Question about a briquet

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 · 27th August 2010, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Anderson

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

Russia didn't export anything to the US or the CS during the American Civil War. No swords, no guns, nothing.

Ron Anderson · 28th August 2010, 03:19 AM

Hi Dmitry

Sorry, I didn't mean to say it was imported during the civil war. It may have been imported before the civil war.

If so, it may have been used during the war.

I have a briquet I purchased from America. It is Russian but it has the markings CA on it and I've been told this is associated with the civil war.

Since then I have seen dozens of briquets for sale from America, all Russian and all with the marking CA on the blade.

Ron

Dmitry · 28th August 2010, 03:41 AM

Russia never exported any arms to the US, or anywhere else, aside from probably just the Kingdom of Bulgaria, which was even less industrially-developed. In fact, quite the opposite, the US companies exported arms into Russia, and later into the Soviet Union.
The briquet with the CA marking that you have sounds like a an Italian bersaglieri or police hanger from the WWII period or thereabout, and is indeed quite abundant.

Ron Anderson · 28th August 2010, 05:38 AM

Hi Dmitry

The item is in storage currently and unfortunately I don't have a photo. However, it is certainly not from WW2. It is an early 19th century briquet - this is blatantly obvious from both its condition and its patina. It matches the Russian 1817 model briquet exactly. Which doesn't surprise me, because that is what it was described as when I bought it.

I have been collecting swords for 25 years and I know the difference between a ww2 sword and a sword from the early to mid 19th century.

This sword is the Russian pattern.

That doesn't necessarily mean it was manufactured in Russia. It could have been made in Solingen, and the US certainly imported swords from there. However, there is no such marking to confirm one way or another.

Ron

Dmitry · 28th August 2010, 06:28 AM

Is that it?

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.

M ELEY · 26th August 2010, 12:03 AM

Yes, the briquet pictured was very common, but an earlier French form that came out in the late 18th was rarer and had a nice look to it.

The iron hilt is the one we were discussing and still no diffinitive answer. Some classify them as naval, others as possible Brit Life Guards and, of course, the Mountain Artillery swords of the later 19th c.

M ELEY · 27th August 2010, 11:24 AM

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

This one is a cleaver fake (or should we say a misrepresentation). It appears to be the Starr m1826 naval cutlass. It's blade is spot-on with curved edge, unstopped fuller, guard with curved outer edge. Gilkerson mentions that reproductions of this sword were made awhile back and are being passed off either on purpose or accident as authentic. Note the wood grip, which appears old, should be ribbed iron for this model and that any of the Starr swords made after 1812 were NOT for private use, so thus would be marked with a "N Starr". Another example of how easy it is to be fooled with this tricky area of collecting-

Ron Anderson · 27th August 2010, 03:16 PM

Hi

I have just been skimming the edges of this conversation but having read the replies in a little more detail can now appreciate what this discussion has been about.

Sidearms aren't really my thing, I must admit. Jim seems to have a good handle on the iron hilted sword and I can't really add much to that, except to say that it is a nice sword.These departmental sidearms seem pretty rare.

Though you seem more interested in naval items, it's not a bad sword in its own right, and just a pity there's no scabbard.

Going back to the briquet (if you'll forgive me) I do believe it is a German briquet. At least the hilt is German. I'm pretty sure of this, as the very last rib is thicker than the others – and only the German pattern, I think M1879, looked like this. I can't recall exactly which German states - I believe most if not all of them.

So the sword may not be a reproduction after all, but as suggested part of Bannerman's handiwork. As it was used until almost the end of the 19th century, the fullered blade is perhaps not that surprising. After all, this briquet was introduced far later than the others (the russian one was introduced in the 1820s, and most of the others also far earlier)

So perhaps this was an American sword imported from Europe after all. It would have been well after the Civil War though, so one has to ask 'why'.

28th August 2010, 06:28 AM	#8
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	Is that it? Attached Images

21st August 2010, 04:36 AM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	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	#2
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	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	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...

28th August 2010, 03:19 AM	#5
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Dmitry Sorry, I didn't mean to say it was imported during the civil war. It may have been imported before the civil war. If so, it may have been used during the war. I have a briquet I purchased from America. It is Russian but it has the markings CA on it and I've been told this is associated with the civil war. Since then I have seen dozens of briquets for sale from America, all Russian and all with the marking CA on the blade. Ron

28th August 2010, 03:41 AM	#6
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	Russia never exported any arms to the US, or anywhere else, aside from probably just the Kingdom of Bulgaria, which was even less industrially-developed. In fact, quite the opposite, the US companies exported arms into Russia, and later into the Soviet Union. The briquet with the CA marking that you have sounds like a an Italian bersaglieri or police hanger from the WWII period or thereabout, and is indeed quite abundant.

28th August 2010, 05:38 AM	#7
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Dmitry The item is in storage currently and unfortunately I don't have a photo. However, it is certainly not from WW2. It is an early 19th century briquet - this is blatantly obvious from both its condition and its patina. It matches the Russian 1817 model briquet exactly. Which doesn't surprise me, because that is what it was described as when I bought it. I have been collecting swords for 25 years and I know the difference between a ww2 sword and a sword from the early to mid 19th century. This sword is the Russian pattern. That doesn't necessarily mean it was manufactured in Russia. It could have been made in Solingen, and the US certainly imported swords from there. However, there is no such marking to confirm one way or another. Ron

23rd August 2010, 08:21 AM	#11
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.

26th August 2010, 12:03 AM	#12
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	Yes, the briquet pictured was very common, but an earlier French form that came out in the late 18th was rarer and had a nice look to it. The iron hilt is the one we were discussing and still no diffinitive answer. Some classify them as naval, others as possible Brit Life Guards and, of course, the Mountain Artillery swords of the later 19th c.

27th August 2010, 11:24 AM	#13
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT This one is a cleaver fake (or should we say a misrepresentation). It appears to be the Starr m1826 naval cutlass. It's blade is spot-on with curved edge, unstopped fuller, guard with curved outer edge. Gilkerson mentions that reproductions of this sword were made awhile back and are being passed off either on purpose or accident as authentic. Note the wood grip, which appears old, should be ribbed iron for this model and that any of the Starr swords made after 1812 were NOT for private use, so thus would be marked with a "N Starr". Another example of how easy it is to be fooled with this tricky area of collecting-

27th August 2010, 03:16 PM	#14
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi I have just been skimming the edges of this conversation but having read the replies in a little more detail can now appreciate what this discussion has been about. Sidearms aren't really my thing, I must admit. Jim seems to have a good handle on the iron hilted sword and I can't really add much to that, except to say that it is a nice sword.These departmental sidearms seem pretty rare. Though you seem more interested in naval items, it's not a bad sword in its own right, and just a pity there's no scabbard. Going back to the briquet (if you'll forgive me) I do believe it is a German briquet. At least the hilt is German. I'm pretty sure of this, as the very last rib is thicker than the others – and only the German pattern, I think M1879, looked like this. I can't recall exactly which German states - I believe most if not all of them. So the sword may not be a reproduction after all, but as suggested part of Bannerman's handiwork. As it was used until almost the end of the 19th century, the fullered blade is perhaps not that surprising. After all, this briquet was introduced far later than the others (the russian one was introduced in the 1820s, and most of the others also far earlier) So perhaps this was an American sword imported from Europe after all. It would have been well after the Civil War though, so one has to ask 'why'.