Pinch of Snuff Basket-hilt

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
Here is one in a similar vein which was sold last year. It has an interesting plaque on the blade which I would suggest was accurately described thus-:

"Note: The applied 19th century gold plaque reads ‘The claymore was once the property of the Unfortunate Prince Charles and worn by him at the Battle of Culloden, after his defeat it fell into the hands of CAPt DRUMMOND of his suite who gave it to the late ROBt GRAHAM of Gartmore Esq’.
Although the information on the plaque surely cannot be correct, this sword is neither a claymore nor a pattern known at the time of the ‘45 it shows the great historical value placed on relics of this period by the early 19th century."

Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi,
Here is one in a similar vein which was sold last year. It has an interesting plaque on the blade which I would suggest was accurately described thus-:

Note: The applied 19th century gold plaque reads ‘The claymore was once the property of the Unfortunate Prince Charles and worn by him at the Battle of Culloden, after his defeat it fell into the hands of CAPt DRUMMOND of his suite who gave it to the late ROBt GRAHAM of Gartmore Esq’.

Although the information on the plaque surely cannot be correct, this sword is neither a claymore nor a pattern known at the time of the ‘45 it shows the great historical value placed on relics of this period by the early 19th century.

Regards,
Norman.

As you well note, this 'pattern' was not known in the time of the '45, and probably not around until early 1760s, most certainly not anything to do with Prince Charlie. There was a great fervor from early 19th century in England having to do with celebrating Highland heritage,tartans, antiquities etc. Sensationalizing items to purport glorified historical provenance is hardly unique (we see it constantly in hubris laden arms for sale).

Still the sword is an interesting item in its own right as an example of this type of sword which has is known but hardly seen often.

The term 'claymore' is another of the ever distorted terms in the realm of collectors jargon. It actually of course means 'great sword' and refers to the large two handers, but later became colloquially aligned with the well known basket hilt, which were not of course called that by the Scots.

[Jim McDougall]

I found the image I was looking for of the British dragoon officers sword with branched guard that I once had. While these are typically of iron as seen here and other references, mine was with brass hilt. The wire and rayskin grip was similar.

It seems that as officers swords of course were privately commissioned there was a certain penchant for gilt hilts, which often were done over brass.
It would seem that here we have examples of officers swords on this period, 1760s, which were done in brass perhaps for such application.

The image is from "the British Basket Hilted Cavalry Sword" by A.D.Darling,
'The Canadian Journal of Arms Collecting" Vo.7, #3, 1974

[Radboud]

Thank you for the feedback Jim, the basket does have a couple of unique features that does make it stand out. Not least that it's brass when the majority are steel (At least until the 1798 Pattern).

Another is that the typical loops found at the front of the guard are missing and there is no sign that they've been broken off.

However, I have seen another example of the exact same hilt style on a broadsword blade:

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Thank you for the feedback Jim, the basket does have a couple of unique features that does make it stand out. Not least that it's brass when the majority are steel (At least until the 1798 Pattern).

Another is that the typical loops found at the front of the guard are missing and there is no sign that they've been broken off.

However, I have seen another example of the exact same hilt style on a broadsword blade:

Absolutely my pleasure! and fascinating as I look further into this. I found some more on the apparent attraction of gilt brass hilts for officers swords in about third quarter 18th c. and these fashionably dressed forms.

In "Small Swords and Military Swords" by the late A.V.B.Norman (1967).
Example #6, a spadroon, 1763-64 with silver hilt. Note the character of the hilt, pommel and scrolled quillons.

Then an example I have of a British dragoon officers sword c.1775 stamped READ in guard (Read was a Dublin outfitter), and a similar example shown in Southwick...both with brass hilts, wire wrapped ivory grips, note pommels gadrooned.

These illustrate the ornate character of the period where the fashion of the small sword (and spadroon) lent to other hilts as well.

[urbanspaceman]

