Question about a briquet

M ELEY · 24th February 2010, 07:46 AM

OK, against my better judgement (and finances) I bid on and won this auction. The sword I really wanted was the iron-hilted specimen ca.1810-30 period. The brass hilt briquet came with it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT

I know there is a whole area of study on these swords (Jean Binck, are you out there?!) and France, Russia, Spain, the Prussian republics, etc, all had their own types. This one lacks the Klingenthal or St Eteinne marks, any cyrillic markings or the classic 'Ano Toledo' marks found on Span pieces. I doubt its naval, as no anchor stamps or etchings on it, so I'm assuming infantry. My question is-

Does anyone recognise the odd markings on it?
Is it infantry?
Country of origin?
Time Frame?

The brass looks cleaned, but the blade seems old enough. Strange that the markings look more modern. Stamped later? No searches pulled up anything for 'WAR PD Wp CAS tl'

Thanks!

fernando · 24th February 2010, 12:50 PM

Warranted ? Cast Steel ?

Fernando

M ELEY · 24th February 2010, 01:40 PM

I had thought of something like that, but country of origin didn't seem to fit with this. I know the U.K. never went with the briquet, neither did the U.S. I have worries that this might be a modern piece. (I was even worried that the CAS could have stood for Cas Iberia, but I've found no proof that they used this mark).
Thank you, Fernando, for responding. I'll do a little research to see if your suggestion was used for these type swords.

fernando · 24th February 2010, 01:59 PM

I know the briquet didn't make the Brits taste; i was influenced by the 'WAR' composition, as it sort of sounds english ... to me

.
I can tell you that the letter 'W' isn't used in Spain or Portugal; neither in France, unless a few exceptions or borrowed names.
OTOH, the 'warranted cast steel' stamp is often seen in British tools ... for what this is worth.
I hope you sort it out, anyway; i die of anger each i don't manage to discern the meaning of marks in my stuff.
Fernando

M ELEY · 24th February 2010, 02:18 PM

Ah yes, the anguish of not being able to solve a mystery. I know it well

A quick search about crucible steel/forged steel shows that its been around since the 1780's, and the "warranted" stamp seems to have been used, as you say, on many tools of fine quality from around 1820 into the early 20th century. As the Brits didn't use these type swords, perhaps it is an American piece after all? If so, crucible steel didn't really start until the 1860's in the U.S. Interestingly, my source says that the tools that most frequently bore this mark were often ship carpenter tools...very interesting. Thanks again for the tip. I'll keep up the search.

Ian Knight · 24th February 2010, 02:34 PM

The sword with a cast handle is very similar to a British P1896 mountain artillery sword. See page 82 of 'British Military Swords' by H. Withers.

Ian

Jim McDougall · 24th February 2010, 04:20 PM

I think these examples are excellent for discussion as they represent two most puzzling conundrums in the world of regulation swords for other ranks and departmental or auxiliary units. In many ways they bring back great memories for me as these forms are among the first swords I ever collected many, MANY years ago!!

First of all the briquet. I bought one of these when I was just a very young collector and of course to me it looked every bit like a 'pirate sword' !! Visually, these type of swords had always been associated with the many 'Howard Pyle' style images of pirates (though he even used the showy brass bowl hilts of the Civil War naval swords for effect). The one I had was with a heavy unfullered wedge type blade, with two initials in the cast brass hilt in cartouche. At that time I had no idea I was to begin a lifetime voyage in the odyssey of studying antique arms, and as was typical, my quest in trying to learn more on this old briquet carried on intermittantly for literally decades.

I soon discovered that rather than being a pirate sword, or for that matter anything naval, this was an ordinary artillery sword of the early 19th century.
Actually I thought it was probably British, as the first book I ever identified one in was by Wilkinson I believe, then similar entries in Blair and others.
When Robson came out in 1975 ("British Military Swords" Brian Robson) he notes, "...in the early years of the 19th century ordinary artillerymen were armed with a short curved sword with straight brass knucklebow hilt, closely similar to the French infantry sword (briquet) of AnIX (1800-01) and AnXI (1802-03)".

