:

 

M1830

1. Perry

2. Gaunt

3. Farragut

4. Paulding

5. X.270

6. Gregory

 

M1841

1. Biddle

2. Gillou

3. De Haven

4. Case

5. X.280

 

Presentation

1. McKenny based upon M1830

2. Shaw based upon M1841

3. Brownell based upon M1841

 

When it comes to the selection of photos provided to me, I’ll lean heavily on posting full length photos of the sword, obverse (right side as held in the hand cutting downwards) and reverse (left), then details of significance including makers marks, unique details to a particular sword, and details that help to distinguish one model from another.

 

[Father V]

1. Perry’s M1830

This appears to be the “flat” blade type, and is slightly curved, not straight. The circle of stars on the blade is only found on the obverse, not reverse.

[Father V]

2. Gaunt’s M1830

Unique type of blade as the fuller runs all the way to the end. There’s a circle of stars on both sides of the blade.

[Father V]

3. Farragut 

This is one of the standard blade types studied in my article, like the British cavalry swords. Circle of stars on both sides of the blade, inscribed on reverse folding guard “Pinkham to Farragut.”

[Father V]

4. Paulding’s M1830

Same standard blade type, with circle of stars on both sides. Non-standard fish skin grip. On scabbard, circle of stars not around the frog stud/button and some decoration on the reverse.

[Father V]

5. X.270 (blade only)

Top two photos cropped from a comparison photo, thus the caption “detail” must appear here.

This is the third example of one of the standard blade types. Circle of stars on both sides.

[Father V]

6. Gregory’s M1830

The original scabbard hasn’t survived. Instead it is in a M1852 scabbard. Where that shows in photos, be aware of the discrepancy. The first three photos of the obverse are rotated.

Another of a standard blade type, circle of stars on both sides.

[Father V]

1. Biddle’s M1841

The normal Ames type, marked on the reverse scabbard. No discernible etching remains. Slight difference in the 3 acorn design on the obverse folding guard.

[Father V]

Real life interrupted my post, plus there are some issues with Guillou. I think I have it figured out but need to post my sources. Will resume later this evening.

[Father V]

2. Surgeon Guillou’s M1841


^Altered digitally with permission to enhance readability.
There are serious problems with the identification of this officer. Tuite has it as Charles F.B. Guillou, the combined register has C.T. Guillon https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/o/officers-continental-usnavy-mc-1775-1900/navy-officers-1798-1900-g.html

 

Guillon, C. T.
Assistant Surgeon, 9 February, 1837. Passed Assistant Surgeon, 6 June, 1842. Surgeon, 28 August, 1847. Resigned 15 September, 1854.

The combined register is a work of scholarship, however, not a replacement for primary sources. Wherever there is a potential inconsistency, you have to go to the originals. Since I already needed to consult the 1852 list for my upcoming article on the origins of the design of the M1852, Surgeon #62:

^https://books.google.com/books/about/Register_of_the_Commissioned_and_Warrant.html?id=IBUYAAAAMAAJ

 

That’s clearly “Chas. F. B. Guillou”. The only difference in the script inscription on the reverse folding guard is an “r” for the “s”.” Now that we have the proper spelling, we can go to other sources, and this fellow was rather famous. Not only does he have a Wikipedia article, but it’s rather extensive with links to some important historical events and commands: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Guillou

As to the sword, although it was sold through Horstmann, its of the standard Ames type but with 2 acorns on the obverse folding guard like the M1830 and the M1841 pattern drawing. Some of the etchings still survive, including the decorative work sometimes seen on the pipe/quill/reed.

[Father V]

3. De Haven’s M1841

^This photo is shot from an angle that makes it appear that the top is narrower than the bottom, but as we could see from the full length photo above, that’s just a trick of the camera positioning, not the actual mount. The same is true of the reverse view of the middle mount too.

The blade etchings are in a remarkable state of preservation on both sides. The point on the reverse is much more centered than is usual. Oddly the scabbard has a circle of stars on the obverse.

[Father V]

4. Ludlow Case’s M1841

Not many views of this one. So difficult is it to see the type of obverse guard pattern, that I felt it necessary to go to Tuite pg 94 and use extreme digital & physical magnification to capture it.

Looks like it’s the standard 2 acorn, 3rd empty husk of Ames, just a bit tough to see.

Tuite also says there’s no “U.S. Navy” inscribed (etched) on the blade. From these photos the etchings aren’t very clear.

[Father V]

5. X.280

The first two have been cropped from a comparison photo and thus must bear the caption of “detail.”

