T.ulwar and EIC

Pukka Bundook · 26th November 2010, 02:13 PM

I have been wondering Gents;

One sometimes runs accross old tulwars that have had the East India Company stamp put on them.
Can anyone enlighten me as to how they came to be marked in this manner?
Said marks would be prior to 1858, but that is all I know.
These swords appear to have been marked later on in their life by what I can see. (The marks sometimes appear fairly 'fresh' whereas the hilts may be otherwise very worn)

Any help in understanding this would be appreciated!

Richard.

Jim McDougall · 27th November 2010, 02:29 AM

Hi Richard,
Its really good to see you posting!!! Its seems like a while since Ive seen you around.
Excellent question, and personally I used to always hope to find an EIC marked sword of any kind. There have been some good discussions recently on these markings which came up with a jezail RDG posted a while back, and it seems many of the locks on these turned up on these native guns put together in the Khyber regions.

As far as I have discovered, the only weapons ever marked with the EIC balemark were the gun locks usually on muskets, and on the bayonets in 18th century to the early years of the 19th. The balemark was replaced about 1807 or so by the rampant lion, though there may have been some use of the flaunched version in certain regions. Again, I am not aware of any such use on swords, either British or native.

I would be very wary of tulwars with such markings, and if seen, would really like to look further into them as distinct anomalies which might present new perspective on these balemarks in use. As we have discussed on occasion, the EIC balemark was often spuriously reproduced by native gunsmiths in Khyber regions, in many cases well into the 20th century on gun locks. We have even seen flintlocks with the balemark and dated in 1870s!

All the best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 27th November 2010, 01:00 PM

Thank you for your reply Jim!

I have been around, but even though I am interested in the European arms, there is so often on those threads such an overwhelming amount of photos, my computer can't handle it!.......It just takes too long.
Anyway, back to EIC;

I am afraid I do not know what the EIC bailmark looks like.
The mark I have seen, is on both hilt and blade, and is the EIC, one letter stamped at each corner of a triangle.
On blades, the stamp is often not clear, ,...not always applied evenly. On hilts, the stamp often dents the handle a little when applied.

The marks on the one I have were not a part of the sellers description, and indeed didn't show under the grunge until cleaned up a little. Since then, I have seen a few with these marks, and it never crossed my mind it may be spurious!
When looking online at tulwars for sale, the seller often miss-translates the lettering, which indicates to me that it is no ploy for monetary gain. (As in "E I G" or E-C or some such.
As time permits, I will try and add photos of the marks in question.

Thank you again Jim!!

Richard.
The photo is from a sword sold fairly recently, on mine, the stamp appers as an "E,... line... C".

Jim McDougall · 27th November 2010, 03:39 PM

Hi Richard,
Im sorry I didnt add the marks, I guess I had gotten complacent after the discussions we recently had on them and simply forgot to include examples.
The EIC as noted used the quartered heart, typically surmounted by a 4 (which was actually a disguised cross, issued with the heart in place of the 'orb' with reference to the cross and orb symbol ). In Bengal it seems that the 'flaunched' style heart using that heraldic feature became popular. Both were supplanted by the rampant lion around 1808.....but as noted, these did not end appearance as Indian makers still copied the stamps.
It is interesting to note that the 'V' in the acronym actually stands for 'united', not 'venerable' as is often assumed. In those days the U was written as a V.

As you have noted, by 1858, the East India Company had given way to the British government in its dominion of India.

The marking you show here seems much more modern and of commercial trademark style, and the EIC never used such a marking as far as I know. Also, as I mentioned, they did not mark weapons with thier markings except for the guns and bayonets.

It is well known that in India, armourers characteristically tried to imitate European markings and inscriptions to allude to the quality of thier products.
Often these intrepretations have produced somewhat humorous arrangements of unintelligible psuedo inscriptions, but this seems perhaps a marking of commercial nature. In India there were often instances where commercial entities had guards or security forces issued weapons, for example many swords of British M1853 pattern were made by a firm called Rodwell & Co. for a railroad (Baroda or something if memory serves).

