Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 29th September 2020, 11:27 PM   #1
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,801
Default

Hi guys,
The first reference I recall showing this was a British form used by the artillery was in one of my first books, "European and American Arms" Claude Blair, 1962. Mr. Blair was a brilliant arms historian who provided some of the most reliable and intriguing material on arms that have become part of the literature well used over decades. He was always generous, helpful and insightful with assistance with many questions from novices, like me back in those early days.

These appear as British in numbers of other references such as Wilkinson's books (before Robson) and I would have to go through notes to find the other references. I cannot imagine why these inexpensive munitions arms would not be used by British other ranks just as they were in virtually most European armies.

I'll work on getting all the references together.

With Storr being a silversmith, he is also listed as a 'hilt maker' in Bezdek, which was not at all unusual as craftsmen and artisans in those days often doubled with more 'mundane' functions. Since rather than 'sword makers', mostly there were 'cutlers' which means that these guys 'assembled' swords and sold them to government buyers or the colonels of regiments who were supplying thier troops.

In his early days of course he would have cast metal hilts as brass was finally being permitted by the cutlers officials. I doubt if he was just 'playing' with brass, as hilt making was much needed to mount the blades for other ranks in the army units. Not sure what more pictures of the PS cartouche would achieve.

Naturally, there is always a chance the initials could have been for another hilt maker, and I have searched through many years of references, Annis & May; Wilkinson; Robson; Southwick etc. but have yet to find anyone else with initials PS.
These rebuttals are however inspiring, so as always, I'll keep looking.
The entry in the very thorough work by Bezdek is as noted, compelling.
I have not seen this kind of cartouche with initials on other briquets, and most markings seem to be units or issuance.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2020, 12:14 AM   #2
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,801
Default

Just found this from a thread Feb. 2010:

Discussing a briquet, Fernando notes, '..I know the briquet didn't make the Brit's taste".
In Robson ("British Military Swords", 1975), "...in the early years of the 19th c ordinary artillerymen were armed with a short, curved sword with brass knucklebow hilt, similar to the French infantry sword (briquet) ANIX (1800-01), ANXI (1802-03)".

Paul Storr apparently ran the manufacturing workshop for the firm of Rundell, Bridge and Rundell from 1807 and became partner 1811-17. These partners were officially appointed goldsmiths and swordsmiths to King George III.

In these times there were considerable concerns about foreign imports of swords and blades, and the treasury department would levy taxes on any foreign products. With these administrative matters things are pretty complex so I would only suggest that perhaps, the reason for a cartouche with initials in a munitions grade hilt might have been to indicate it was a legitimate product by a maker well known to the king.

With marking on swords, particularly blades, it seems many, if not most instances concerning markings used are not only to indicate the maker, but often other administrative matters (usually the collective 'guild' mark is suggested). In Toledo, the espaderos del Rey were given marks that they were 'official' to the king, thus exempt from taxation etc. Without more complicated description, these kinds of matters are often behind the markings we find on weapons, with meanings now lost to us.

As those making silver hilts or any items of precious metal, in addition to makers marks, there are several other 'assay' marks. In this case, it would seem the PS was simply an indicator of Mr Storr's work, and possibly with regard to the scenario suggested.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2020, 03:29 AM   #3
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,801
Default

Doing more research, I looked in "London Silver Hilted Swords" by Leslie Southwick, 2001, and there is no reference to a maker of silver hilts for either Paul Storr, nor Thomas Stothard (1755-1834).
Stothard was a painter, illustrator and engraver, not a sword cutler, nor hilt maker.
Storr is listed in "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland" R. Bezdek, 2003. p.158......as goldsmith, silversmith, hilt maker, sword cutler.

In "Swords for Sea Service", 1970, W.E.May and P.G.W.Annis, p.333
"...English silver hilt makers were compelled by law to put their marks on their work. Other men put their marks on scabbard lockets and ' even on hilts not made of silver'.
Loxham is an example of the first and Francis Thurkle II (1791-1801) put his initials (FT) on many hilts regardless of the metal from which they were made.

It would seem that while Storr was running the manufacturing for Rundell, Bridge and Rundell, who were indeed goldsmiths, silversmiths and retailers of swords, they were also appointed officially by King George III.

