Question about a briquet

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.

M ELEY · 26th April 2010, 04:55 PM

I agree with you there. Likewise, the fact that the original example doesn't have the langets that the other mountineer swords have seems to indicate a very similar, but not exact type. Would be nice to someday see a marked or positively identified model, though.

The one I reference in Gilkerson's, volume II looks exactly like Jim's sword even with the langets. Boarder's Away 2 says that this pine weapons locker wasn't marked to prove naval usage, but everything else about it, from its construction to its compactness, says maritime. This locker's weapons are not marked per gov't usage, but as you point out, they were more than likely privateer/private purchase. The thing that's interesting about this locker with it's matching sword to Jim's is that even if one were to rationalize that it was made for the mountaineer troops (matching sword pattern) is that the rifles and other articles in the same cache date to the 1820-35 period, long before the m1896, so thus we have a mystery...

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.

M ELEY · 20th August 2010, 09:13 AM

Thanks, Dmitry. I was wondering if anyone else had questioned that chest. Too bad for the Smithsonian, but perhaps it was for a Mountain Artillery unit as first suggested? In any case, I think its safe to say that many of the so-called private purchase naval weapons will remain either unclassified or of a questionable state. Too bad, as I find this area of collecting both fascinating and frustrating.

Case in point-
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT

I believe this sword that just ended is the real deal, but I'm having trouble deciding if it were made earlier and re-stamped in Victoria's reign or if it really was made post 1840 perhaps as a merchantman's protection from hostile boarders (espec if they were sailing off the Malay/African/E Indian coast). The guard on this one is the classic sheet iron type as seen in Gilkerson's 'Boarders Away' as private purchase. Another troubling thing about this sword (whose blade resembles the later Brit m1812) is that it's guard is like the sword I purchased. Mine as a similar crown with weak R under it and possibly a very faded V (VR). my sword has the straight blade usually attributed to pre-1815, so thus this marking is discouraging to me, unless spurious or added later. In truth, my sword is in excellent condition except for this weak marking, making me suspect it was "reissued" later in life during the later period. Opinions on this marking/sword/reissuance?

Dmitry · 20th August 2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

I believe this sword that just ended is the real deal,

Sorry, but I don't..

David R · 25th October 2013, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmitry

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.

Apparently the chest was the "Estate Arms Chest" for a wealthy magnate during the Chartist period in the UK.....

Morgan · 31st March 2014, 11:17 PM

I am piggy backing on this thread because one of the patterns of briquet pictured here interest me as well. Here are some more pics of what might be a german briquet. It has only unit markings on the bottom of the hilt, and also a fullered blade. I have heard that the Russians and Spanish had fullered blade on their briquets sometimes. It has the narrower, less rounded version of the knuckle-guard.There are only 26 ribs on the grip by the way.

28th February 2010, 10:41 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,470	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	#4
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	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.

20th August 2010, 09:13 AM	#8
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	Thanks, Dmitry. I was wondering if anyone else had questioned that chest. Too bad for the Smithsonian, but perhaps it was for a Mountain Artillery unit as first suggested? In any case, I think its safe to say that many of the so-called private purchase naval weapons will remain either unclassified or of a questionable state. Too bad, as I find this area of collecting both fascinating and frustrating. Case in point- http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT I believe this sword that just ended is the real deal, but I'm having trouble deciding if it were made earlier and re-stamped in Victoria's reign or if it really was made post 1840 perhaps as a merchantman's protection from hostile boarders (espec if they were sailing off the Malay/African/E Indian coast). The guard on this one is the classic sheet iron type as seen in Gilkerson's 'Boarders Away' as private purchase. Another troubling thing about this sword (whose blade resembles the later Brit m1812) is that it's guard is like the sword I purchased. Mine as a similar crown with weak R under it and possibly a very faded V (VR). my sword has the straight blade usually attributed to pre-1815, so thus this marking is discouraging to me, unless spurious or added later. In truth, my sword is in excellent condition except for this weak marking, making me suspect it was "reissued" later in life during the later period. Opinions on this marking/sword/reissuance? Last edited by M ELEY; 20th August 2010 at 09:51 AM.

31st March 2014, 11:17 PM	#11
Morgan Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 3	Briquet! I am piggy backing on this thread because one of the patterns of briquet pictured here interest me as well. Here are some more pics of what might be a german briquet. It has only unit markings on the bottom of the hilt, and also a fullered blade. I have heard that the Russians and Spanish had fullered blade on their briquets sometimes. It has the narrower, less rounded version of the knuckle-guard.There are only 26 ribs on the grip by the way. Attached Images

1st March 2010, 07:45 AM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	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	#3
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	#5
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.

26th April 2010, 04:55 PM	#6
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	I agree with you there. Likewise, the fact that the original example doesn't have the langets that the other mountineer swords have seems to indicate a very similar, but not exact type. Would be nice to someday see a marked or positively identified model, though. The one I reference in Gilkerson's, volume II looks exactly like Jim's sword even with the langets. Boarder's Away 2 says that this pine weapons locker wasn't marked to prove naval usage, but everything else about it, from its construction to its compactness, says maritime. This locker's weapons are not marked per gov't usage, but as you point out, they were more than likely privateer/private purchase. The thing that's interesting about this locker with it's matching sword to Jim's is that even if one were to rationalize that it was made for the mountaineer troops (matching sword pattern) is that the rifles and other articles in the same cache date to the 1820-35 period, long before the m1896, so thus we have a mystery...