I hope this helps Richard, and again really great to have you back!!! Please keep finding these intriguing tulwars!!! Since that one you restored I always think of you as 'a tulwars best friend' !!!

All the very best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 27th November 2010, 07:42 PM

Hmmmm...You have me wondering about all this Jim.

Feelings are worthless, yet I have seen these same marks time and again, and get the 'feling' they must amount to something.
I can't help but think that if these marks weren't genuine, they would have been stamped better......as in not half-stamped as many appear.
(If one were to mark something to increase its value, would you not mark it in a way that can easily be decifered?)

I must clarify that I don't think the East India Company had these swords made. I am sure they did not, but I do think it possible that they were marked in this way when they fell into the posession of the E I Co.

One often sees the arms of india marked with armoury marks to which they did not originally belong, and I am wondering if the EIC marked 'spoils of war' or whatever in a similar manner?

I'm not done with this yet Jim, as it's all a bit fuzzy!

Best of everything,
R.

PS,
The attached pic of the tulwar quillon is one from a very well known arms dealer's catalogue.
The other picture is from an English auction house, and is of a sword apparently made for an officer of the EIC, in 1827.
(Drewatt's catalogue)
The two swords have nothing in common, but I added the hilt photo as it seems to bear the right marks, and is apparently an example of a sword marked for the company on production. (tho' this is a separate matter really!)

R.

Atlantia · 27th November 2010, 11:19 PM

Here are two pictures hilt and blade of the same EIC/triangle stamp. They are ona Tulwar I recently handled in person (but which is not mine).
The stamping looked like it was done in a hurry. Hard but hurried strikes, jumping and ghosting on both. On the hilt the force of the impact has actually noticably dented the grip.
The result though is difficult to make out, in fact I had to point out to the owner that it appeared to be some kind of EIC stamp.
I would have thought if it was done to add value, it would be done with enough care to make sure it was readable?
This looked much more like a 'Bang, Bang, next!' approach.
That said, its not a style of EIC stamp I've seen before.
Perhaps all from the same armoury?

Pukka Bundook · 28th November 2010, 12:54 AM

Atlantia,

You have stated exactly what I was trying to say!.............how the marks would be clearer if intended to add value.
Also, the dented grip is very typical with these marks.

Very much a "bang bang get 'em done" type marking.
All the markings I've seen are exactly the same as well, an unlikely occurance if we had a rash of counterfeit marks.
To me, it all points to these marks being bonafide, yet my original questions remain.....

Thanks for the extra photos Atl!

Jim McDougall · 28th November 2010, 01:09 AM

Thanks so much guys for the great responses! I'm really glad you brought this up Richard, as I really needed to get my material on EIC markings organized.
All my focus had been on the balemarks, and as they were used on the locks of guns primarily. As I noted, I hadn't recalled seeing this type of marking with the triangles.

I found a group of notes from research back in '97 including some communication with David Harding, who had just completed publishing :Small Arms of the East India Company", and there were groupings of markings mostly of the quartered heart and later rampant lion.
The 1827 naval officers sword with the lion above the fouled anchor was indeed characteristic, and I have seen them on army swords as well, but as part of the hilt motif, not as markings on the blade.

Gene, thank you for sharing the pictures of the tulwar and observations, which well corroborate the triangle marking Richard posted on these swords.

I finally found the information in these notes, after the Mutiny it is known that the British government took over in India. In 1862 I believe, when the transition was in place, Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, and cyphers on blades and other materials were with the ligature VRI.
Information on much of this is found in material on the coins of India.

Apparantly materials were stamped , instead of the EIC balemarks, with EIG (East India Government) marks which were in this same three point configuration, but with a broad arrow where the triangle is seen here.
This continued through WWI and certainly later, though I am unclear on why the triangle here would be in place of the arrow (which was of course the long standing mark of British ordnance all the way back to Henry VIII).

As with most government processing, there were of course viewing and acceptance marks placed at various locations, and these stamps applied with varying effect were most likely the result of careless processing or damaged stamps.