Storr is not listed among silver hilt makers in the registers in the Southwick references suggesting he did not make silver hilts. He is listed mostly in various partnerships in Annis & May, most of which were goldsmiths, silver hilts and cutlers.

While these precious metals artisans did produce swords as well as their works in metals, it seems reasonable that they did accept contracts for the production of hilts such as these cast brass hilts in number for mounting blades.

In "European & American Arms" Claude Blair, 1962, p.97 (e) is a British foot artillery gunners sword , first half of 19th c. hilt of brass (incl. grip) curved SE blade 24".
In "British Military Swords" John Wilkinson-Latham, 1966. #66
Foot artillery privates hanger c. 1814, blade23.5" On this example there is a makers mark on the shoulder of the blade which is indecipherable but may be Trotter.

These are both identical to mine.

Last edited by Jim McDougall; 30th September 2020 at 04:06 AM.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2020, 12:02 PM   #4
fernando
Lead Moderator European Armoury
 
fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
... With Storr being a silversmith, he is also listed as a 'hilt maker' in Bezdek ...
Yes Jim ... a silversmith making silver hilts, among other silver works. Why thinking otherwise ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
... I have not seen this kind of cartouche with initials on other briquets, and most markings seem to be units or issuance...
Adding countless inspector poiçons to countless sword hilt makers, one can hardly pretend he has seen them all. Besides and convincingly, all countless pieces marked PAUL STORR shown out there have a unique layout, different than that in your briquet. The way i see things going on, i would take it as anedoctical that he would have developed a different cartouche for brass works ... just to defend my thesis.

The more extensive biographies that we find on PAUL STORR , the more distant stays the hypothesis that he engaged in copying and mass producing cast brass military armament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
Thomas Stothard was a painter, illustrator and engraver, not a sword cutler, nor hilt maker ...
Precisely Jim; what i said is that he designed (not made) this SILVER HILT that could well end up being sculpted by Paul Storr ... as quoted.
fernando is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2020, 02:05 PM   #5
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fernando
Yes Jim ... a silversmith making silver hilts, among other silver works. Why thinking otherwise ?


Adding countless inspector poiçons to countless sword hilt makers, one can hardly pretend he has seen them all. Besides and convincingly, all countless pieces marked PAUL STORR shown out there have a unique layout, different than that in your briquet. The way i see things going on, i would take it as anedoctical that he would have developed a different cartouche for brass works ... just to defend my thesis.

The more extensive biographies that we find on PAUL STORR , the more distant stays the hypothesis that he engaged in copying and mass producing cast brass military armament.


Precisely Jim; what i said is that he designed (not made) this SILVER HILT that could well end up being sculpted by Paul Storr ... as quoted.


Well made points as always Fernando, and its always good to have opposing views. Naturally my suggestions are hypothetical, but based on the many years of going through material on makers etc. It was years ago that I got the notion (after seeing silver work by Paul Storr) that I thought that perhaps he might be the elusive PS in the cartouche on my briquet. My attempts at suggesting this to various antique dealers as well as other arms 'authorities' were summarily dismissed and quite honestly scoffed at. It was not until Bezdek that the most important note - of his ALSO being a hilt maker became key.

Remember that as late as 2010 I still had decided this might be Spanish colonial, probably because of the heavy, unfullered almost wedge section blade. In the blacksmith grade blades sometimes found on the frontier type espada anchas these are well known.

The position I have taken on the idea of an artisan who was working with precious metals, and a factory where facilities for casting and likely various fabrication of metalwork (as the Rundell's were also retailers with likely a spectrum of items). ...might have served for a contract of 'briquet' hilts.

Clearly with the silver and gold items Paul Storr became famed for, a more mundane event such as casting brass hilts in such 'contract work' in his earlier career would not be heralded in records of these very common and little documented weapons. That was primarily the point I was making in this tale of 'the lowly briquet' (hence the title).

As I had noted in previous post, makers working with silver who DID make hilts, often EVEN PLACED THEIR INITIALS ON HILTS THAT WERE NOT SILVER.

However not all silversmiths who produced fine silverwork made hilts. As such they would have been included in the STRICTLY controlled conditions of the governing officials and treasury.

