The lowly (?) briquet, a story of resolution

[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.

[Jim McDougall]

Just to ramble a bit further, as have been locked in this pile of books and notes it seems hopelessly, and cannot let this dilemma go.

I looked again at the Wilkinson-Latham (op. cit 1966) reference, and on p.38, he notes that '...information on swords for artillery and other ranks is very sparse and contradictory'. !!!! ya think?

Further, '...artillery privates, later to be called gunners are shown by Col. Charles Hamilton Smith in his DRAWINGS in 1814 as armed with a brass hilted artillery hanger (plate66) which it appears they carried until 1853".



Moving to 1975, with Robson (op. cit. p.154) he notes,
"...in the early years of the 19th c. ordinary artllerymen were armed with a SHORT CURVED SWORD with a straight brass knucklebow hilt closely similar to the FRENCH ARTILLERY SWORD (BRIQUET) of ANIX and ANXI (1801-03).

Here he then notes the sword as same as Denis Dighton 1813 and Charles Hamiliton Smith 1815, both specifically titled and illustrating the 'Spanish pattern' sword.

When Wilkinson-Latham described his 'FOOT ARTILLERY GUNNERS' hanger of c.1814, he notes the Charles Hamiliton Smith DRAWINGS......but does NOT specify the title.

SO:
Could there be OTHER Charles Hamiliton Smith 'drawings'? which Wilkinson-Latham was referring to?

In 1794 there were corps of captains commissaries and drivers to provide drivers and teams for the field guns. In 1793 the Royal Horse Artillery already had its own horseand teams for each troop. In 1801 this corps was replaced by corps of gunner drivers. The Royal Artillery were referred to colloquially as 'the gunners' (as opposed to Royal Horse Artillery who carried cavalry pattern swords).

As Paul Storr, per the plate Fernando shows, used a rectangular touch mark registered 1793 (as on my example), is it reasonable to think that perhaps hangers of that of my example were in use by 'gunners' (possibly the drivers moving the guns) from 1793 until the advent of the Spanish pattern (sometime pre 1813 probably about the time of beginning the Peninsular campaigns). Since the Spanish pattern is much like the example Fernando shows in previous post, possibly then was the transfer.

So this COULD be a Paul Storr contract c. 1794 to c. 1807 (?).

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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

The Google source said French, I've read they used that style hilt up to the French Revolution. I used that photo as I couldn't find a photo of mine which apparently is a Spanish Grenadier version that looks just like it, but appears to have a slightly longer and straighter blade (and it's scabbard).

As these had to actually be carried, I also include a photo of the baldric attachment for the scabbards that have a staple rather than a mushroom post to secure them, just to round out the info of this thread.

I found the photo of mine! (below) the odd pommel bit seems to be an extension of the casting to cover an apparently longer tang without extending the grip area. half of it is a threaded cylindrical domed pommel 'keeper'with an end slotted section. It is a bit odd... I note the D-guard one in the baldric photo also has a flat white leather sword knot with a bit of red (tassle/slider?) showing. And the bayonet. Blue uniform? Is it US/UK? Looks a bit like it might be similar to the above artillery photo with the windmills. My scabbard is missing it's chape, has a brass staple on the other side of the throat piece. To complicate matters, the blade has an etched and bordered panel that says 'GRENADIER'. - the French for Grenadier is oddly, 'Grenadier'.

See also https://www.histoire-pour-tous.fr/hi...-francais.html - use google translate to read it in english.

or https://translate.google.com/transla...-francais.html

I am getting rather confused...a bit of information overload...

[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.

[Jim McDougall]

Wow guys!!! These are quite a volley of entries!!! and EXACTLY what I always hope for, great observations with perfectly supported data. Thank you!

Fernando, I have understood that the term briquet was colloquial as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, which was explained in one of my cited references I believe. Actually the term was minimized or parenthesized if I recall in the descriptive test.

Wayne thanks very much for the additional information and explanations, I agree there is a great deal of information presented and evaluated in the great discourse, so I too am 'blowing circuit breakers'!

Norman, again, excellent input and examples well presented. I will be the first to admit I have little experience with French swords. I had never been able to afford the amazing Aries series and I miss Jean Binck's expertise.
The instance you note with the quillon terminal removal is most interesting
though I have trouble understanding such a deliberate and innocuous adjustment.

I can relate to your notes on there not being Continental briquets (of this type) having British markings of any sort, presumably issuance or inspection.
All the poincons all over French swords are these types of administratiive marks of course.

Your notes on the Royal Armouries are telling, and I will say here that it is my impression that the two examples from the 1962 and 1966 references on which I based my identification of my example (over the past 54 years!) did cite the Royal Armouries as one source, National Maritime Museum the other.

Your noting of the error on the 'briquet' (IX1182) being French but actually being Swiss due to Bern armoury marks is concerning. Did the Swiss ever receive French weaponry into their military stores? I have seen instances where markings were regarded Swiss rather than the presumed other origin.

In summary, these are all wonderful facts in rebuttal toward thorough examination of my example, and very much key data which absolutely must be considered in the proper evaluation (again profoundly appreciated).
But, my theory remains that my example which has a rectangular cartouche with the PS initials of Paul Storr (the only maker of the period whose initials correspond) is of a type well known on the Continent (as infantry briquet). The distinct anomaly of a precious metal type 'mark' to a particular maker is British (based on the individual) and only seen in similar context in a similar case (Thurkle).
In these other ranks weapons, notably cast brass examples, this type of stamp or mark in this location on the hilt, does not exist as thus far seen.
The marks that do exist are of course mostly issuance or acceptance poincons.

As Norman has well noted, misteakes of course do exist in records and classifications, which is why I noted the disparity in the references I was citing in the earlier part of this discussion. This pertained primarily to the perception that the only artillery 'briquet' (using the term that typically is mindful to my type hilt despite its collective use) was the 'Spanish pattern'.

In the early days of the efforts toward the standardization and regulation of weaponry in the British army toward the end of the 18th century, the case for other ranks weapons was understandably a maelstrom of inconsistency.
While the 'Spanish' pattern sidearm for artillery is well represented in the art and records c. 1813.
But this selection did not begin until the deployment of forces into the Peninsula in the Napoleonic campaigns.
What of the type sidearm in use in the Royal artillery from c. 1794 (as I noted in earlier post in organization changes) by 'gunners' (again a collective term applied to various participants in the artillery group). ??

The mark in my example is the same as the PS in Paul Storr's registration of 1793. If a contract was issued (as per the protocols of the period by regimental commanders) for a select number of these cheap brass hilt sidearms, why is it not possible that these would not have virtually disappeared in the past two centuries (probably melted down for metal)?
As these were clearly disdained as weapons, not considered collectible by any means nor of stature worthy as trophies etc. what would prevent them being scrapped.
Though Paul Storr was a stellar figure in precious metal art, who would expect his mark in such a pedestrian implement?

As you note Norman, such a weapon would indeed be as rare as 'hens teeth'. You discovered such a case with your NCO's sword and the Royal Armouries.

Thank you again guys, for your patience and taking the time to present arguments in this case. I really do not mean to be obstinate but I really want to seriously evaluate all possibilities in a case which is from a period and situations which were fraught with inconsistency.