With this being the case, it would seem that these tulwars were likely among stores for native regiments, who of course often preferred carrying their traditional tulwars. Many were produced by contractors in India, or in some cases by contractors in England. I have seen tulwars produced by Mole, who subcontracted for Wilkinson, and in other instances, some regiments preferred British regulation military patterns.

I'm sorry for the inadvertant red herring about commercial markings, and this information on the EIG rather than EIC is I hope helpful.

All the best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 28th November 2010, 02:04 AM

Thank you for the information Jim!

I would think that the EIC stamp would not have the broad arrow, as the EI Co was independant, and not a goverment concern.
Now, When were they stamped?...I don't know!

It does make sense that EIG would carry the broad arrow though.
Here is the blade of the 1827;

All best,
Richard.

Jim McDougall · 28th November 2010, 02:51 AM

Absolutely right Richard, the EIC would not have used the broad arrow, but after 1858 and the effective demise of the EIC .......the arrow, which was used by the BO (board of ordnance) might have been used by the newly developing EIG.
On British weapons, after the Crimean war the broad arrow and BO was replaced by WD (War Department) and the broad arrow.

For India, and the Raj, it was an entirely different sector, and the EIG with the broad arrow was used. Again, I cannot imagine what the triangle is supposed to represent, but the EIG in that configuration is a match to the examples I have noted.

Supposedly weapons and ordnance to India were marked ISD (India Stores Dept.) but it does not seem to be the case universally. There are numerous stamps and acronyms for certain armouries and depots but I havent found that list yet.

All the best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 28th November 2010, 09:05 AM

Hi again Jim,

Do I take it that you think the marks we have been viewing are really EIG marks?

I would have to say that they look definitely to be E I C marks.
In your previous post, (next to last) you made mention of the EIG, and damaged stamps;
I have been wondering, Do you think that the marks in the above photos are All damaged EI "G" stamps? (with damaged G and damaged broad arrow?)

I note in your reply, that you seem a bit reticent, as though you don't want to call me wrong or something!......Please don't worry about things like that! If I'm wrong on this, then I'm wrong and that's an end to it.

I do find this subject interesting, and strange, in that it doesn't appear to have been addressed before. ...and the only way to get to the bottom of it is to keep digging.
To me, the marks apper quite plainly to be E I C triangle.

Going back to the possible spurious markings and monetary gain;
If this Was the intention, it doesn't seem to work! The tulwar with the first mark I showed sold for I believe, $62 dollars recently, and the one I have cost me $45.00 a few years ago.

Very best wishes,

Richard.

Jens Nordlunde · 28th November 2010, 10:12 AM

Jim Wrote: I finally found the information in these notes, after the Mutiny it is known that the British government took over in India. In 1862 I believe, when the transition was in place, Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, and cyphers on blades and other materials were with the ligature VRI.
Information on much of this is found in material on the coins of India.
That may be right Jim,you would know far more about this that I do, but in some places Victoria was still Queen in 1886 AD.
The attached one silver Rupee is from Bundi and dated 1943 VS - 1886 AD.
Jens

Pukka Bundook · 28th November 2010, 08:28 PM

Hello Jens,

I have a few quarter Anna coins, and it seems on them, the cut-off date for Queen was 1876. On the 1877 coins, she has the title Empress.

(fopt what it's worth!)

Best,
R.

Jim McDougall · 29th November 2010, 12:31 AM

What I am saying is that these letters, which do seem to be E I C, are placed in the same configuration as used in the E I G stamps.

Regarding the spurious marks....it seems to me that what I said was to be wary of these markings, in my initial post as I had not yet found my notes and did not recall the EIG data.

I cannot find the place where I made any comment about spurious markings for 'monetary gain'. I did note that Indian armourers often placed spurious markings on thier blades to imply higher quality. This is of course well known in many ethnographic situations. My comments on 'commercial' markings was directed at independant large companies and organizations in India who often employed thier own security forces. This derived from my idea that the acronym EIC might have been one of those. Again before I found my notes.

