Question about a briquet

Jim McDougall · 28th February 2010, 07:22 PM

Hi Mark,
Absolutely well done there Holmes!!! Now we have a conundrum

First of all, case in point are the two catalog dealers noted. The Fagan catalogs I can recall from my early collecting days, and Fredericks I knew later. Obviously, these guys have been in business for many, many decades, so clearly they must have boundless knowledge on the countless weapons they have handled. However, everyone makes 'misteakes'

and many of these type catalogs by some dealers presented often carried adventurous and selectively worded descriptions, not always entirely accurate, which I always much enjoyed as I read them with much younger and romanticized eyes.
As I mentioned earlier, for me in those days, a briquet certainly must have been a 'pirate' weapon, and anything with curved heavy blade must have been a cutlass.........or a 'scimitar'!!!

Gilkerson is an outstanding reference, but in looking at the 'naval' issue item at far left (attached) notice that the knuckleguard is different than the 'P' guards of the artillery swords, the quillon extends out further, and most apparant is the stepped type pommel cap rather than the strap type seen on the artillery sabres. Clearly the M1804 cutlass with the double disc guards was well emplaced at the time, but I think he has taken a wide berth with suggesting that 'flat' hilt type 'cutlasses' were special made for ships with less storage. I would like to see more substantiation on that, and the single example seen appears 'one off' until I see others like it. It is interesting that the blade on this example in Gilkerson is fullered.

Getting to the examples you have noted :
#44410 may present that evidence as it does have the GR blade which corresponds to some variants of the M1804 with straight, flat blades of similar length about 29". It should be noted it has the langet, and the P type guard.........but the pommel is of the strap type of the mountain artillery type swords. In my opinion this is correctly identified by M Long as an artillery sword, but the fact that this seems to be an old naval blade, probably M1804 brings the question of why it is on this sword. It seems unusual that such an anomaly would be missed by this well experienced dealer, especially when that would profoundly enhance the value of this weapon.

#88275 (I do not see the GR here) but the hilt is similar, the blade is much shorter (19.5") and flat. The langets again are present and the hilt seems of artillery type. It is marked to Reeves & Co. which would be Charles Reeves of Birmingham who was in business in the latter 1820's producing military swords. In 1853 it was his innovative hilt patent for the M1853 cavalry sabre hilt. Charles III, the source of the 'GR' cypher on the cutlass blades died in 1820. Thus, I would presume this to be a much later example than the first.

These are both, in my opinion, correctly identified as artillery swords, but the first one with what seems to be a naval type blade certainly would present the plausiblity of its being a cutlass, coupled with the Gilkerson note.

It is important to note here that these cast iron ribbed grips with brass guards were used throughout the 19th century, as seen by the hospital corps swords of c.1861, though a guard bar has been added, note the langet is now gone. We note that the simple strap type attachment of the guard to the pommel prevails, the use of brass and the cheap cast iron grip as well. These type grips seen on the well documented M1804 cutlasses were used on other corps type swords as well as I believe customs swords and of course the artillery swords. The P type guard on the mountain artillery units are said to have already been in use with these ersatz units before they were formally organized in the 1850's.
The illustration of the example (with green backdrop) is my own, and you will see it is mounted with a M1796 cavalry blade, as were commonly in use throughout the Raj at the time. It has the familiar langet, suggesting that other similar hilts were in use by artillery units of the time.

It is my opinion, that the example you acquired is of later date than the 'cutlasses' suggested by Gilkerson, and most likely a mid to latter 19th century mountain artillery (as concurred in the Old Sword examples, the one example may well have used an old cutlass blade as these were available as surplus blades)...or perhaps other type...there were police sabres in issue in these times as well. Parker Field & Co. were purveyors of the police hangers and may well have used such hilts to mount blades.

To say again the old quote once given to me in trying to identify a Sikh sword, "...if it was used by a Sikh, then it is a Sikh sword". We already know that private purchase weapons were quite commonly used, so it is really hard to say what is naval and what isnt. For me, the allusions often presented in some sale catalogs and the suggestion with further detail by Gilkerson do not present enough evidence to presume that the swords classified as mountain artillery may actually have been cutlasses. It should be noted that these simple brass P guard hilts with cast ribbed grips were still in use by some Indian units as late as WWII.

I hope this might offer at least some worthwhile evidence to consider, but in any case was fun to review. Its been a long time since Ive looked at the old mountain artillery sabre, and seeing the photo was like seeing an old friend!!