In subsequent years, I discovered that these inexpensively produced cast brass hilt other ranks swords were used by virtually every European country, as well as many others and as often quipped in talks with other collectors 'the Martians probably even had 'em!'. These seem to have come in around the end of the 18th century, and opening of the 19th, and were used until about mid century. As for my own example, I finally determined by measurements etc. and the unusual flat blade, that it was Spanish colonial with hilt origin uncertain. In the amalgamated hybrid weapons found in Mexico I even found one of these with three bar cavalry guard, briquet hilt and a shortened 18th century Spanish dragoon blade with 'Spanish motto'.

With the apparantly old blade, the very blingy brass hilt and curious stamps mid blade, I might suggest this could have come out of the Bannerman empire of military surplus and antiquities of the 1930s I believe in New York. It seems they were adept at producing cast brass hilts and putting them with old blades, and the markings with some sort of inventory notation.

The other sabre, is in my impression indeed a mountain artillery gunners sabre from India, but not the M1896, which is described by Robson (p.153) as one of the "..rarest of all British military patterns". Another of my early 'conquests' was one of these, with the cast ribbed hilt and stirrup hilt guard, which like this, is flatter and cast in brass. The M1896 is a much deeper profiled sheet steel guard in somewhat of a shallow bowl type shape.
The mountain batteries were individual units that began in 1850 with the Hazara Mountain Train, followed by the Peshawar Mountain Train in 1853.
These mountain artillery units were outstanding examples of the innovation and colorful times of Kipling in the mountain passes of the Khyber in the 19th century, and by 1889 there were 8 units. Their guns were actually mobile in that they were dismantled and loaded onto pack horses.
With that I would consider this sabre relatively unique in its own right, as there cannot have been that many of these sabres in use, and it I understand correctly, they were typically carried only by havildars (sergeants). I believe there were numbers of these swords carried in various Indian units into WWII.

All in all, while not even remotely naval, both of these swords might be considered unique in thier own way. If the briquet turns out to be a Bannerman product it has its own place in Americana, in the early days of militaria collecting.
As for the mountain artillery sabre, it may well have begun its time in the historic passes of the Khyber and found its way into Burmese regions or other British areas where Indian regiments posted in WWII.

It seems that even in the most pedestrian instances with many weapons, they always have stories to tell

and as an old pirate hunter I know well that 'the treasure is in the hunt'!!!

All the best,
Jim

katana · 24th February 2010, 05:56 PM

Hi Mark
thought I'd post some of the auction pictures ....'tweaked' alittle to make them a little clearer

Regards David

.

M ELEY · 24th February 2010, 09:29 PM

Ouch! Well, I didn't have high hopes on the briquet to start with, BUT the iron hilted piece...now that one I truly believed to be naval. These have been listed as such in many of the Fagan, Frederick's Swords, etc, etc...
Live and learn, I guess. I'm not upset, though. As you say, Jim, the importance and fun is in the exploration. That being said, I'll probably move these through a friend of mine who collects that sort of thing. So, it's back to the search for the next mystery!

Oh, forgot to thank you, David, for tweeking the pics for me. It is appreciated!

celtan · 25th February 2010, 07:21 PM

I think your swords were the priced possession of someone, who liked them well enough as to bother polishing their brass to make them look "better".

As it is, all the swords of the 1816 type I have ever owned, have had a flat blade, never "wide" grooved. That by itself is interesting enough in yours.

FYE: Enclosed are a few related images from my menagerie. In fact, my sword in the Horstmann hanger thread is also a type of briquette, a combination of a brass cast hilt and steel blade.

M ELEY · 25th February 2010, 09:04 PM

Nice collection of hangers. I especially like the Dutch piece with the wire grip. I've noticed many of their pattern swords from the late-18th/early 19th follow a similar pattern. Similar to my Dutch marine sword.

celtan · 25th February 2010, 10:25 PM

Hi Eley,

I also like it, but I think its Swedish.

It's the only one I have seen with a curved blade,all the others were straight...I don't know if it's a regulation modification. Many of these were sent to Norway, and perhaps even modified there.

The Scandinavians tend to modify and reuse their blades, sometimes using them for longer than a century...