I am not saying you are wrong about anything, but we are indeed both trying to communicate in examining possibilities, which I am failing miserably at

I have a hard time seeing these marks, but since they are so badly stamped, I thought they might be EIG, as they are in that configuration. What I said after that was that maybe, since the EIC was ending after 1858, and the EIG was taking over, possibly they were using EIC for a short time even though not using the rampant lion. ...suggesting this as transitional.

The triangle is confusing because it was, as far as I have known in these years of research, never seen a triangle used by EIC as a mark of any kind.
I would love to see data showing otherwise of course.

The EIC was of course private entity, not government, so the arrow would not have been used with EIC...but then there are no arrows seen in these photos, only triangles.

What I think is that if these are EIC and triangle, they must be transitional and used as marks before the government took over and made the mark EIG with broad arrow,

Jens, thank you for answering, and in explanation, I am unclear on which dates she officially was declared Empress of India, but I have always thought she became so while still remaining Queen of England. Much as the British Raj was thought of as a separate entity from the British homeland, and mostly there were separate markings etc. applied......the cyphers on weapons to Indian service had VRI. I dont know on the coins, which I only mentioned to suggest material on them would add more detailed data on dates.
I always thought the Empress title was sort of an addition to expand her official rule to India, and despite that, she was still considered Queen.
The Empress title would have broadened her rule to the 'Empire', but Queens did not technically rule empires.
In any case, thank you for the clarification.

Getting back to the markings, my apologies for not being able to more correctly word my comments. It is often amazing at how sometimes the most seemingly simple matters can become so complex.

Thanks for your patience guys,
All the best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 29th November 2010, 02:43 AM

I've gotcha' now Jim.

Sorry if I seemed to be implying you said something about "spurious marks" I meant nothing of the sort. It was me who suggested that marks Could have been added with idea of raising value.... Sort of a Walter Mitty mind I have, that wanders and can come up with things that on the surface appear unconnected.

I will attache a clearer mark I saw on-line,..........when I find it again!

Again, sorry for any misunderstanding.

Best,
Richard.

Jim McDougall · 29th November 2010, 05:16 AM

LOL!

Yup, ya done got me OK! As they say here in TX.
According to my wife, I do say things uh, 'off center' a lot, so not surprised for any miscommunication.
The spurious marks thing is actually pretty much a tradition with trade blades and typically many native made blades....and for that matter throughout Europe. Look at the fabled maker Andrea Ferara, who had to have been immortal to have made thousands of blades for nearly 300 years! (no I am not saying there really was such a guy)

I recently read of a blade probably from India, with a hodgepodge of markings on the blade that consisted of runes, Berber, Ogham and Greek characters.
In the Khyber, they were stamping EIC markings on gun locks through the 19th and well into the 20th century.

It sounds like you and Gene have both encountered these 'EIC' or 'EIG' marked tulwars, so they must be out there in some number. Who knows, maybe during the changeover, some armoury smith who hadn't gotten the memo kept using his old EIC stamp. Its been known to happen

All the best,
Jim

napoleon · 20th February 2014, 10:43 PM

firstly love the rule,secondly are these stamps considered genuine?and do they only occur on tulwars?

Jim McDougall · 21st February 2014, 04:44 AM

Hi Napoleon,
It is always interesting to see these older threads come up, and I only vaguely recall the detail here, but in rereading the posts it seems that no conclusive or definitive answers resulted on these markings

I would point out that the discussion brought in similar markings which occurred on various arms which included tulwars.

In research on EIC markings back in the 1990s I did find out that the East India Company did not mark sword blades. The only edged weapons with such balemarks were bayonets, and the locks of firearms were so marked.

I have recently found information which shows East India Govt. pre WWI as using stamps with E -arrow-G
After that : I arrow G
Indian inspection marks were IG over inspectors number

I believe this information probably pertained to bayonets and firearms but unclear on swords.

I would like to see more examples or data on these triangle and EIG stamps as they seem to have inadequate substantiation to have been legitimately applied, their rather haphazard, incomplete and inconsistent nature notwithstanding. The letter 'C' instead of 'G' seems telling.

