The lowly (?) briquet, a story of resolution

Bryce · 6th October 2020, 03:46 AM

Here is an excerpt of a journal article from the 70's which also sheds some more light on this subject. The authors were calling this sword the "Prussian" pattern sword. I would like to find where the name "Spanish Pattern" came from.
Cheers,
Bryce

Jim McDougall · 6th October 2020, 07:01 AM

Wow! Bryce! This is brilliant!!!!
I have never heard of this article before, but in those days long back, I was focused on other conundrums, not realizing this solitary briquet was a resounding one itself! I thought it was identified as much as it was going to be and my interests were in British cavalry swords.

This material is truly unbelievable and FULLY explains how Wilkinson-Latham came to this British foot artillery description on this briquet. The article here mentions the briquet dilemma beginning with Charles Ffoulkes in his seeing a number of these in the Tower with date 1830, and simply presumed they were British as they were in the Tower!!!

So here's the deal, Wilkinson-Latham's father was close friends with Ffoulkes, and in fact it was he that presented young John with a copy of his 1937 book.
If John was so influenced by Ffoulkes, then quite plausibly this was the source of his own identification of the briquet.

Clearly no true research had been done on these weapons carried by the foot artillery so this seemed a reasonable solution.

When I mentioned the 1971 Wilkinson-Latham book, I noted that the briquet was plate 28, again labeled foot artillery gunners hanger (with the 1830 date that Ffoulkes had seen on the Tower examples). But, most bizarre is plate 27, listed as a foot artillery hanger c. 1760!!!!
I thought this was totally wrong as its a M1751 infantry hanger, even with Samuel Harvey's bushy tail fox!

But right there in this article, its says the foot artillery was carrying the M1751!!!!

Then to the mysterious Prussian pattern, and the brass hilt swords (which seem to be the 'Spanish' pattern') and are (to me) remarkably similar to the so called M1780 light cavalry sword.
As you note, they were in use before the Peninsular war (1807).
Wooley and Deakin ceased as partners in 1803 (I think there are some questions on this date).

Whatever the case, it seems you have soundly resolved the 'British' briquet dilemma, and while a bit disappointed, I am relieved to have the correct answer.
BUT, now what do I do with the PS mystery?
With all the confusion with the swords in this time, it seems there is always the chance that some obscure dealing could have initiated the briquet in an off one off grouping, but to say 'tenuous' would be an understatement

At this point, I totally accept that the British briquet is a myth derived from a misperception, apparently by Charles Ffoulkes in the 1930s. That is actually good to know, but NOW.....
Who WAS PS??????????? Was it Storr???? and WHY a briquet?\

The plot thickens here at SWORD MYSTERY THEATER!!!!

There goes my case of Drambuie, but I think a dram now.

Bryce · 24th April 2021, 06:01 AM

G'day Jim,
Here is the rest of the article on artillery swords.
Cheers,
Bryce

Jim McDougall · 26th April 2021, 06:29 PM

Bryce,
Thank you so much for adding the rest of this most salient article.
What I find confusing, much as the authors support, is just what was the 'Prussian' pattern? It seems the 'Spanish pattern' was indeed very much of the 'sword bayonet' form, and the Dundas was like the pioneer type swords similar in appearance but with saw back.

It appears to confusion concerning these 'foot artillery' gunners hangers/briquets began with Charles Ffoulkes, the writer on British arms, who saw several of these in the Tower, and presumed them 'British' being in that context. However, as has been noted, not one of these in the form of mine (orig post) reflects any acceptance marks as would be standard with such other ranks weapons.

The apparent assumption was adopted by Claude Blair "European and American Arms" (1962) in a line drawing; from there perpetuated by John Wilkinson-Latham in his book on British military swords (1966). The date presumed with these was 1830, probably based on the fact that the name 'Trotter' is thought to be on the blade. Thomas Trotter was a military outfitter and supplier of swords etc. in 1820s-30.

Returning to Paul Storr. He registered his own mark in 1793, coincidental with the beginnings of hostilities with France, which culminated in the Napoleonic wars in 1803. While he worked for the firm of Rundell & Bridge, who had contracts for the Royal House, George III and his son, the Prince of Wales (later George IV), he wished to keep his own identity and ran his own factory in Soho.
In the early 1790s, the Trotter firm was a prevalent supplier of military supply and materials, who were also situated in Soho.