The last two are no longer in my hands. I also had 2 US Artillery M-1832s and a French M1831 with a rare "Greek" hilt. All with the typical solid brass hilt and steel blades.

Best!

M

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Nice collection of hangers. I especially like the Dutch piece with the wire grip. I've noticed many of their pattern swords from the late-18th/early 19th follow a similar pattern. Similar to my Dutch marine sword.

M ELEY · 28th February 2010, 12:53 PM

www.oldswords.com/database/viewItem.php?id=88275

www.oldswords.com/database/viewItem.php?id=44410

OK, so I need some clarification on these mountaineer/artillery swords. Something is bugging me about their classification. Case in point, the above models. These two are listed as mountaineer, yet their pattern is clearly DOCUMENTED as naval in Boarders Away (pg 87) and Boarders Away 2 (pg 189), so what gives? These ribbed iron hilts remain elusive to their exac use, but the two above even have GR on their blades, which is exactly what is found on the m1803 cutlass? Didn't the m1898 Mountaineer models come much later? Did I make a mistake and truly pass up on a naval iron-hilt? (

)I know Fagan & Co and Frederick's Sword catalogs aren't well- researched volumes, but for many years, they have been listing swords like the eBay one and the above as naval? Can anyone show the Mountaineer sword as pictured in the mentioned book? Perhaps these sword-types were re-issued after the Age of Sail, just as the French M1801 had it's bowl removed and issued to ground troops later in the century? Comments please!

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.

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..

M ELEY · 21st August 2010, 04:36 AM

Ahhh, so you suspect a rat, eh? OK, do you think it is a 'parts-sword' from real hilts of the era or a down-right fake? Several of these have popped up in auction catalogs over the years with the markings either being "VR" or "RN" (the latter, I presume, for Royal Navy, which is a completely spurious marking). I hear what you are saying and do want to get to the truth on this one. Very frustrating that now there are fakes popping up even in some of the more obscure markets.

Ron Anderson · 21st August 2010, 11:30 AM

Dear M Eley

I'm a new member. Sorry to get to this thread late. I don't recognise the markings on your briquet. However, these were imported into the USA, mainly it seems from Russia. I think these may have been used in the civil war. Can't be sure. However, I've purchased a Russian example from the US recently and have seen quite a few available from there.

So it's not impossible it's a Russian import marked in the US.

Ron

M ELEY · 21st August 2010, 01:42 PM

Hello Ron and welcome to the forum,

Actually, we were discussing the iron-hilted example private-purchase boarding cutlass pictured in the ebay auction I posted. Yes, the briquets certainly made their way around. To date, I am aware of the pattern being in France, Austria, Russia, South America and possibly Spain?

As far as the strange markings on the briquet, I believe others had it right with their attribution to Bannerman 's catalogs. I've seen one other sword listed as being from his "collection" with the same marking. It just seems too contempoary to the piece to me...

Dmitry · 22nd August 2010, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Ahhh, so you suspect a rat, eh? OK, do you think it is a 'parts-sword' from real hilts of the era or a down-right fake?

I view it not as a fake, but as a fantasy, since it is not a spurious duplication of a historical object. Blade is probably 'Made in India', but that is just a guess.
If so, then this is not a rat, but a 'Himalayan mouse hare'.

M ELEY · 22nd August 2010, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmitry

I view it not as a fake, but as a fantasy, since it is not a spurious duplication of a historical object. Blade is probably 'Made in India', but that is just a guess.
If so, then this is not a rat, but a 'Himalayan mouse hare'.

Thanks for the clarification on that. Yes, looking at an eBay auction, it is often hard to distinguish between what is real and what is "made in India"

Still, not an obvious fake per say, but now that you point this out, a definite possibility. It does seem to lack legitimate aging. Still leaves me in a quandry about my piece mentioned in another thread, though mine does seem to have a nice patina.

Ron Anderson · 23rd August 2010, 08:21 AM

Hi, yes. I would agree the briquet, even at first glance, looks pretty dodgy.

I'd say the very existence of a mark of that nature on a recently manufactured sword is spurious and would be enough to classify it as 'fake' rather than merely 'made in India'.