26th November 2010, 02:13 PM	#1
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	T.ulwar and EIC I have been wondering Gents; One sometimes runs accross old tulwars that have had the East India Company stamp put on them. Can anyone enlighten me as to how they came to be marked in this manner? Said marks would be prior to 1858, but that is all I know. These swords appear to have been marked later on in their life by what I can see. (The marks sometimes appear fairly 'fresh' whereas the hilts may be otherwise very worn) Any help in understanding this would be appreciated! Richard.

27th November 2010, 01:00 PM	#3
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Thank you for your reply Jim! I have been around, but even though I am interested in the European arms, there is so often on those threads such an overwhelming amount of photos, my computer can't handle it!.......It just takes too long. Anyway, back to EIC; I am afraid I do not know what the EIC bailmark looks like. The mark I have seen, is on both hilt and blade, and is the EIC, one letter stamped at each corner of a triangle. On blades, the stamp is often not clear, ,...not always applied evenly. On hilts, the stamp often dents the handle a little when applied. The marks on the one I have were not a part of the sellers description, and indeed didn't show under the grunge until cleaned up a little. Since then, I have seen a few with these marks, and it never crossed my mind it may be spurious! When looking online at tulwars for sale, the seller often miss-translates the lettering, which indicates to me that it is no ploy for monetary gain. (As in "E I G" or E-C or some such. As time permits, I will try and add photos of the marks in question. Thank you again Jim!! Richard. The photo is from a sword sold fairly recently, on mine, the stamp appers as an "E,... line... C". Attached Images Last edited by Pukka Bundook; 27th November 2010 at 01:11 PM. Reason: Additional info and photo.

27th November 2010, 03:39 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,941	Hi Richard, Im sorry I didnt add the marks, I guess I had gotten complacent after the discussions we recently had on them and simply forgot to include examples. The EIC as noted used the quartered heart, typically surmounted by a 4 (which was actually a disguised cross, issued with the heart in place of the 'orb' with reference to the cross and orb symbol ). In Bengal it seems that the 'flaunched' style heart using that heraldic feature became popular. Both were supplanted by the rampant lion around 1808.....but as noted, these did not end appearance as Indian makers still copied the stamps. It is interesting to note that the 'V' in the acronym actually stands for 'united', not 'venerable' as is often assumed. In those days the U was written as a V. As you have noted, by 1858, the East India Company had given way to the British government in its dominion of India. The marking you show here seems much more modern and of commercial trademark style, and the EIC never used such a marking as far as I know. Also, as I mentioned, they did not mark weapons with thier markings except for the guns and bayonets. It is well known that in India, armourers characteristically tried to imitate European markings and inscriptions to allude to the quality of thier products. Often these intrepretations have produced somewhat humorous arrangements of unintelligible psuedo inscriptions, but this seems perhaps a marking of commercial nature. In India there were often instances where commercial entities had guards or security forces issued weapons, for example many swords of British M1853 pattern were made by a firm called Rodwell & Co. for a railroad (Baroda or something if memory serves). I hope this helps Richard, and again really great to have you back!!! Please keep finding these intriguing tulwars!!! Since that one you restored I always think of you as 'a tulwars best friend' !!! All the very best, Jim Attached Images Last edited by Jim McDougall; 27th November 2010 at 03:49 PM.

27th November 2010, 07:42 PM	#5
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Hmmmm...You have me wondering about all this Jim. Feelings are worthless, yet I have seen these same marks time and again, and get the 'feling' they must amount to something. I can't help but think that if these marks weren't genuine, they would have been stamped better......as in not half-stamped as many appear. (If one were to mark something to increase its value, would you not mark it in a way that can easily be decifered?) I must clarify that I don't think the East India Company had these swords made. I am sure they did not, but I do think it possible that they were marked in this way when they fell into the posession of the E I Co. One often sees the arms of india marked with armoury marks to which they did not originally belong, and I am wondering if the EIC marked 'spoils of war' or whatever in a similar manner? I'm not done with this yet Jim, as it's all a bit fuzzy! Best of everything, R. PS, The attached pic of the tulwar quillon is one from a very well known arms dealer's catalogue. The other picture is from an English auction house, and is of a sword apparently made for an officer of the EIC, in 1827. (Drewatt's catalogue) The two swords have nothing in common, but I added the hilt photo as it seems to bear the right marks, and is apparently an example of a sword marked for the company on production. (tho' this is a separate matter really!) R. Attached Images Last edited by Pukka Bundook; 27th November 2010 at 08:28 PM.