All the best,
Jim

Jim McDougall · 28th February 2010, 07:32 PM

Pictures didnt attach,
Here is my mountain artillery w/ M1796 blade and the page from Gilkerson on the left. Note the more straight 'D' guard stirrup and the stepped pommel.

Jim McDougall · 28th February 2010, 10:41 PM

Adding to what I have already posted, I began wondering if perhaps there might have been coast guard or customs swords issued that might account for the simple stirrup hilt examples.
Again Gilkerson's reference simply acknowledges that private purchase cutlasses were well known, and in the examples shown in the plate (I) three of the deeper guard types are easily assessed as cutlasses. To me it is unclear why the D guard example, which corresponds to cavalry sabres of the period, would be deemed a cutlass except for the use of the cast iron grip.

I think an important clue might be found in Robson ("Swords of the British Army" 1975, p.163) in the text associated with the army Hospital Corps sword (plate 171) in my previous post. Here Robson notes that the privates of this corps carried a most curious sword, which was "...identical to that originally issued to the Coast Guard, and it is possible that the Hospital Corps was equipped with existing stocks of Coast Guard swords".

It is important to not that 'identical' suggests that the Hospital Corps type brass guard with cast iron grip, NO langet, and a additional quillon wrapping around to the knuckleguard might have been the form for the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard was originally the 'Preventative Water Guard' which was loosely initiated around 1809, and by 1821 was attached to the Board of Customs. In 1822, the department was officially organized as the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard's stores of 'cutlasses' which presumably were these single quilloned brass guard swords noted as either of the type, or the actual swords issued to the Hospital Corps is unclear. However, it would seem to point out that, excepting a variant pattern, Coast Guard swords had an extra quillon and no langet. Why would these have been issued to the Hospital Corps? and what was the Coast Guard to use? In 1845 there were new pattern sheet steel bowl guard type cutlasses issued, but there seems a great deal of confusion on the actual events and issue with these. This may have replaced the existing Coast Guard swords for issue elsewhere.

Returning to the straight blade with GR marking on the blade found on the P guard artillery sword. Gilkerson (p.83) notes that cutlass blades were purchased from Solingen and hilted in England, and may be the derivation of the Royal Cypher found on later mounted machetes with these Solingen blades. This may well account for how this blade may have ended up on the artillery sword previously posted. The only way to determine if it had actually been on a British naval cutlass of the period would be the crowned acceptance stamp would be present.

I hope this might better explain the basis for my opinion on the sword originally posted here, and as always look forward to further views.

All the best,
Jim

M ELEY · 1st March 2010, 07:45 AM

Hello, Jim and thank you so much for this thoroughly indepth response to my question. It was exactly what I had hoped for, but wasn't sure if I would be able to elicit from this sketchy field of collecting. I in no way meant to really question that it was a mountaineer sword, but to seek closure on this "quazi-naval appearing weapon" (

). Your response was excellent and well-documented. I can't believe I hadn't noticed the subtle differences in the P-shaped knuckle bow and even in the langets. This puts to rest in my mind that until stronger proof presents itself with these swords, their naval use remains foggy. Thus, I will probably avoid them for now. I am saving your response because for me, this clarifies the issue much. Thanks again!

Dmitry · 26th April 2010, 01:55 AM

The hanger with the iron grip pictured above would certainly have a shot at maritime provenance. Were it in my collection, I would have described it as a cutlass, if not on official crown business, then a privateer, coast guard, or a merchant marine weapon.

M ELEY · 26th April 2010, 07:21 AM

Hello Dmitry. Yes, this one is still a mystery, as both forms look extremely similar and perhaps the naval pattern went on to become the mountaineer sword. Besides the example of the ribbed iron-hilt listed in both of Gilkerson's books listed as "naval", there is another of the same pattern appearing in "Navies of the American Revolution" by Preston,Lyon and Batchlor. Until more is written on these types or unless the sword itself has provenance, I think this remains a fuzzy area.

If anyone has a copy of Boarders Away II out there and a scanner, the arms chest on pg 189 again has this sword stored away with other weapons. Could they send us the pic here to open the discussion further? This chest is also not clear as to where it was used, but Gilkerson does explain why he believed it to be naval.

Dmitry · 26th April 2010, 02:49 PM

This type of a weapon would have been the cheapest to make and take care of, just what the plethora of ocean-borne ships, from the customs gun boats to the merchant marines would have carried - inexpensive, doesn't take much room, and is easy to scrub clean.

Dmitry · 18th August 2010, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

If anyone has a copy of Boarders Away II out there and a scanner, the arms chest on pg 189 again has this sword stored away with other weapons. Could they send us the pic here to open the discussion further? This chest is also not clear as to where it was used, but Gilkerson does explain why he believed it to be naval.

