The lowly (?) briquet, a story of resolution

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Jim,
I can't think of a British sidearm that equates to the Continental briquet sabre. The only three I can think of that are remotely similar are the so called Spanish pattern sidearm the Dundas sidearm and the Pioneer sidearm.
My Regards,
Norman.

Thank you Norman! That is most helpful and now I need to look further into the examples illustrated in the references cited by the late Mr. Blair (which was admittedly a line drawing, not a photo) and that photo in Wilkinson-Latham.
There are a number of other references which may be helpful that I will loom into......these gentlemen must have had the notion of the 'briquet' as shown from somewhere.

In years of research, I do realize the possibility that as authors of references on arms classifications, they may well have virtually copied material from another reference without further primary research.

I sincerely hope that is not the case here, as obviously my entire hypothesis for Paul Storr(due to initials in hilt) will be defeated categorically if there is no evidence of a briquet of French style in British service.

There was another case of 'cross influence' between French and British weapons in the latter 18th century with the officers spadroon with five ball decoration on the guard of c. 1780 . The style apparently took hold in England, but by about 1800 became popular in France and was shown in their references as ' l'Anglaise' as a type.

This returns me to Brian Robson (1975) who (as I previously noted) describes the artillery sabers of early 19th c. as 'like the French ANXI and ANIX briquets and with short curved blade (obviously contrary to the 'Spanish pattern'.
Looking at the art works he cites, the weapons shown are clearly not like mine which IS like the French briquet, so the comparison is obviously contrary to his previous comment.

In looking at the many types of briquet (the curved knuckleguard integral to the entire brass hilt cast in one unit) of other countries I have never seen a cartouche with two initials in it as on mine. It seems invariably there are various kinds of numbers instead.

With that, what was most compelling to me is that British hilt makers early (in latter 18th c.) did sign (with two initials) hilts they made even if not of precious metal.
Either my example is in accord with that reference as I have suggested and perhaps even more an anomaly than I had earlier thought, or entirely a fluke in the maelstrom of truly similar briquets in other European armies.

While the Spanish style artillery sword being noted clearly had considerable presence in issue to British ranks, is it POSSIBLE? that a French style briquet type sidearm was indeed tested in small production numbers to British gunners in the latter 18th century period in which Storr did operate a metal work factory?
And that the authors I have cited used some now lost reference which showed this instance and which was understandably obscured by the notable volume of 'Spanish style'?

I wish these gentlemen were still available to ask directly.

[Jim McDougall]

As I presented this briquet hanger in my original post, I only cited my sources, which were of course effectively my words. I have taken to get illustrations of the pages of these references to show how I formed my opinion.
While it is suggested that there is apparently an absence of awareness of this type sword in British context......these sources might at least show my reason for my hypothesis.

These pages, top to bottom:
1,2,3: "European & American Arms", Claude Blair. N.Y. 1962 pp.96-97

4: "Swords for Sea Service" (2 Vol.) W.E.May & P.G.W. Annis, HMSO, 1970,
p.333

5,6,7: "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland" Richard Bezdek
2003
8: "British Military Swords 1800-to Present Day", 1966, #66

In the volume by Blair, example (e) is shown as a FOOT ARTILLERY GUNNER sword, in the plates of British swords.

In photo 4, the page from May and Annis (p.333) describes makers of hilts, using the convention of marking their hilts with their initials (c.f. as per example FT= Francis Thurkle)....even if NOT silver.

In photos 5 and 6 are the Bezdek entries concerning Storr, and various partners including his apprenticeship in 1790s with silver workers as well as hilt makers.

Most compelling was this photo of one of these 'foot artillery gunner' swords taken from John Wilkinson-Latham (1966, example 66) which is noted as c. 1814 (shown here as photo 8). In the text he notes a mark on the blade which he believes is TROTTER (though indecipherable).

Photo 7 shows the page from Bezdek with Thomas Trotter, sword cutler 1814-1820.

So in a reference from 1966, by John Wilkinson-Latham identifies one of these briquets as British foot artillery gunners sword c. 1814-20, and that a mark on the blade even indecipherable he considers Trotter, an established English sword cutler.
Since Blair (1962) has identified this same hilt as foot artillery gunner sword, it would seem that Wilkonson-Latham was in accord.

As Paul Storr was working as a silversmith 1790s onward and took over manufacturing factory in 1807 with Rundell, and was in that setting until 1819, is it possible he may have absorbed the convention of the two initial marking of hilt even of cast brass?