27th November 2010, 11:19 PM	#6
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	Here are two pictures hilt and blade of the same EIC/triangle stamp. They are ona Tulwar I recently handled in person (but which is not mine). The stamping looked like it was done in a hurry. Hard but hurried strikes, jumping and ghosting on both. On the hilt the force of the impact has actually noticably dented the grip. The result though is difficult to make out, in fact I had to point out to the owner that it appeared to be some kind of EIC stamp. I would have thought if it was done to add value, it would be done with enough care to make sure it was readable? This looked much more like a 'Bang, Bang, next!' approach. That said, its not a style of EIC stamp I've seen before. Perhaps all from the same armoury? Attached Images

27th November 2010, 02:29 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,941	Hi Richard, Its really good to see you posting!!! Its seems like a while since Ive seen you around. Excellent question, and personally I used to always hope to find an EIC marked sword of any kind. There have been some good discussions recently on these markings which came up with a jezail RDG posted a while back, and it seems many of the locks on these turned up on these native guns put together in the Khyber regions. As far as I have discovered, the only weapons ever marked with the EIC balemark were the gun locks usually on muskets, and on the bayonets in 18th century to the early years of the 19th. The balemark was replaced about 1807 or so by the rampant lion, though there may have been some use of the flaunched version in certain regions. Again, I am not aware of any such use on swords, either British or native. I would be very wary of tulwars with such markings, and if seen, would really like to look further into them as distinct anomalies which might present new perspective on these balemarks in use. As we have discussed on occasion, the EIC balemark was often spuriously reproduced by native gunsmiths in Khyber regions, in many cases well into the 20th century on gun locks. We have even seen flintlocks with the balemark and dated in 1870s! All the best, Jim

28th November 2010, 12:54 AM	#7
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Atlantia, You have stated exactly what I was trying to say!.............how the marks would be clearer if intended to add value. Also, the dented grip is very typical with these marks. Very much a "bang bang get 'em done" type marking. All the markings I've seen are exactly the same as well, an unlikely occurance if we had a rash of counterfeit marks. To me, it all points to these marks being bonafide, yet my original questions remain..... Thanks for the extra photos Atl!

28th November 2010, 01:09 AM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,941	Thanks so much guys for the great responses! I'm really glad you brought this up Richard, as I really needed to get my material on EIC markings organized. All my focus had been on the balemarks, and as they were used on the locks of guns primarily. As I noted, I hadn't recalled seeing this type of marking with the triangles. I found a group of notes from research back in '97 including some communication with David Harding, who had just completed publishing :Small Arms of the East India Company", and there were groupings of markings mostly of the quartered heart and later rampant lion. The 1827 naval officers sword with the lion above the fouled anchor was indeed characteristic, and I have seen them on army swords as well, but as part of the hilt motif, not as markings on the blade. Gene, thank you for sharing the pictures of the tulwar and observations, which well corroborate the triangle marking Richard posted on these swords. I finally found the information in these notes, after the Mutiny it is known that the British government took over in India. In 1862 I believe, when the transition was in place, Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, and cyphers on blades and other materials were with the ligature VRI. Information on much of this is found in material on the coins of India. Apparantly materials were stamped , instead of the EIC balemarks, with EIG (East India Government) marks which were in this same three point configuration, but with a broad arrow where the triangle is seen here. This continued through WWI and certainly later, though I am unclear on why the triangle here would be in place of the arrow (which was of course the long standing mark of British ordnance all the way back to Henry VIII). As with most government processing, there were of course viewing and acceptance marks placed at various locations, and these stamps applied with varying effect were most likely the result of careless processing or damaged stamps. With this being the case, it would seem that these tulwars were likely among stores for native regiments, who of course often preferred carrying their traditional tulwars. Many were produced by contractors in India, or in some cases by contractors in England. I have seen tulwars produced by Mole, who subcontracted for Wilkinson, and in other instances, some regiments preferred British regulation military patterns. I'm sorry for the inadvertant red herring about commercial markings, and this information on the EIG rather than EIC is I hope helpful. All the best, Jim