Of course, this is not a very good fabrication, but if it were an honest example it would say something like "Made in India" on the blade.

I don't know Bannerman's catalogue. However, the marking is quite poor. I am more familiar with English swords than American markings, so thought it might be possible it was a US marking of some kind. However, clearly not. Even I can see that.

The cutlass looks good. A nice piece. It's a pity these things are so hard to find with scabbards.

I must say, I rather like the briquet as a sword. I know it's as common as muck but it's a nice solid and sturdy little sword and that's probably why it was so successful. It must have been cheap and easy to produce. And relatively reliable for the purpose - as a secondary weapon. I think the Germans only introduced it into their own armoury in the late 1860s or early 1870s - quite a long time after the Napoleonic period.

24th February 2010, 07:46 AM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	Question about a briquet OK, against my better judgement (and finances) I bid on and won this auction. The sword I really wanted was the iron-hilted specimen ca.1810-30 period. The brass hilt briquet came with it. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT I know there is a whole area of study on these swords (Jean Binck, are you out there?!) and France, Russia, Spain, the Prussian republics, etc, all had their own types. This one lacks the Klingenthal or St Eteinne marks, any cyrillic markings or the classic 'Ano Toledo' marks found on Span pieces. I doubt its naval, as no anchor stamps or etchings on it, so I'm assuming infantry. My question is- Does anyone recognise the odd markings on it? Is it infantry? Country of origin? Time Frame? The brass looks cleaned, but the blade seems old enough. Strange that the markings look more modern. Stamped later? No searches pulled up anything for 'WAR PD Wp CAS tl' Thanks!

24th February 2010, 09:29 PM	#9
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	Ouch! Well, I didn't have high hopes on the briquet to start with, BUT the iron hilted piece...now that one I truly believed to be naval. These have been listed as such in many of the Fagan, Frederick's Swords, etc, etc... Live and learn, I guess. I'm not upset, though. As you say, Jim, the importance and fun is in the exploration. That being said, I'll probably move these through a friend of mine who collects that sort of thing. So, it's back to the search for the next mystery! Oh, forgot to thank you, David, for tweeking the pics for me. It is appreciated! Last edited by M ELEY; 25th February 2010 at 12:09 AM.

25th February 2010, 07:21 PM	#10
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	I think your swords were the priced possession of someone, who liked them well enough as to bother polishing their brass to make them look "better". As it is, all the swords of the 1816 type I have ever owned, have had a flat blade, never "wide" grooved. That by itself is interesting enough in yours. FYE: Enclosed are a few related images from my menagerie. In fact, my sword in the Horstmann hanger thread is also a type of briquette, a combination of a brass cast hilt and steel blade. Last edited by celtan; 25th February 2010 at 07:57 PM.

28th February 2010, 12:53 PM	#13
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	Clarification please... www.oldswords.com/database/viewItem.php?id=88275 www.oldswords.com/database/viewItem.php?id=44410 OK, so I need some clarification on these mountaineer/artillery swords. Something is bugging me about their classification. Case in point, the above models. These two are listed as mountaineer, yet their pattern is clearly DOCUMENTED as naval in Boarders Away (pg 87) and Boarders Away 2 (pg 189), so what gives? These ribbed iron hilts remain elusive to their exac use, but the two above even have GR on their blades, which is exactly what is found on the m1803 cutlass? Didn't the m1898 Mountaineer models come much later? Did I make a mistake and truly pass up on a naval iron-hilt? ( )I know Fagan & Co and Frederick's Sword catalogs aren't well- researched volumes, but for many years, they have been listing swords like the eBay one and the above as naval? Can anyone show the Mountaineer sword as pictured in the mentioned book? Perhaps these sword-types were re-issued after the Age of Sail, just as the French M1801 had it's bowl removed and issued to ground troops later in the century? Comments please!

28th February 2010, 07:22 PM	#14
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,943	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.

24th February 2010, 12:50 PM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Warranted ? Cast Steel ? Fernando

24th February 2010, 01:40 PM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	I had thought of something like that, but country of origin didn't seem to fit with this. I know the U.K. never went with the briquet, neither did the U.S. I have worries that this might be a modern piece. (I was even worried that the CAS could have stood for Cas Iberia, but I've found no proof that they used this mark). Thank you, Fernando, for responding. I'll do a little research to see if your suggestion was used for these type swords.