Little-known fact - the naval attribution of that chest of arms was contested and disproved in a lengthy article in one of the Royal Armouries Yearbooks; I forget for which year, but I can find out.

28th February 2010, 07:22 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Hi Mark, Absolutely well done there Holmes!!! Now we have a conundrum First of all, case in point are the two catalog dealers noted. The Fagan catalogs I can recall from my early collecting days, and Fredericks I knew later. Obviously, these guys have been in business for many, many decades, so clearly they must have boundless knowledge on the countless weapons they have handled. However, everyone makes 'misteakes' and many of these type catalogs by some dealers presented often carried adventurous and selectively worded descriptions, not always entirely accurate, which I always much enjoyed as I read them with much younger and romanticized eyes. As I mentioned earlier, for me in those days, a briquet certainly must have been a 'pirate' weapon, and anything with curved heavy blade must have been a cutlass.........or a 'scimitar'!!! Gilkerson is an outstanding reference, but in looking at the 'naval' issue item at far left (attached) notice that the knuckleguard is different than the 'P' guards of the artillery swords, the quillon extends out further, and most apparant is the stepped type pommel cap rather than the strap type seen on the artillery sabres. Clearly the M1804 cutlass with the double disc guards was well emplaced at the time, but I think he has taken a wide berth with suggesting that 'flat' hilt type 'cutlasses' were special made for ships with less storage. I would like to see more substantiation on that, and the single example seen appears 'one off' until I see others like it. It is interesting that the blade on this example in Gilkerson is fullered. Getting to the examples you have noted : #44410 may present that evidence as it does have the GR blade which corresponds to some variants of the M1804 with straight, flat blades of similar length about 29". It should be noted it has the langet, and the P type guard.........but the pommel is of the strap type of the mountain artillery type swords. In my opinion this is correctly identified by M Long as an artillery sword, but the fact that this seems to be an old naval blade, probably M1804 brings the question of why it is on this sword. It seems unusual that such an anomaly would be missed by this well experienced dealer, especially when that would profoundly enhance the value of this weapon. #88275 (I do not see the GR here) but the hilt is similar, the blade is much shorter (19.5") and flat. The langets again are present and the hilt seems of artillery type. It is marked to Reeves & Co. which would be Charles Reeves of Birmingham who was in business in the latter 1820's producing military swords. In 1853 it was his innovative hilt patent for the M1853 cavalry sabre hilt. Charles III, the source of the 'GR' cypher on the cutlass blades died in 1820. Thus, I would presume this to be a much later example than the first. These are both, in my opinion, correctly identified as artillery swords, but the first one with what seems to be a naval type blade certainly would present the plausiblity of its being a cutlass, coupled with the Gilkerson note. It is important to note here that these cast iron ribbed grips with brass guards were used throughout the 19th century, as seen by the hospital corps swords of c.1861, though a guard bar has been added, note the langet is now gone. We note that the simple strap type attachment of the guard to the pommel prevails, the use of brass and the cheap cast iron grip as well. These type grips seen on the well documented M1804 cutlasses were used on other corps type swords as well as I believe customs swords and of course the artillery swords. The P type guard on the mountain artillery units are said to have already been in use with these ersatz units before they were formally organized in the 1850's. The illustration of the example (with green backdrop) is my own, and you will see it is mounted with a M1796 cavalry blade, as were commonly in use throughout the Raj at the time. It has the familiar langet, suggesting that other similar hilts were in use by artillery units of the time. It is my opinion, that the example you acquired is of later date than the 'cutlasses' suggested by Gilkerson, and most likely a mid to latter 19th century mountain artillery (as concurred in the Old Sword examples, the one example may well have used an old cutlass blade as these were available as surplus blades)...or perhaps other type...there were police sabres in issue in these times as well. Parker Field & Co. were purveyors of the police hangers and may well have used such hilts to mount blades. To say again the old quote once given to me in trying to identify a Sikh sword, "...if it was used by a Sikh, then it is a Sikh sword". We already know that private purchase weapons were quite commonly used, so it is really hard to say what is naval and what isnt. For me, the allusions often presented in some sale catalogs and the suggestion with further detail by Gilkerson do not present enough evidence to presume that the swords classified as mountain artillery may actually have been cutlasses. It should be noted that these simple brass P guard hilts with cast ribbed grips were still in use by some Indian units as late as WWII. I hope this might offer at least some worthwhile evidence to consider, but in any case was fun to review. Its been a long time since Ive looked at the old mountain artillery sabre, and seeing the photo was like seeing an old friend!! All the best, Jim Attached Images Last edited by Jim McDougall; 28th February 2010 at 08:03 PM.