While am sure that it would be tempting for a silversmith to create such a piece, there must be reasons why not more of the large number of silversmiths did not engage in these particular items. I would suspect that if they did, and each one who made a silver hilt one off, was then listed as a silver hilt maker, the volumes attending to records of these men would be impossibly profuse.

The reason that it was so difficult to find information on Paul Storr among sword makers and production is that in this industry he was a minor player but included among other partners who were involved in the business.
Even the most noted figures in various fields have lesser activities in thier earlier years which may not be considered salient in biographical material, in fact they may consider detrimental to that which they are noted for.

The clearly pedestrian task of casting hilts in brass for a seemingly minor contract in the earlier period of Paul Storr's working life would not be a landmark event in his biography of his obviously stellar career.

However, that an item such as this hilt bearing what may very well be his initials (as per the evidence suggested) would be remarkable, given the fact that these 'uninteresting' (as per your words) other ranks weapons have been largely discarded in nearly the same tonnage they were produced.
That these weapons became so popular that they were copied in effect by virtually most European armies and remained in use well into the next century is testament to their use as a tool as much as weapon .

However, their common rank among weapons has rendered them 'uninteresting' and therefore of little consequence in the collecting world. So again my purpose in sharing this now rather obscure sword is to illustrate the possibility of a most intriguing history which may be part of a much more stellar context in history.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2020, 09:10 PM   #6
M ELEY
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,082
Default

Despite the commonness of the briquet, i think the history behind it is quite fascinating. Already, I have been illuminated by information presented by others here. For a munitions grade weapon, this little booger spread to multiple nations across the globe (I even recall seeing an example in the past with Turkish or at least Arabic markings!). Mexico, Central America, the Germanic states, Denmark, Sweden, etc, all had this pattern. When you think about this sword, it really was kind of the beginning of mass production of a simple sword type. The pattern of swords that came from these, including the forestry swords with their saw-back blades, were the ultimate utility items of the period, used to chop wood, build fascines, and as a weapon in a worst case scenario. Do I have a whole collection of these? No, but I still think they are cool and hope to get one of the rarer naval anchored pieces someday-
M ELEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2020, 10:10 PM   #7
Bryce
Member
 
Bryce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 174
Default

G'day Jim,
Apart from the references you cited I haven't found any convincing evidence that these briquets were used by British royal artillery gunners. There is plenty of evidence that they were using the "Spanish" pattern sword, which has a straight blade from around 1800 - 1820. A quick search of the internet throws up numerous examples with British maker marks from this time period. There is a good article by Henry Yallop on the Royal Armouries site here:

https://collections.royalarmouries.o...ative-498.html

Perhaps they may have used the briquet earlier than this? I think you would need to find a clearly British marked example to convince me.
Cheers,
Bryce
Bryce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2020, 01:57 AM   #8
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,801
Default

Hi Bryce,
There is nothing wrong with skepticism, as an obsessive researcher myself, I often entertain same, which compels me to look harder for evidence.
As has been noted, these extremely common weapons, produced cheaply and in remarkable volume, seem somewhat disdained (of course) by the other ranks who used them in artillery units. As I noted in my post #25, from Brian Robson, 1975, but did not note the page (154), concerning the briquet in British service, I think adding more of the context might help:

"...in the early years of the 19th c. ordinary artillerymen were armed with a short curved sword with a straight brass knucklebow hilt, CLOSELY SIMILAR TO THE FRENCH INFANTRY SWORD (BRIQUET) OF ANIX (1800-01) AND ANXI (1802-03)."
* ref: Bottet, plate II, #3
"...this type of sword is shown in a painting at Windsor Castle by Denis Dighton,dated 1813, entitled "Royal Horse Artillery dislodging French Cavalry".
ref: Royal Library Catalog #15044

"...and in Charles Hamilton Smith's "Costumes of the Army of the British Empire"
ref: Royal Artillery plate 46, issued 1 Feb. 1815.

Here is where is gets confusing:
"...this is almost certainly the sword referred to in the report of the Select Committee on Artillery Equipment (1819), 'the Sub-Committee beg to remark that the sword with which the Artillery men are now armed is in itself a very inefficient weapon for any purpose".
ref: Proceedings of the Royal Artillery Institution , PRAI, Vol. 1. pg. 94

"...it was also the sword referred to as THE SPANISH PATTERN HANGER, which was in use in 1820 and which continued to be worn by gunners and drivers attached to field guns until 1826".

ref: PRAI Vol.1, pg. 186.