24th February 2010, 01:59 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	I know the briquet didn't make the Brits taste; i was influenced by the 'WAR' composition, as it sort of sounds english ... to me . I can tell you that the letter 'W' isn't used in Spain or Portugal; neither in France, unless a few exceptions or borrowed names. OTOH, the 'warranted cast steel' stamp is often seen in British tools ... for what this is worth. I hope you sort it out, anyway; i die of anger each i don't manage to discern the meaning of marks in my stuff. Fernando

24th February 2010, 02:18 PM	#5
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	Ah yes, the anguish of not being able to solve a mystery. I know it well A quick search about crucible steel/forged steel shows that its been around since the 1780's, and the "warranted" stamp seems to have been used, as you say, on many tools of fine quality from around 1820 into the early 20th century. As the Brits didn't use these type swords, perhaps it is an American piece after all? If so, crucible steel didn't really start until the 1860's in the U.S. Interestingly, my source says that the tools that most frequently bore this mark were often ship carpenter tools...very interesting. Thanks again for the tip. I'll keep up the search.

24th February 2010, 02:34 PM	#6
Ian Knight Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: East Sussex, England. Posts: 103	The sword with a cast handle is very similar to a British P1896 mountain artillery sword. See page 82 of 'British Military Swords' by H. Withers. Ian

24th February 2010, 04:20 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,943	I think these examples are excellent for discussion as they represent two most puzzling conundrums in the world of regulation swords for other ranks and departmental or auxiliary units. In many ways they bring back great memories for me as these forms are among the first swords I ever collected many, MANY years ago!! First of all the briquet. I bought one of these when I was just a very young collector and of course to me it looked every bit like a 'pirate sword' !! Visually, these type of swords had always been associated with the many 'Howard Pyle' style images of pirates (though he even used the showy brass bowl hilts of the Civil War naval swords for effect). The one I had was with a heavy unfullered wedge type blade, with two initials in the cast brass hilt in cartouche. At that time I had no idea I was to begin a lifetime voyage in the odyssey of studying antique arms, and as was typical, my quest in trying to learn more on this old briquet carried on intermittantly for literally decades. I soon discovered that rather than being a pirate sword, or for that matter anything naval, this was an ordinary artillery sword of the early 19th century. Actually I thought it was probably British, as the first book I ever identified one in was by Wilkinson I believe, then similar entries in Blair and others. When Robson came out in 1975 ("British Military Swords" Brian Robson) he notes, "...in the early years of the 19th century ordinary artillerymen were armed with a short curved sword with straight brass knucklebow hilt, closely similar to the French infantry sword (briquet) of AnIX (1800-01) and AnXI (1802-03)". In subsequent years, I discovered that these inexpensively produced cast brass hilt other ranks swords were used by virtually every European country, as well as many others and as often quipped in talks with other collectors 'the Martians probably even had 'em!'. These seem to have come in around the end of the 18th century, and opening of the 19th, and were used until about mid century. As for my own example, I finally determined by measurements etc. and the unusual flat blade, that it was Spanish colonial with hilt origin uncertain. In the amalgamated hybrid weapons found in Mexico I even found one of these with three bar cavalry guard, briquet hilt and a shortened 18th century Spanish dragoon blade with 'Spanish motto'. With the apparantly old blade, the very blingy brass hilt and curious stamps mid blade, I might suggest this could have come out of the Bannerman empire of military surplus and antiquities of the 1930s I believe in New York. It seems they were adept at producing cast brass hilts and putting them with old blades, and the markings with some sort of inventory notation. The other sabre, is in my impression indeed a mountain artillery gunners sabre from India, but not the M1896, which is described by Robson (p.153) as one of the "..rarest of all British military patterns". Another of my early 'conquests' was one of these, with the cast ribbed hilt and stirrup hilt guard, which like this, is flatter and cast in brass. The M1896 is a much deeper profiled sheet steel guard in somewhat of a shallow bowl type shape. The mountain batteries were individual units that began in 1850 with the Hazara Mountain Train, followed by the Peshawar Mountain Train in 1853. These mountain artillery units were outstanding examples of the innovation and colorful times of Kipling in the mountain passes of the Khyber in the 19th century, and by 1889 there were 8 units. Their guns were actually mobile in that they were dismantled and loaded onto pack horses. With that I would consider this sabre relatively unique in its own right, as there cannot have been that many of these sabres in use, and it I understand correctly, they were typically carried only by havildars (sergeants). I believe there were numbers of these swords carried in various Indian units into WWII. All in all, while not even remotely naval, both of these swords might be considered unique in thier own way. If the briquet turns out to be a Bannerman product it has its own place in Americana, in the early days of militaria collecting. As for the mountain artillery sabre, it may well have begun its time in the historic passes of the Khyber and found its way into Burmese regions or other British areas where Indian regiments posted in WWII. It seems that even in the most pedestrian instances with many weapons, they always have stories to tell and as an old pirate hunter I know well that 'the treasure is in the hunt'!!! All the best, Jim