28th February 2010, 07:32 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Pictures didnt attach, Here is my mountain artillery w/ M1796 blade and the page from Gilkerson on the left. Note the more straight 'D' guard stirrup and the stepped pommel. Attached Images

28th February 2010, 10:41 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Adding to what I have already posted, I began wondering if perhaps there might have been coast guard or customs swords issued that might account for the simple stirrup hilt examples. Again Gilkerson's reference simply acknowledges that private purchase cutlasses were well known, and in the examples shown in the plate (I) three of the deeper guard types are easily assessed as cutlasses. To me it is unclear why the D guard example, which corresponds to cavalry sabres of the period, would be deemed a cutlass except for the use of the cast iron grip. I think an important clue might be found in Robson ("Swords of the British Army" 1975, p.163) in the text associated with the army Hospital Corps sword (plate 171) in my previous post. Here Robson notes that the privates of this corps carried a most curious sword, which was "...identical to that originally issued to the Coast Guard, and it is possible that the Hospital Corps was equipped with existing stocks of Coast Guard swords". It is important to not that 'identical' suggests that the Hospital Corps type brass guard with cast iron grip, NO langet, and a additional quillon wrapping around to the knuckleguard might have been the form for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard was originally the 'Preventative Water Guard' which was loosely initiated around 1809, and by 1821 was attached to the Board of Customs. In 1822, the department was officially organized as the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's stores of 'cutlasses' which presumably were these single quilloned brass guard swords noted as either of the type, or the actual swords issued to the Hospital Corps is unclear. However, it would seem to point out that, excepting a variant pattern, Coast Guard swords had an extra quillon and no langet. Why would these have been issued to the Hospital Corps? and what was the Coast Guard to use? In 1845 there were new pattern sheet steel bowl guard type cutlasses issued, but there seems a great deal of confusion on the actual events and issue with these. This may have replaced the existing Coast Guard swords for issue elsewhere. Returning to the straight blade with GR marking on the blade found on the P guard artillery sword. Gilkerson (p.83) notes that cutlass blades were purchased from Solingen and hilted in England, and may be the derivation of the Royal Cypher found on later mounted machetes with these Solingen blades. This may well account for how this blade may have ended up on the artillery sword previously posted. The only way to determine if it had actually been on a British naval cutlass of the period would be the crowned acceptance stamp would be present. I hope this might better explain the basis for my opinion on the sword originally posted here, and as always look forward to further views. All the best, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 1st March 2010 at 07:36 PM.

26th April 2010, 07:21 AM	#6
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	Hello Dmitry. Yes, this one is still a mystery, as both forms look extremely similar and perhaps the naval pattern went on to become the mountaineer sword. Besides the example of the ribbed iron-hilt listed in both of Gilkerson's books listed as "naval", there is another of the same pattern appearing in "Navies of the American Revolution" by Preston,Lyon and Batchlor. Until more is written on these types or unless the sword itself has provenance, I think this remains a fuzzy area. If anyone has a copy of Boarders Away II out there and a scanner, the arms chest on pg 189 again has this sword stored away with other weapons. Could they send us the pic here to open the discussion further? This chest is also not clear as to where it was used, but Gilkerson does explain why he believed it to be naval. Last edited by M ELEY; 26th April 2010 at 07:37 AM.

1st March 2010, 07:45 AM	#4
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	Hello, Jim and thank you so much for this thoroughly indepth response to my question. It was exactly what I had hoped for, but wasn't sure if I would be able to elicit from this sketchy field of collecting. I in no way meant to really question that it was a mountaineer sword, but to seek closure on this "quazi-naval appearing weapon" ( ). Your response was excellent and well-documented. I can't believe I hadn't noticed the subtle differences in the P-shaped knuckle bow and even in the langets. This puts to rest in my mind that until stronger proof presents itself with these swords, their naval use remains foggy. Thus, I will probably avoid them for now. I am saving your response because for me, this clarifies the issue much. Thanks again!

26th April 2010, 01:55 AM	#5
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	The hanger with the iron grip pictured above would certainly have a shot at maritime provenance. Were it in my collection, I would have described it as a cutlass, if not on official crown business, then a privateer, coast guard, or a merchant marine weapon.

26th April 2010, 02:49 PM	#7
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	This type of a weapon would have been the cheapest to make and take care of, just what the plethora of ocean-borne ships, from the customs gun boats to the merchant marines would have carried - inexpensive, doesn't take much room, and is easy to scrub clean.