The Bottet ref. was,
De l'Arme Blanche 1789-1870 et De l' Arme Feu Portative 1718-1900,
M. Bottet, Paris, 1959.

In this Robson reference, it seems these 'briquets' were in use by British artillery in the early 19th century, about the time of the presumed Storr production I have theorized, probably more at the turn of the century.
The type or character of the briquet in British use is illustrated in the painting by Denis Dighton (1813) COMPARING IT TO THE FRENCH BRIQUET OF 1801-03.

What I am wondering is if the 'Spanish pattern hanger' could be incorrectly termed as here my impression is that the briquet (of French form) is the sword described in these proceedings.

The Spanish pattern illustrated in the article linked has a hussar style cavalry hilt similar to the light dragoon sabers of 1780 (pattern) for British cavalry, noting again that the 'Spanish' association was simply for use in the Peninsula.

Or, were there two types? one of briquet form as my example, or the one in the article and multiple examples of its form suggested.

I think the best analogy to describe the situation with the dearth of these briquets, in general, let alone British examples, and especially marked ones, is simply as Fernando noted,
these are hardly collectible, or sought after (except for a few of us
The brass in the hilts was a useful commodity, and these were undoubtedly melted down as scrap.

Military history accounts and narratives seldom EVER describe edged weapons used in campaigns or battles, but firearms, cannon and even thier ammunition is included in detail. Few are interested in the lowly privates, or their weapons save a few of these valued artists .

In my early years of collecting (60s and 70s) the authors I have mentioned were 'the' authorities on the regulation military patterns, forms and unusual types in use. Blair was renowned as an arms historian, and Wilkinson-Latham was well placed with his access to records to accomplish his incredible knowledge.
Naturally all authors face revision and rebuttal as new evidence comes available, but I felt that these observations of these gentlemen were sound so have remained in acceptance of what they have said and shown as well as the work of Robson in 1975.

However, I too would welcome a significantly marked example with British provenance, but the evidence I have gathered over these years for me is OK at this point.

The 'ref' notes from the Robson text are the footnotes for each of these comments.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2020, 05:51 AM   #9
Bryce
Member
 
Bryce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 174
Default

Thanks Jim,
I knew I had seen the illustrations you quoted, but I couldn't find them. Here they are and both show a straight bladed sword with a brass, straight stirrup guard and black grip, not a briquet.
Cheers,
Bryce
Bryce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2020, 03:37 PM   #10
Norman McCormick
Member
 
Norman McCormick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,578
Default

Hi Jim,
Here is another ANXI sabre of mine for comparison of a similar vintage to the first and has not been modified. The P.D.L. is a later stamp that signifies Propriete De L'Etat meaning Property of the State and was probably marked as such when it was assigned to the National Guard post 1831.
My Regards,
Norman.
Attached Images
  
Norman McCormick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2020, 06:48 PM   #11
fernando
Lead Moderator European Armoury
 
fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryce
...Apart from the references you cited I haven't found any convincing evidence that these briquets were used by British royal artillery gunners. There is plenty of evidence that they were using the "Spanish" pattern sword, which has a straight blade from around 1800 - 1820...
Speaking of which, during the Peninsular War period (1808-1814) the Spaniards were around with two models resembling the one you linked to, but for infantry; one with a straight blade and the other slightly curved.

Only later they came out with 'short' sabers resembling Briquets, with slightly longer blades; the first one in 1818 and another (similar) in1822; the 1818 later in 1879 ressurected with a slighly different blade.
Despite their hilt being practically a twin of the Sabre Briquet, never a word is written about such 'inspiration'; at least in my Barceló Rubí's work copy.

.
Attached Images
  
fernando is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd October 2020, 12:51 AM   #12
Bryce
Member
 
Bryce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 174
Default

G'day Jim,
We have one great advantage now that previous generations of sword researchers didn't have - the internet! With a few clicks of the mouse we can view more examples of any particular type of sword in one morning, than these older guys could have seen in a lifetime of collecting.
Cheers,
Bryce
Bryce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.