24th February 2010, 05:56 PM	#8
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Hi Mark thought I'd post some of the auction pictures ....'tweaked' alittle to make them a little clearer Regards David . Attached Images

25th February 2010, 09:04 PM	#11
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	Nice collection of hangers. I especially like the Dutch piece with the wire grip. I've noticed many of their pattern swords from the late-18th/early 19th follow a similar pattern. Similar to my Dutch marine sword.

28th February 2010, 07:32 PM	#15
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,943	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	#16
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,943	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.

1st March 2010, 07:45 AM	#17
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	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	#18
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, 07:21 AM	#19
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	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.

26th April 2010, 02:49 PM	#20
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	#21
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	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...

20th August 2010, 09:13 AM	#23
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	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.

21st August 2010, 04:36 AM	#25
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	Ahhh, so you suspect a rat, eh? OK, do you think it is a 'parts-sword' from real hilts of the era or a down-right fake? Several of these have popped up in auction catalogs over the years with the markings either being "VR" or "RN" (the latter, I presume, for Royal Navy, which is a completely spurious marking). I hear what you are saying and do want to get to the truth on this one. Very frustrating that now there are fakes popping up even in some of the more obscure markets.

21st August 2010, 11:30 AM	#26
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Dear M Eley I'm a new member. Sorry to get to this thread late. I don't recognise the markings on your briquet. However, these were imported into the USA, mainly it seems from Russia. I think these may have been used in the civil war. Can't be sure. However, I've purchased a Russian example from the US recently and have seen quite a few available from there. So it's not impossible it's a Russian import marked in the US. Ron

21st August 2010, 01:42 PM	#27
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	Hello Ron and welcome to the forum, Actually, we were discussing the iron-hilted example private-purchase boarding cutlass pictured in the ebay auction I posted. Yes, the briquets certainly made their way around. To date, I am aware of the pattern being in France, Austria, Russia, South America and possibly Spain? As far as the strange markings on the briquet, I believe others had it right with their attribution to Bannerman 's catalogs. I've seen one other sword listed as being from his "collection" with the same marking. It just seems too contempoary to the piece to me...

23rd August 2010, 08:21 AM	#30
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi, yes. I would agree the briquet, even at first glance, looks pretty dodgy. I'd say the very existence of a mark of that nature on a recently manufactured sword is spurious and would be enough to classify it as 'fake' rather than merely 'made in India'. Of course, this is not a very good fabrication, but if it were an honest example it would say something like "Made in India" on the blade. I don't know Bannerman's catalogue. However, the marking is quite poor. I am more familiar with English swords than American markings, so thought it might be possible it was a US marking of some kind. However, clearly not. Even I can see that. The cutlass looks good. A nice piece. It's a pity these things are so hard to find with scabbards. I must say, I rather like the briquet as a sword. I know it's as common as muck but it's a nice solid and sturdy little sword and that's probably why it was so successful. It must have been cheap and easy to produce. And relatively reliable for the purpose - as a secondary weapon. I think the Germans only introduced it into their own armoury in the late 1860s or early 1870s - quite a long time after the Napoleonic period.