Quote:
Originally Posted by victoriansword
Jim,
I was also using Darling as a reference, which is why I was confused since Darling is careful to not offer conjecture and only states regimental affiliation when his examples have the proper markings. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective on these interesting early regimental swords,
All the best,
VS
|
Absolutely, and as you well note, Darling was extremely cautious, in fact as you know, he had that one instance of '42' on the one example, which was noted as specifically 'unusual'. Though I've learned so much all these years, I still learn virtually every day, thanks to queries and discussions as here with you.
The regimental markings situation with British weapons in the 18th century are fascinating because they are so mysterious and not necessarily standardized nor always accurately recorded.