T.ulwar and EIC

Atlantia · 27th November 2010, 11:19 PM

Here are two pictures hilt and blade of the same EIC/triangle stamp. They are ona Tulwar I recently handled in person (but which is not mine).
The stamping looked like it was done in a hurry. Hard but hurried strikes, jumping and ghosting on both. On the hilt the force of the impact has actually noticably dented the grip.
The result though is difficult to make out, in fact I had to point out to the owner that it appeared to be some kind of EIC stamp.
I would have thought if it was done to add value, it would be done with enough care to make sure it was readable?
This looked much more like a 'Bang, Bang, next!' approach.
That said, its not a style of EIC stamp I've seen before.
Perhaps all from the same armoury?

Pukka Bundook · 28th November 2010, 12:54 AM

Atlantia,

You have stated exactly what I was trying to say!.............how the marks would be clearer if intended to add value.
Also, the dented grip is very typical with these marks.

Very much a "bang bang get 'em done" type marking.
All the markings I've seen are exactly the same as well, an unlikely occurance if we had a rash of counterfeit marks.
To me, it all points to these marks being bonafide, yet my original questions remain.....

Thanks for the extra photos Atl!

Jim McDougall · 28th November 2010, 01:09 AM

Thanks so much guys for the great responses! I'm really glad you brought this up Richard, as I really needed to get my material on EIC markings organized.
All my focus had been on the balemarks, and as they were used on the locks of guns primarily. As I noted, I hadn't recalled seeing this type of marking with the triangles.

I found a group of notes from research back in '97 including some communication with David Harding, who had just completed publishing :Small Arms of the East India Company", and there were groupings of markings mostly of the quartered heart and later rampant lion.
The 1827 naval officers sword with the lion above the fouled anchor was indeed characteristic, and I have seen them on army swords as well, but as part of the hilt motif, not as markings on the blade.

Gene, thank you for sharing the pictures of the tulwar and observations, which well corroborate the triangle marking Richard posted on these swords.

I finally found the information in these notes, after the Mutiny it is known that the British government took over in India. In 1862 I believe, when the transition was in place, Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, and cyphers on blades and other materials were with the ligature VRI.
Information on much of this is found in material on the coins of India.

Apparantly materials were stamped , instead of the EIC balemarks, with EIG (East India Government) marks which were in this same three point configuration, but with a broad arrow where the triangle is seen here.
This continued through WWI and certainly later, though I am unclear on why the triangle here would be in place of the arrow (which was of course the long standing mark of British ordnance all the way back to Henry VIII).

As with most government processing, there were of course viewing and acceptance marks placed at various locations, and these stamps applied with varying effect were most likely the result of careless processing or damaged stamps.

With this being the case, it would seem that these tulwars were likely among stores for native regiments, who of course often preferred carrying their traditional tulwars. Many were produced by contractors in India, or in some cases by contractors in England. I have seen tulwars produced by Mole, who subcontracted for Wilkinson, and in other instances, some regiments preferred British regulation military patterns.

I'm sorry for the inadvertant red herring about commercial markings, and this information on the EIG rather than EIC is I hope helpful.

All the best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 28th November 2010, 02:04 AM

Thank you for the information Jim!

I would think that the EIC stamp would not have the broad arrow, as the EI Co was independant, and not a goverment concern.
Now, When were they stamped?...I don't know!

It does make sense that EIG would carry the broad arrow though.
Here is the blade of the 1827;

All best,
Richard.

Jim McDougall · 28th November 2010, 02:51 AM

Absolutely right Richard, the EIC would not have used the broad arrow, but after 1858 and the effective demise of the EIC .......the arrow, which was used by the BO (board of ordnance) might have been used by the newly developing EIG.
On British weapons, after the Crimean war the broad arrow and BO was replaced by WD (War Department) and the broad arrow.

For India, and the Raj, it was an entirely different sector, and the EIG with the broad arrow was used. Again, I cannot imagine what the triangle is supposed to represent, but the EIG in that configuration is a match to the examples I have noted.