The Wilkinson-Latham example (#66) is identified c. 1814.
Thomas Trotter (if indeed this was the mark) worked 1814-20 as a sword cutler. Which means he was procuring blades in that period, the same time that Storr was running the factory for Rundell.

In these early days of establishing contracts between Board of Ordnance, the varied cutlers and blade makers as well as hilt makers, when the idea of regulation patterns was just in early stages. ...the idea that a pattern of this type does not exist in British context just does not seem likely. We know the 'Spanish' pattern was widely known and used, it is strange that the pattern or type I have known and supported by these authors is deemed non existent.

[Jim McDougall]

In "The American Eagle Pommel Sword", Andrew Mowbray, 1988, p.24, discussing Birmingham, England,
"...as diverse as the city's talents might have been, it is clearly revealed by a close reading of the various directories published during the period that nearly all the trades came together at some point to join in the manufacturing of military goods. There was also an extensive cross over between various specialists in order to keep busy. Candlestick makers would have been produced brass castings as well as turnings for muskets, pistols and fowlers and swords when the need for such work exceeded the capabilities of those more intimate to the trade".

In reviewing Robson's revised 1996 "Swords of the British Army", it seems there s a great deal of confusion on the Spanish pattern swords for artillery gunners as opposed to the 'saw back' pioneer type of the same time which he denotes as from 1820. The paintings by Charles Hamiliton Smith and Denis Dighton were with these 'Spanish' type depicted but the works date from 1813 and 1815.

Returning to the possibility of Storr perhaps producing this type of hanger for use in artillery units, these were times of war with Napoleonic campaigns of course, and if he ran a factory in 1807-19 in a partnership, would he perhaps have placed his touch mark in a cast brass hilt?

In photo 4 of my previous post I mentioned Francis Thurkle the silver hilt maker, and found an old article showing his initials in a rectangular cartouche like the one on my PS hanger. As noted, Thurkle placed his 'mark' on hilts regardless of metal used, would Storr have followed this convention?
If it was a subcontract in a partnered company?

[fernando]

Looks like it will be hard to determine that Paul Storr, on his own senses, went on producing Briquets, unless factual evidence is found out there; not just by association of ideas.
Whether Thurkle made silver (and other metal) hilts, these seems (to me) that were 'one of a kind' examples, not a production in numbers. Then thinking of Storr, a silversmith Guru; to make a (one) sword you need an atelier (workshop); to cast a number of brass hilts for an army contract you need a factory... and a different attitude, i guess.
On the other hand, while joining two (or more) letters in a cartouche of a certain shape may give an idea of a determined silver smith mark, this is a recurrent procedure; their "trick" to distinguish one from the other, is basically the detail within the cartouche form. Even rectangles may be seen "by the dozen"; Storr himself registered a few different ones.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Looks like it will be hard to determine that Paul Storr, on his own senses, went on producing Briquets, unless factual evidence is found out there; not just by association of ideas.
Whether Thurkle made silver (and other metal) hilts, these seems (to me) that were 'one of a kind' examples, not a production in numbers. Then thinking of Storr, a silversmith Guru; to make a (one) sword you need an atelier (workshop); to cast a number of brass hilts for an army contract you need a factory... and a different attitude, i guess.
On the other hand, while joining two (or more) letters in a cartouche of a certain shape may give an idea of a determined silver smith mark, this is a recurrent procedure; their "trick" to distinguish one from the other, is basically the detail within the cartouche form. Even rectangles may be seen "by the dozen"; Storr himself registered a few different ones.


.

Fernando, thank you! That was exactly what I was looking for, examples of the 'touch mark' of the silversmiths. The rectangular cartouche enclosing the maker's initials just as I showed with the Thurkle example in my previous post was placed to illustrate the convention of doing this with silver smiths and in the time period late 18th into 19th and surely considerably beyond.

As you noted earlier, there is profoundly no way anyone could possibly be aware of all makers marks, touch marks, punzones etc. as there was not as much consistency as one would like to imagine. It has been said that as makers mark stamps wore out or broke, it was not necessarily the case that an exact copy would be the replacement.
In many articles on sword examples such anomalies as flaws in the punches or stamps were strong indicators of authenticity in examining individual swords, just as the case in authenticating mint marks on coins.

With the possibility of a silver smith such as Paul Storr handling a contract of brass hilts for government supply of munitions grade hangers seems heightened by the facts that he was a hilt maker, and he was indeed running a factory for his partner.