King George, and his son, were both keen on military matters, and while focused on the elite aspects of cavalry and fashion, were certainly aware of the ever present forboding over the possibility of French invasion. There was a certain bolstering of the military as well as militia type units.
While Rundell & Bridge as well as Storr, were busily fashioning fancy silver wares for the Royal Collections, is it not possible a very limited order of briquets, following French (and Prussian?) design might have been commissioned. We know that George designed and ordered special swords for his own 10th Hussars, the regiment for his son the Prince of Wales.

While this unusual sword, stamped with the PS cartouche (Paul Storr?) in the manner used by other maker of fine sword hilts Francis Thurkle (FT) in the same type square. ....has no acceptance marks.....it seems possible that a short run of such weapons MIGHT have happened. While such 'cartouches' were typically used on wares of precious metal, Thurkle is noted to have used his regardless of the metal used in the object.

While Storr is listed in Bezdek as a 'hilt maker' in addition to his primary functions as silversmith and goldsmith........he does not appear in Southwick, which of course lists makers of silver hilts (as Thurkle does appear).
It is noted that during the wars with France (1793-1815) the 'war effort' reached into all trade and industry, with those businesses extending their efforts and production into the sphere of military supply as required.

Though it would seem to strain the parameters of coincidence that I may have acquired such an item by such an important maker in such mundane circumstances, I will add here that I do have one of the 'special' sabers designed and ordered for the Prince of Wales 10th Hussars c,. 1807, one of the 27 in original order (these never exceeded a total of 70-90 swords by 1821). Is it possible that the Royal House, patrons of Storr, might have placed a special order for these briquets (of which none apparently survive except this one) in the same manner as the rare 10th Hussars sabers.

These circumstances by the fact that there is no identifiable record of this pattern for foot artillery gunners in the dismal records concerning the other ranks for artillery, as well as that these kind of weapons were probably melted down for the brass, suggests the potential rarity of this item. Naturally this idea is admittedly fanciful, but in my view warrants further scrutiny.

I look forward to ideas, observations, and of course rebuttals to further discuss.

6th October 2020, 03:46 AM	#1
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 189	Here is an excerpt of a journal article from the 70's which also sheds some more light on this subject. The authors were calling this sword the "Prussian" pattern sword. I would like to find where the name "Spanish Pattern" came from. Cheers, Bryce Attached Images

24th April 2021, 06:01 AM	#3
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 189	G'day Jim, Here is the rest of the article on artillery swords. Cheers, Bryce Attached Images

6th October 2020, 07:01 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Wow! Bryce! This is brilliant!!!! I have never heard of this article before, but in those days long back, I was focused on other conundrums, not realizing this solitary briquet was a resounding one itself! I thought it was identified as much as it was going to be and my interests were in British cavalry swords. This material is truly unbelievable and FULLY explains how Wilkinson-Latham came to this British foot artillery description on this briquet. The article here mentions the briquet dilemma beginning with Charles Ffoulkes in his seeing a number of these in the Tower with date 1830, and simply presumed they were British as they were in the Tower!!! So here's the deal, Wilkinson-Latham's father was close friends with Ffoulkes, and in fact it was he that presented young John with a copy of his 1937 book. If John was so influenced by Ffoulkes, then quite plausibly this was the source of his own identification of the briquet. Clearly no true research had been done on these weapons carried by the foot artillery so this seemed a reasonable solution. When I mentioned the 1971 Wilkinson-Latham book, I noted that the briquet was plate 28, again labeled foot artillery gunners hanger (with the 1830 date that Ffoulkes had seen on the Tower examples). But, most bizarre is plate 27, listed as a foot artillery hanger c. 1760!!!! I thought this was totally wrong as its a M1751 infantry hanger, even with Samuel Harvey's bushy tail fox! But right there in this article, its says the foot artillery was carrying the M1751!!!! Then to the mysterious Prussian pattern, and the brass hilt swords (which seem to be the 'Spanish' pattern') and are (to me) remarkably similar to the so called M1780 light cavalry sword. As you note, they were in use before the Peninsular war (1807). Wooley and Deakin ceased as partners in 1803 (I think there are some questions on this date). Whatever the case, it seems you have soundly resolved the 'British' briquet dilemma, and while a bit disappointed, I am relieved to have the correct answer. BUT, now what do I do with the PS mystery? With all the confusion with the swords in this time, it seems there is always the chance that some obscure dealing could have initiated the briquet in an off one off grouping, but to say 'tenuous' would be an understatement At this point, I totally accept that the British briquet is a myth derived from a misperception, apparently by Charles Ffoulkes in the 1930s. That is actually good to know, but NOW..... Who WAS PS??????????? Was it Storr???? and WHY a briquet?\ The plot thickens here at SWORD MYSTERY THEATER!!!! There goes my case of Drambuie, but I think a dram now.