Supposedly weapons and ordnance to India were marked ISD (India Stores Dept.) but it does not seem to be the case universally. There are numerous stamps and acronyms for certain armouries and depots but I havent found that list yet.

All the best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 28th November 2010, 09:05 AM

Hi again Jim,

Do I take it that you think the marks we have been viewing are really EIG marks?

I would have to say that they look definitely to be E I C marks.
In your previous post, (next to last) you made mention of the EIG, and damaged stamps;
I have been wondering, Do you think that the marks in the above photos are All damaged EI "G" stamps? (with damaged G and damaged broad arrow?)

I note in your reply, that you seem a bit reticent, as though you don't want to call me wrong or something!......Please don't worry about things like that! If I'm wrong on this, then I'm wrong and that's an end to it.

I do find this subject interesting, and strange, in that it doesn't appear to have been addressed before. ...and the only way to get to the bottom of it is to keep digging.
To me, the marks apper quite plainly to be E I C triangle.

Going back to the possible spurious markings and monetary gain;
If this Was the intention, it doesn't seem to work! The tulwar with the first mark I showed sold for I believe, $62 dollars recently, and the one I have cost me $45.00 a few years ago.

Very best wishes,

Richard.

Jens Nordlunde · 28th November 2010, 10:12 AM

Jim Wrote: I finally found the information in these notes, after the Mutiny it is known that the British government took over in India. In 1862 I believe, when the transition was in place, Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, and cyphers on blades and other materials were with the ligature VRI.
Information on much of this is found in material on the coins of India.
That may be right Jim,you would know far more about this that I do, but in some places Victoria was still Queen in 1886 AD.
The attached one silver Rupee is from Bundi and dated 1943 VS - 1886 AD.
Jens

Pukka Bundook · 28th November 2010, 08:28 PM

Hello Jens,

I have a few quarter Anna coins, and it seems on them, the cut-off date for Queen was 1876. On the 1877 coins, she has the title Empress.

(fopt what it's worth!)

Best,
R.

27th November 2010, 11:19 PM	#1
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	Here are two pictures hilt and blade of the same EIC/triangle stamp. They are ona Tulwar I recently handled in person (but which is not mine). The stamping looked like it was done in a hurry. Hard but hurried strikes, jumping and ghosting on both. On the hilt the force of the impact has actually noticably dented the grip. The result though is difficult to make out, in fact I had to point out to the owner that it appeared to be some kind of EIC stamp. I would have thought if it was done to add value, it would be done with enough care to make sure it was readable? This looked much more like a 'Bang, Bang, next!' approach. That said, its not a style of EIC stamp I've seen before. Perhaps all from the same armoury? Attached Images

28th November 2010, 02:04 AM	#4
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Thank you for the information Jim! I would think that the EIC stamp would not have the broad arrow, as the EI Co was independant, and not a goverment concern. Now, When were they stamped?...I don't know! It does make sense that EIG would carry the broad arrow though. Here is the blade of the 1827; All best, Richard. Attached Images

28th November 2010, 10:12 AM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Jim Wrote: I finally found the information in these notes, after the Mutiny it is known that the British government took over in India. In 1862 I believe, when the transition was in place, Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, and cyphers on blades and other materials were with the ligature VRI. Information on much of this is found in material on the coins of India. That may be right Jim,you would know far more about this that I do, but in some places Victoria was still Queen in 1886 AD. The attached one silver Rupee is from Bundi and dated 1943 VS - 1886 AD. Jens Attached Images

28th November 2010, 12:54 AM	#2
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Atlantia, You have stated exactly what I was trying to say!.............how the marks would be clearer if intended to add value. Also, the dented grip is very typical with these marks. Very much a "bang bang get 'em done" type marking. All the markings I've seen are exactly the same as well, an unlikely occurance if we had a rash of counterfeit marks. To me, it all points to these marks being bonafide, yet my original questions remain..... Thanks for the extra photos Atl!