This one is fairly odd. It’s the only example with a digital footprint that has blade decorations that match the pattern drawing, but bluing and gilding were not popular in the US by 1841.  The feathered grip is atypical (but not contrary to pattern as we’ve already discussed) and the fully feathered backstrap doesn’t match the drawing though that’s a fairly minor detail. The blade is flat and slightly curved which is unique for an M1841. The folding guard is the 2 acorn variety of the drawing, but not exactly like it. Still, this was one of the ways manufacturers interpreted the same type of drawing for the M1830, so I think it should be considered “to pattern.” Lastly, it has a ferrule which is more typical of the M1841. On balance, especially with the blade decoration, this is more consistent with a slightly off M1841 than a noticeably irregular M1830 (no circle of stars, even on the scabbard). The scabbard is atypical for the thickness and detail of the obverse elements and highly decorative nature of the reverse. Why decorate the non-visible side so much? Really I would expect to see such a scabbard on a high grade or presentation sword, but other than the bluing and gilding there’s really nothing that suggests this was other than a daily wear sword. It’s possible that the scabbard came to protect this sword at a later date, but that is rank speculation.

[Father V]

Real life has intervened again as it’s 11:30ish pm my time and I have some things yet to complete, so I’ll post the Presentation swords tomorrow morning.

[Father V]

McKenny’s Presentation sword based upon the M1830 design 
 

One of the standard blade types, standard markings for a blued & gilded M1830 blade except for the presentation text on the reverse. Unusual presentation “upgrades” include jewels on hilt & scabbard (eyes of eagle & circle of stars), double decorative folding guards, given the many hallmarks, I’d hazard a guess that the base metal for the the hilt & scabbard mounts are sterling but I’m not expert in the field. Further research can be done on the hallmarks. H. Bird is the overall maker’s mark on obverse of the blade near the hilt, and reverse side of the scabbard.

[Father V]

Shaw’s Presentation sword based upon the M1841 design

 

Standard pipe back blade design but with what appears to be custom etching in a rare state of preservation and the decorative work on the pipe also intact. Most of the hilt except the grip and the obverse folding guard are standard design as well. Presentation upgrades include jewels in the eyes of the eagle, grip, and obverse top mount of the scabbard, with mother of pearl material for the grip, and gilded scabbard with additional decoration on each of the mounts and even the usually undecorated spaces between the mounts on the obverse. The reverse of the scabbard is still gilded but the mounts are otherwise undecorated on that side. One further upgrade is the obverse guard which has decorative metal work on the borders in oak leaves, but with more than one rounded lobe, it’s definitely not live oak as was the standard motif. One of the European oaks is probably intended, though such species are also found in the New World. The presentation text is found on the obverse guard as well.

[Father V]

Brownell’s Presentation sword based on the M1841

 

 

Unlike the others, this doesn’t have any presentation text apparent so it might have been more appropriately deemed a high grade sword, if it weren’t for a surviving letter from Brownell to Ames where he thanks them for the “presentation of this sword” thus implying he didn’t order it (Tuite pg 94). Upgrades include jewels in the eagle’s eyes and an ornately carved grip. Tuite published an image of a similarly ornate grip, his figure 4.62, pg 159-160. I think it probable that a middle mount has been lost along the way. The rest of the design is a standard Ames M1841 except the style of banner used as the maker’s mark on the obverse scabbard, though even that is found on other examples. Identification is on the reverse folding guard.

[Father V]

That’s it. Great thanks to the Academy at Annapolis for their generous terms for digital publication and the patience of their staff in clarifying various questions I had about the photos and swords. I will probably compile biological data on all the officers, instead of just Guillou, but I’m not putting any particular deadline on that. Feel free to comment or make suggestions.

[SARGE]

Wonderful information on these obscure USN swords Father V.  Thanks for doing the work to get hold of these sword images and sharing them with us.  

[blitz67]

 

“Publication here does not constitute permission to reproduce or alter any image. All rights remain in the hands of the Academy and you’ll need permission to do anything with them beyond viewing them here”.
 

Thanks for posting these photos but no need to post a disclaimer about the pictures, 1st of all they are posted publicly, whether this is a private forum or not, they can be reproduced in any shape or form and can also be used for commercial purposes( whatever that may be) as they are US government property (mine and yours) . 2nd and most importantly these are owned by the United States (you and me) and the Academy curator or who ever produced these photos used U.S. government time, artifacts and resources to produce them.  So there is no legal obligation to state any disclaimers.  Outstanding photos though for sure!!! 

[Father V]

It can be physically possible to do all sorts of things, but doesn’t mean it is legally permissible. I am not a lawyer so I make absolutely no claims that can be relied upon in a court of law. For that you would need an attorney and in some cases courts to adjudicate claims. It’s common knowledge, however, that there are all sorts of things created by the government that are not in the public domain or are permissible to be reproduced, such as classified documents while still classified. Books & music are also available publicly, but that doesn’t mean they can be legally reproduced without compensating the holders of the intellectual property rights unless the material is in the public domain, except under the exceptions allowed in law, one of which is fair use. A lot of my posts fall under fair use, but I’ll admit to being nervous each and every time. I don’t have any extra money in my budget to defend my actions in this hobby in court. If there was an issue, I’d tell the moderators to delete the offending material, which is also why I go overboard trying to find as many different sources as possible so even if things do get deleted, the whole post doesn’t fall apart.

 

Thanks for sharing your appreciation for the photos. The Academy employee asked me recently about the reaction, so it’s nice to have some folks responding positively.