26th April 2021, 06:29 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Bryce, Thank you so much for adding the rest of this most salient article. What I find confusing, much as the authors support, is just what was the 'Prussian' pattern? It seems the 'Spanish pattern' was indeed very much of the 'sword bayonet' form, and the Dundas was like the pioneer type swords similar in appearance but with saw back. It appears to confusion concerning these 'foot artillery' gunners hangers/briquets began with Charles Ffoulkes, the writer on British arms, who saw several of these in the Tower, and presumed them 'British' being in that context. However, as has been noted, not one of these in the form of mine (orig post) reflects any acceptance marks as would be standard with such other ranks weapons. The apparent assumption was adopted by Claude Blair "European and American Arms" (1962) in a line drawing; from there perpetuated by John Wilkinson-Latham in his book on British military swords (1966). The date presumed with these was 1830, probably based on the fact that the name 'Trotter' is thought to be on the blade. Thomas Trotter was a military outfitter and supplier of swords etc. in 1820s-30. Returning to Paul Storr. He registered his own mark in 1793, coincidental with the beginnings of hostilities with France, which culminated in the Napoleonic wars in 1803. While he worked for the firm of Rundell & Bridge, who had contracts for the Royal House, George III and his son, the Prince of Wales (later George IV), he wished to keep his own identity and ran his own factory in Soho. In the early 1790s, the Trotter firm was a prevalent supplier of military supply and materials, who were also situated in Soho. King George, and his son, were both keen on military matters, and while focused on the elite aspects of cavalry and fashion, were certainly aware of the ever present forboding over the possibility of French invasion. There was a certain bolstering of the military as well as militia type units. While Rundell & Bridge as well as Storr, were busily fashioning fancy silver wares for the Royal Collections, is it not possible a very limited order of briquets, following French (and Prussian?) design might have been commissioned. We know that George designed and ordered special swords for his own 10th Hussars, the regiment for his son the Prince of Wales. While this unusual sword, stamped with the PS cartouche (Paul Storr?) in the manner used by other maker of fine sword hilts Francis Thurkle (FT) in the same type square. ....has no acceptance marks.....it seems possible that a short run of such weapons MIGHT have happened. While such 'cartouches' were typically used on wares of precious metal, Thurkle is noted to have used his regardless of the metal used in the object. While Storr is listed in Bezdek as a 'hilt maker' in addition to his primary functions as silversmith and goldsmith........he does not appear in Southwick, which of course lists makers of silver hilts (as Thurkle does appear). It is noted that during the wars with France (1793-1815) the 'war effort' reached into all trade and industry, with those businesses extending their efforts and production into the sphere of military supply as required. Though it would seem to strain the parameters of coincidence that I may have acquired such an item by such an important maker in such mundane circumstances, I will add here that I do have one of the 'special' sabers designed and ordered for the Prince of Wales 10th Hussars c,. 1807, one of the 27 in original order (these never exceeded a total of 70-90 swords by 1821). Is it possible that the Royal House, patrons of Storr, might have placed a special order for these briquets (of which none apparently survive except this one) in the same manner as the rare 10th Hussars sabers. These circumstances by the fact that there is no identifiable record of this pattern for foot artillery gunners in the dismal records concerning the other ranks for artillery, as well as that these kind of weapons were probably melted down for the brass, suggests the potential rarity of this item. Naturally this idea is admittedly fanciful, but in my view warrants further scrutiny. I look forward to ideas, observations, and of course rebuttals to further discuss.