I think it has been agreed-upon that not all four digit numbers refer to dates, but there was certainly plenty blade-work going on at Hounslow in 1668.
Much has been declared regarding the period following the end of the civil war and certainly many Germans found themselves in Oxford, either at Wolvercote or Gloucester Hall.
Despite this, and despite the much repeated statement that all the mills were commandeered by Cromwell and converted to powder mills, there remained significant activity. Obviously, Cromwell was not so stupid as to totally eradicate his own source of weapons.
Kindt was in Stone's mill; Cook and Risby were still there; and Dell was certainly working for one of them until taking over either Cook or Kindt's (Stone's) mill. Probably Kindt's as I suspect that Dell had served his time with Kindt.
Also, Peter Munsten and Johannes Hoppie were still around and were actually approached by representatives of King Charles 2nd regarding re-establishing a native sword-works.
The king, in 1674, was very keen to achieve this, but sadly nothing came of it, despite the London Cutlers approving of the project. It came to nothing because it was not deemed practical in the light of massive imports flooding into the country, and the Cutler's Company lacking the power to prevent it. They had repeatedly asked for the powers to not only curb poor quality imports and Birmingham junk, but also to prevent the enormous population of highly skilled Huguenots in London from taking work of the English.
However, what is sometimes overlooked is that Charles 2nd created and privately funded his own army, and those standing troops were exercising on Hounslow Heath, so any smiths and furbours around at the time will have found plenty work. In fact, Heinrich Hoppie jnr. and Peter Henkels returned to Hounslow and were working with Dell until they all moved up to Shotley Bridge in 1685.
This was, of course, absolutely in keeping with the need to arm the Royalist and Catholic militia that abounded in the Northern counties and Scotland.
Consequently, this blade may well have come from Hounslow but equally may have been made by Huguenots operating in London (Hounslow was outside of London).
I am not au fait with the history of basket hilts but I do know that pre. civil war Stone (1629 - 1642) was making hilts from brass which seriously angered the Cutler's Company who considered them insubstantial.
Actually, looking at the name Humffreies, and the spelling of Londin I feel certain it was a Huguenot product.

[Jim McDougall]

Keith thank you for responding on this, and your research on English sword making reflects the outstanding command of this history which is profoundly seen in your newly published "The Crown and Crossed Swords: German Sword Smiths in Shotley Bridge".

While Shotley was a later evolution of the great Hounslow venture of the earlier 17th century with German makers, as you well note there was still notable activity there even in the 1660s. There was a great dispersal of many of the smiths there when Cromwell overtook Hounslow in 1642, when a number of them left to follow Charles I to Oxford. Still, a number remained and as you well point out, Cromwell, despite turning some of them turned the mills into powder making sites. still had sword making activity.

I think your suggestion on Hugeunot potential for this blade is well placed.
It seems this convention of adding ANNO then date practiced it seems notably in Hounslow, then London on the blades indicates this was quite plausibly as indicated. The makers name on the blade HVMFFREIS and the curiously spelled LONDIN, seem telling.
No other blades marked London have this and are spelled correctly.

While Hounslow may have had activity, it seems that while it was in the proximity of London (12miles away) it was not technically in jurisdiction of the Cutlers Co. (which is why they could get away with the brass hilts). It does seem there was always a pretty brisk 'import' of German blades from Hounslow through Shotley and in the clouded periods between where numbers of independent cutlers were supplying the Board of Ordnance.
Oddly John Hawgood petitioned the B/O for permission to import some Solingen blades to fulfill his contact in 1685.
Perhaps he was adhering to rule as he was a master of the Cutlers Co. 1687.

Just wanted to add some of what I have been absorbed in concerning this blade on this basket hilt by Thomas Humphries, whose name does not seem to occur in any reference thus far.

It does seem this is a genuine heirloom blade mounted virtually a century later in this remarkable Scottish Stirling style hilt. I had not thought of the Huguenot potential, and as always, you come up with these astute thoughts often not thought of .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi,
Here is one in a similar vein which was sold last year. It has an interesting plaque on the blade which I would suggest was accurately described thus-:

"Note: The applied 19th century gold plaque reads ‘The claymore was once the property of the Unfortunate Prince Charles and worn by him at the Battle of Culloden, after his defeat it fell into the hands of CAPt DRUMMOND of his suite who gave it to the late ROBt GRAHAM of Gartmore Esq’.
Although the information on the plaque surely cannot be correct, this sword is neither a claymore nor a pattern known at the time of the ‘45 it shows the great historical value placed on relics of this period by the early 19th century."

Regards,
Norman.

I fpund this reference in "Arms and Armour: The Northern Branch Arms and Armour Society", Manchester, 1968, plate 6.

In the text it mentions Sir Walter Scott, Rob Roy, and the associated allusions thereby,and that it is 'reputed' that two swords in Culloden House at the turn of the century (similar hilts) were 'assumed' to have been picked up off the field after the 45.
There is no mention of the 'pinch of snuff' phrase of course, and it is worthy of note that only 193 swords were found there after the battle. Prince Charlie was of course not a combatant, and was heavily guarded as he made his escape.
Of the 193 swords picked up, the rancor toward them is best described by the fact that a large number of these were dismantled and placed in the abhorrent 'twickenham fence' where they were disgraced being welded into this horrible work.

It is interesting here to see the probable root of this hubris laden description on the example shown from auction. While the attached plate is like most of these cases, entirely apocryphal, the 'romantic' in many of us wish it to be true. Who knows, maybe the hilt form existed before Delacour depicted it c. 1760.