T.ulwar and EIC

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.

Jim McDougall · 29th November 2010, 12:31 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, 02:43 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.

Jim McDougall · 29th November 2010, 05:16 AM

LOL!

Yup, ya done got me OK! As they say here in TX.
According to my wife, I do say things uh, 'off center' a lot, so not surprised for any miscommunication.
The spurious marks thing is actually pretty much a tradition with trade blades and typically many native made blades....and for that matter throughout Europe. Look at the fabled maker Andrea Ferara, who had to have been immortal to have made thousands of blades for nearly 300 years! (no I am not saying there really was such a guy)

I recently read of a blade probably from India, with a hodgepodge of markings on the blade that consisted of runes, Berber, Ogham and Greek characters.
In the Khyber, they were stamping EIC markings on gun locks through the 19th and well into the 20th century.

It sounds like you and Gene have both encountered these 'EIC' or 'EIG' marked tulwars, so they must be out there in some number. Who knows, maybe during the changeover, some armoury smith who hadn't gotten the memo kept using his old EIC stamp. Its been known to happen

All the best,
Jim

napoleon · 20th February 2014, 10:43 PM

firstly love the rule,secondly are these stamps considered genuine?and do they only occur on tulwars?

Jim McDougall · 21st February 2014, 04:44 AM

Hi Napoleon,
It is always interesting to see these older threads come up, and I only vaguely recall the detail here, but in rereading the posts it seems that no conclusive or definitive answers resulted on these markings

I would point out that the discussion brought in similar markings which occurred on various arms which included tulwars.

In research on EIC markings back in the 1990s I did find out that the East India Company did not mark sword blades. The only edged weapons with such balemarks were bayonets, and the locks of firearms were so marked.

I have recently found information which shows East India Govt. pre WWI as using stamps with E -arrow-G
After that : I arrow G
Indian inspection marks were IG over inspectors number

I believe this information probably pertained to bayonets and firearms but unclear on swords.

I would like to see more examples or data on these triangle and EIG stamps as they seem to have inadequate substantiation to have been legitimately applied, their rather haphazard, incomplete and inconsistent nature notwithstanding. The letter 'C' instead of 'G' seems telling.

28th November 2010, 08:28 PM	#1
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, 12:31 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,900	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, 02:43 AM	#3
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.

29th November 2010, 05:16 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,900	LOL! Yup, ya done got me OK! As they say here in TX. According to my wife, I do say things uh, 'off center' a lot, so not surprised for any miscommunication. The spurious marks thing is actually pretty much a tradition with trade blades and typically many native made blades....and for that matter throughout Europe. Look at the fabled maker Andrea Ferara, who had to have been immortal to have made thousands of blades for nearly 300 years! (no I am not saying there really was such a guy) I recently read of a blade probably from India, with a hodgepodge of markings on the blade that consisted of runes, Berber, Ogham and Greek characters. In the Khyber, they were stamping EIC markings on gun locks through the 19th and well into the 20th century. It sounds like you and Gene have both encountered these 'EIC' or 'EIG' marked tulwars, so they must be out there in some number. Who knows, maybe during the changeover, some armoury smith who hadn't gotten the memo kept using his old EIC stamp. Its been known to happen All the best, Jim

20th February 2014, 10:43 PM	#5
napoleon Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 88	firstly love the rule,secondly are these stamps considered genuine?and do they only occur on tulwars?

21st February 2014, 04:44 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,900	Hi Napoleon, It is always interesting to see these older threads come up, and I only vaguely recall the detail here, but in rereading the posts it seems that no conclusive or definitive answers resulted on these markings I would point out that the discussion brought in similar markings which occurred on various arms which included tulwars. In research on EIC markings back in the 1990s I did find out that the East India Company did not mark sword blades. The only edged weapons with such balemarks were bayonets, and the locks of firearms were so marked. I have recently found information which shows East India Govt. pre WWI as using stamps with E -arrow-G After that : I arrow G Indian inspection marks were IG over inspectors number I believe this information probably pertained to bayonets and firearms but unclear on swords. I would like to see more examples or data on these triangle and EIG stamps as they seem to have inadequate substantiation to have been legitimately applied, their rather haphazard, incomplete and inconsistent nature notwithstanding. The letter 'C' instead of 'G' seems telling.