28th November 2010, 02:04 AM	#9
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Thank you for the information Jim! I would think that the EIC stamp would not have the broad arrow, as the EI Co was independant, and not a goverment concern. Now, When were they stamped?...I don't know! It does make sense that EIG would carry the broad arrow though. Here is the blade of the 1827; All best, Richard. Attached Images

28th November 2010, 02:51 AM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,941	Absolutely right Richard, the EIC would not have used the broad arrow, but after 1858 and the effective demise of the EIC .......the arrow, which was used by the BO (board of ordnance) might have been used by the newly developing EIG. On British weapons, after the Crimean war the broad arrow and BO was replaced by WD (War Department) and the broad arrow. For India, and the Raj, it was an entirely different sector, and the EIG with the broad arrow was used. Again, I cannot imagine what the triangle is supposed to represent, but the EIG in that configuration is a match to the examples I have noted. Supposedly weapons and ordnance to India were marked ISD (India Stores Dept.) but it does not seem to be the case universally. There are numerous stamps and acronyms for certain armouries and depots but I havent found that list yet. All the best, Jim

28th November 2010, 09:05 AM	#11
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Hi again Jim, Do I take it that you think the marks we have been viewing are really EIG marks? I would have to say that they look definitely to be E I C marks. In your previous post, (next to last) you made mention of the EIG, and damaged stamps; I have been wondering, Do you think that the marks in the above photos are All damaged EI "G" stamps? (with damaged G and damaged broad arrow?) I note in your reply, that you seem a bit reticent, as though you don't want to call me wrong or something!......Please don't worry about things like that! If I'm wrong on this, then I'm wrong and that's an end to it. I do find this subject interesting, and strange, in that it doesn't appear to have been addressed before. ...and the only way to get to the bottom of it is to keep digging. To me, the marks apper quite plainly to be E I C triangle. Going back to the possible spurious markings and monetary gain; If this Was the intention, it doesn't seem to work! The tulwar with the first mark I showed sold for I believe, $62 dollars recently, and the one I have cost me $45.00 a few years ago. Very best wishes, Richard.

28th November 2010, 10:12 AM	#12
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Jim Wrote: I finally found the information in these notes, after the Mutiny it is known that the British government took over in India. In 1862 I believe, when the transition was in place, Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, and cyphers on blades and other materials were with the ligature VRI. Information on much of this is found in material on the coins of India. That may be right Jim,you would know far more about this that I do, but in some places Victoria was still Queen in 1886 AD. The attached one silver Rupee is from Bundi and dated 1943 VS - 1886 AD. Jens Attached Images

28th November 2010, 08:28 PM	#13
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Hello Jens, I have a few quarter Anna coins, and it seems on them, the cut-off date for Queen was 1876. On the 1877 coins, she has the title Empress. (fopt what it's worth!) Best, R.