My idea has been, this is not a single sword made on a whim by a famed silver smith, but a contract of indeterminate number of munitions grade swords. The suggestions are that this type of hilt or in fact sword did not exist in British other ranks because of the confusing representation (as per Robson, 1996) of the so called Spanish pattern, the 'pioneer' pattern hangers shown in art of 1813,15 for artillery, seem to compellingly sate the case.
However, with the degree of inconsistency in government and ordnance protocol and procurement of the periods from 1780s through the Napoleonic wars, the notion of a singular contract of a number of swords such as this does not seem unreasonable.

The best evidence we have of such a possibility is the examples I have shown from highly reputable arms authors (Blair, 1962 and Wilkinson Latham 1966) which clearly show these brass (French infantry style) briquets as British.
The example in Wilkinson-Latham (1966) implies a name on the blade may be Trotter, an English cutler 1814-20.
Storr ran the factory 1807-1819.
If he oversaw such a singular contract, perhaps in special arrangement with the Crown (the Prince Regent was keen on military matters, indeed having a number of sabers made for his cavalry regiment)......does iit not seem possible Storr might have placed his 'touch mark' in these hilts, even though brass?
We know that Thurkle and others did so even on hilts that were NOT silver.

This hanger is not a single one off sword, but I think a survivor of possibly a defined number of these 'European' style briquets (not just French) that may have been made by Paul Storr, a silver smith strongly connected to the Crown during the Napoleonic wars period.

Thank you Fernando for helping keep this investigation fluid, as I know I am learning a lot, even if my theory ends up not being proven.

[kronckew]

All the briquets shown so far have had D-guards.
Here's one they made earlier:
(1789)

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kronckew

All the briquets shown so far have had D-guards.
Here's one they made earlier:
(1789)

Thanks Wayne, all of which briquets? Who they?
Is this British or French?
Interesting pommel capstan or fixture.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...That was exactly what I was looking for, examples of the 'touch mark' of the silversmiths...

I am afraid the "touch" is the fineness of noble metals, not the mark of makers ...

" Contrary to what the ordinary citizen often supposes, jewelery pieces are not made of precious metals in their pure state.
In fact, precious metals in that state are very little workable.
If an ordinary wedding ring, for example, were made of fine gold, its resistance to deformation would be so low that the usual day-to-day activities of an ordinary user would be sufficient to constantly damage it.
Therefore, goldsmiths have always had the need to add other metals to the precious metals they worked with, in order to obtain an alloy suitable for the type of work they aimed to produce.
The amount of precious metal in the alloy is translated through the indication of its touch, meaning that the higher the touch of a piece, the greater the content of precious metal per unit of mass of that piece.
Quoting J. Almeida Costa and A. Sampaio e Melo (in Portuguese Dictionary), it can be said, therefore, that touch is the percentage of pure metal in an alloy in which it is fundamental.
The term "title" is also often used in place of touch.


Usually a good sterling silver has a 925/ooo touch... or fineness. The mix is ussually copper. Same criteria goes for gold,

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=fernando]I am afraid the "touch" is the fineness of noble metals, not the mark of makers ...

" Contrary to what the ordinary citizen often supposes, jewelery pieces are not made of precious metals in their pure state.
In fact, precious metals in that state are very little workable.
If an ordinary wedding ring, for example, were made of fine gold, its resistance to deformation would be so low that the usual day-to-day activities of an ordinary user would be sufficient to constantly damage it.
Therefore, goldsmiths have always had the need to add other metals to the precious metals they worked with, in order to obtain an alloy suitable for the type of work they aimed to produce.
The amount of precious metal in the alloy is translated through the indication of its touch, meaning that the higher the touch of a piece, the greater the content of precious metal per unit of mass of that piece.
Quoting J. Almeida Costa and A. Sampaio e Melo (in Portuguese Dictionary), it can be said, therefore, that touch is the percentage of pure metal in an alloy in which it is fundamental.
The term "title" is also often used in place of touch.


Usually a good sterling silver has a 925/ooo touch... or fineness. The mix is ussually copper. Same criteria goes for gold,[/QU




EXCELLENT EXPLANATION Fernando!!! Thank you. I clearly had not understood the intent and meaning of the 'touch' in presuming its use as a makers indicator. The dialogue I had read in several references noting the use of the 'mark' of these workers in precious metal ALSO placing IT on non precious metal hilts.
You can see how I would arrive at that perception.

Cast metal hilts , brass, I have not seen others with these initialed cartouches in them. My point was that my example seems to be an anomaly just as its very existence as a type of 'briquet' not in wide use in a time when regulation or standardization was not the case.