T.ulwar and EIC

Pukka Bundook · 28th November 2010, 03:04 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, 03:51 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, 10:05 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, 11:12 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, 09:28 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.

Jim McDougall · 29th November 2010, 01:31 AM

What I am saying is that these letters, which do seem to be E I C, are placed in the same configuration as used in the E I G stamps.

Regarding the spurious marks....it seems to me that what I said was to be wary of these markings, in my initial post as I had not yet found my notes and did not recall the EIG data.

I cannot find the place where I made any comment about spurious markings for 'monetary gain'. I did note that Indian armourers often placed spurious markings on thier blades to imply higher quality. This is of course well known in many ethnographic situations. My comments on 'commercial' markings was directed at independant large companies and organizations in India who often employed thier own security forces. This derived from my idea that the acronym EIC might have been one of those. Again before I found my notes.

I am not saying you are wrong about anything, but we are indeed both trying to communicate in examining possibilities, which I am failing miserably at

I have a hard time seeing these marks, but since they are so badly stamped, I thought they might be EIG, as they are in that configuration. What I said after that was that maybe, since the EIC was ending after 1858, and the EIG was taking over, possibly they were using EIC for a short time even though not using the rampant lion. ...suggesting this as transitional.

The triangle is confusing because it was, as far as I have known in these years of research, never seen a triangle used by EIC as a mark of any kind.
I would love to see data showing otherwise of course.

The EIC was of course private entity, not government, so the arrow would not have been used with EIC...but then there are no arrows seen in these photos, only triangles.

What I think is that if these are EIC and triangle, they must be transitional and used as marks before the government took over and made the mark EIG with broad arrow,

Jens, thank you for answering, and in explanation, I am unclear on which dates she officially was declared Empress of India, but I have always thought she became so while still remaining Queen of England. Much as the British Raj was thought of as a separate entity from the British homeland, and mostly there were separate markings etc. applied......the cyphers on weapons to Indian service had VRI. I dont know on the coins, which I only mentioned to suggest material on them would add more detailed data on dates.
I always thought the Empress title was sort of an addition to expand her official rule to India, and despite that, she was still considered Queen.
The Empress title would have broadened her rule to the 'Empire', but Queens did not technically rule empires.
In any case, thank you for the clarification.

Getting back to the markings, my apologies for not being able to more correctly word my comments. It is often amazing at how sometimes the most seemingly simple matters can become so complex.

Thanks for your patience guys,
All the best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 29th November 2010, 03:43 AM

I've gotcha' now Jim.

Sorry if I seemed to be implying you said something about "spurious marks" I meant nothing of the sort. It was me who suggested that marks Could have been added with idea of raising value.... Sort of a Walter Mitty mind I have, that wanders and can come up with things that on the surface appear unconnected.

I will attache a clearer mark I saw on-line,..........when I find it again!

Again, sorry for any misunderstanding.

Best,
Richard.

28th November 2010, 03:04 AM	#1
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, 11:12 AM	#4
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, 03:51 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,672	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, 10:05 AM	#3
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, 09:28 PM	#5
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.

29th November 2010, 01:31 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,672	What I am saying is that these letters, which do seem to be E I C, are placed in the same configuration as used in the E I G stamps. Regarding the spurious marks....it seems to me that what I said was to be wary of these markings, in my initial post as I had not yet found my notes and did not recall the EIG data. I cannot find the place where I made any comment about spurious markings for 'monetary gain'. I did note that Indian armourers often placed spurious markings on thier blades to imply higher quality. This is of course well known in many ethnographic situations. My comments on 'commercial' markings was directed at independant large companies and organizations in India who often employed thier own security forces. This derived from my idea that the acronym EIC might have been one of those. Again before I found my notes. I am not saying you are wrong about anything, but we are indeed both trying to communicate in examining possibilities, which I am failing miserably at I have a hard time seeing these marks, but since they are so badly stamped, I thought they might be EIG, as they are in that configuration. What I said after that was that maybe, since the EIC was ending after 1858, and the EIG was taking over, possibly they were using EIC for a short time even though not using the rampant lion. ...suggesting this as transitional. The triangle is confusing because it was, as far as I have known in these years of research, never seen a triangle used by EIC as a mark of any kind. I would love to see data showing otherwise of course. The EIC was of course private entity, not government, so the arrow would not have been used with EIC...but then there are no arrows seen in these photos, only triangles. What I think is that if these are EIC and triangle, they must be transitional and used as marks before the government took over and made the mark EIG with broad arrow, Jens, thank you for answering, and in explanation, I am unclear on which dates she officially was declared Empress of India, but I have always thought she became so while still remaining Queen of England. Much as the British Raj was thought of as a separate entity from the British homeland, and mostly there were separate markings etc. applied......the cyphers on weapons to Indian service had VRI. I dont know on the coins, which I only mentioned to suggest material on them would add more detailed data on dates. I always thought the Empress title was sort of an addition to expand her official rule to India, and despite that, she was still considered Queen. The Empress title would have broadened her rule to the 'Empire', but Queens did not technically rule empires. In any case, thank you for the clarification. Getting back to the markings, my apologies for not being able to more correctly word my comments. It is often amazing at how sometimes the most seemingly simple matters can become so complex. Thanks for your patience guys, All the best, Jim

29th November 2010, 03:43 AM	#7
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	I've gotcha' now Jim. Sorry if I seemed to be implying you said something about "spurious marks" I meant nothing of the sort. It was me who suggested that marks Could have been added with idea of raising value.... Sort of a Walter Mitty mind I have, that wanders and can come up with things that on the surface appear unconnected. I will attache a clearer mark I saw on-line,..........when I find it again! Again, sorry for any misunderstanding. Best, Richard.