28th November 2010, 01:09 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Thanks so much guys for the great responses! I'm really glad you brought this up Richard, as I really needed to get my material on EIC markings organized. All my focus had been on the balemarks, and as they were used on the locks of guns primarily. As I noted, I hadn't recalled seeing this type of marking with the triangles. I found a group of notes from research back in '97 including some communication with David Harding, who had just completed publishing :Small Arms of the East India Company", and there were groupings of markings mostly of the quartered heart and later rampant lion. The 1827 naval officers sword with the lion above the fouled anchor was indeed characteristic, and I have seen them on army swords as well, but as part of the hilt motif, not as markings on the blade. Gene, thank you for sharing the pictures of the tulwar and observations, which well corroborate the triangle marking Richard posted on these swords. I finally found the information in these notes, after the Mutiny it is known that the British government took over in India. In 1862 I believe, when the transition was in place, Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, and cyphers on blades and other materials were with the ligature VRI. Information on much of this is found in material on the coins of India. Apparantly materials were stamped , instead of the EIC balemarks, with EIG (East India Government) marks which were in this same three point configuration, but with a broad arrow where the triangle is seen here. This continued through WWI and certainly later, though I am unclear on why the triangle here would be in place of the arrow (which was of course the long standing mark of British ordnance all the way back to Henry VIII). As with most government processing, there were of course viewing and acceptance marks placed at various locations, and these stamps applied with varying effect were most likely the result of careless processing or damaged stamps. With this being the case, it would seem that these tulwars were likely among stores for native regiments, who of course often preferred carrying their traditional tulwars. Many were produced by contractors in India, or in some cases by contractors in England. I have seen tulwars produced by Mole, who subcontracted for Wilkinson, and in other instances, some regiments preferred British regulation military patterns. I'm sorry for the inadvertant red herring about commercial markings, and this information on the EIG rather than EIC is I hope helpful. All the best, Jim

28th November 2010, 02:51 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Absolutely right Richard, the EIC would not have used the broad arrow, but after 1858 and the effective demise of the EIC .......the arrow, which was used by the BO (board of ordnance) might have been used by the newly developing EIG. On British weapons, after the Crimean war the broad arrow and BO was replaced by WD (War Department) and the broad arrow. For India, and the Raj, it was an entirely different sector, and the EIG with the broad arrow was used. Again, I cannot imagine what the triangle is supposed to represent, but the EIG in that configuration is a match to the examples I have noted. Supposedly weapons and ordnance to India were marked ISD (India Stores Dept.) but it does not seem to be the case universally. There are numerous stamps and acronyms for certain armouries and depots but I havent found that list yet. All the best, Jim

28th November 2010, 09:05 AM	#6
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Hi again Jim, Do I take it that you think the marks we have been viewing are really EIG marks? I would have to say that they look definitely to be E I C marks. In your previous post, (next to last) you made mention of the EIG, and damaged stamps; I have been wondering, Do you think that the marks in the above photos are All damaged EI "G" stamps? (with damaged G and damaged broad arrow?) I note in your reply, that you seem a bit reticent, as though you don't want to call me wrong or something!......Please don't worry about things like that! If I'm wrong on this, then I'm wrong and that's an end to it. I do find this subject interesting, and strange, in that it doesn't appear to have been addressed before. ...and the only way to get to the bottom of it is to keep digging. To me, the marks apper quite plainly to be E I C triangle. Going back to the possible spurious markings and monetary gain; If this Was the intention, it doesn't seem to work! The tulwar with the first mark I showed sold for I believe, $62 dollars recently, and the one I have cost me $45.00 a few years ago. Very best wishes, Richard.

28th November 2010, 08:28 PM	#8
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Hello Jens, I have a few quarter Anna coins, and it seems on them, the cut-off date for Queen was 1876. On the 1877 coins, she has the title Empress. (fopt what it's worth!) Best, R.