29th November 2010, 12:31 AM	#14
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,941	What I am saying is that these letters, which do seem to be E I C, are placed in the same configuration as used in the E I G stamps. Regarding the spurious marks....it seems to me that what I said was to be wary of these markings, in my initial post as I had not yet found my notes and did not recall the EIG data. I cannot find the place where I made any comment about spurious markings for 'monetary gain'. I did note that Indian armourers often placed spurious markings on thier blades to imply higher quality. This is of course well known in many ethnographic situations. My comments on 'commercial' markings was directed at independant large companies and organizations in India who often employed thier own security forces. This derived from my idea that the acronym EIC might have been one of those. Again before I found my notes. I am not saying you are wrong about anything, but we are indeed both trying to communicate in examining possibilities, which I am failing miserably at I have a hard time seeing these marks, but since they are so badly stamped, I thought they might be EIG, as they are in that configuration. What I said after that was that maybe, since the EIC was ending after 1858, and the EIG was taking over, possibly they were using EIC for a short time even though not using the rampant lion. ...suggesting this as transitional. The triangle is confusing because it was, as far as I have known in these years of research, never seen a triangle used by EIC as a mark of any kind. I would love to see data showing otherwise of course. The EIC was of course private entity, not government, so the arrow would not have been used with EIC...but then there are no arrows seen in these photos, only triangles. What I think is that if these are EIC and triangle, they must be transitional and used as marks before the government took over and made the mark EIG with broad arrow, Jens, thank you for answering, and in explanation, I am unclear on which dates she officially was declared Empress of India, but I have always thought she became so while still remaining Queen of England. Much as the British Raj was thought of as a separate entity from the British homeland, and mostly there were separate markings etc. applied......the cyphers on weapons to Indian service had VRI. I dont know on the coins, which I only mentioned to suggest material on them would add more detailed data on dates. I always thought the Empress title was sort of an addition to expand her official rule to India, and despite that, she was still considered Queen. The Empress title would have broadened her rule to the 'Empire', but Queens did not technically rule empires. In any case, thank you for the clarification. Getting back to the markings, my apologies for not being able to more correctly word my comments. It is often amazing at how sometimes the most seemingly simple matters can become so complex. Thanks for your patience guys, All the best, Jim

29th November 2010, 02:43 AM	#15
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	I've gotcha' now Jim. Sorry if I seemed to be implying you said something about "spurious marks" I meant nothing of the sort. It was me who suggested that marks Could have been added with idea of raising value.... Sort of a Walter Mitty mind I have, that wanders and can come up with things that on the surface appear unconnected. I will attache a clearer mark I saw on-line,..........when I find it again! Again, sorry for any misunderstanding. Best, Richard.

29th November 2010, 05:16 AM	#16
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,941	LOL! Yup, ya done got me OK! As they say here in TX. According to my wife, I do say things uh, 'off center' a lot, so not surprised for any miscommunication. The spurious marks thing is actually pretty much a tradition with trade blades and typically many native made blades....and for that matter throughout Europe. Look at the fabled maker Andrea Ferara, who had to have been immortal to have made thousands of blades for nearly 300 years! (no I am not saying there really was such a guy) I recently read of a blade probably from India, with a hodgepodge of markings on the blade that consisted of runes, Berber, Ogham and Greek characters. In the Khyber, they were stamping EIC markings on gun locks through the 19th and well into the 20th century. It sounds like you and Gene have both encountered these 'EIC' or 'EIG' marked tulwars, so they must be out there in some number. Who knows, maybe during the changeover, some armoury smith who hadn't gotten the memo kept using his old EIC stamp. Its been known to happen All the best, Jim

20th February 2014, 10:43 PM	#17
napoleon Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 88	firstly love the rule,secondly are these stamps considered genuine?and do they only occur on tulwars?

21st February 2014, 04:44 AM	#18
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,941	Hi Napoleon, It is always interesting to see these older threads come up, and I only vaguely recall the detail here, but in rereading the posts it seems that no conclusive or definitive answers resulted on these markings I would point out that the discussion brought in similar markings which occurred on various arms which included tulwars. In research on EIC markings back in the 1990s I did find out that the East India Company did not mark sword blades. The only edged weapons with such balemarks were bayonets, and the locks of firearms were so marked. I have recently found information which shows East India Govt. pre WWI as using stamps with E -arrow-G After that : I arrow G Indian inspection marks were IG over inspectors number I believe this information probably pertained to bayonets and firearms but unclear on swords. I would like to see more examples or data on these triangle and EIG stamps as they seem to have inadequate substantiation to have been legitimately applied, their rather haphazard, incomplete and inconsistent nature notwithstanding. The letter 'C' instead of 'G' seems telling.