The lowly (?) briquet, a story of resolution

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=fernando]I am afraid the "touch" is the fineness of noble metals, not the mark of makers ...

" Contrary to what the ordinary citizen often supposes, jewelery pieces are not made of precious metals in their pure state.
In fact, precious metals in that state are very little workable.
If an ordinary wedding ring, for example, were made of fine gold, its resistance to deformation would be so low that the usual day-to-day activities of an ordinary user would be sufficient to constantly damage it.
Therefore, goldsmiths have always had the need to add other metals to the precious metals they worked with, in order to obtain an alloy suitable for the type of work they aimed to produce.
The amount of precious metal in the alloy is translated through the indication of its touch, meaning that the higher the touch of a piece, the greater the content of precious metal per unit of mass of that piece.
Quoting J. Almeida Costa and A. Sampaio e Melo (in Portuguese Dictionary), it can be said, therefore, that touch is the percentage of pure metal in an alloy in which it is fundamental.
The term "title" is also often used in place of touch.


Usually a good sterling silver has a 925/ooo touch... or fineness. The mix is ussually copper. Same criteria goes for gold,[/QU




EXCELLENT EXPLANATION Fernando!!! Thank you. I clearly had not understood the intent and meaning of the 'touch' in presuming its use as a makers indicator. The dialogue I had read in several references noting the use of the 'mark' of these workers in precious metal ALSO placing IT on non precious metal hilts.
You can see how I would arrive at that perception.

Cast metal hilts , brass, I have not seen others with these initialed cartouches in them. My point was that my example seems to be an anomaly just as its very existence as a type of 'briquet' not in wide use in a time when regulation or standardization was not the case.

[Jim McDougall]

Wow guys!!! These are quite a volley of entries!!! and EXACTLY what I always hope for, great observations with perfectly supported data. Thank you!

Fernando, I have understood that the term briquet was colloquial as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, which was explained in one of my cited references I believe. Actually the term was minimized or parenthesized if I recall in the descriptive test.

Wayne thanks very much for the additional information and explanations, I agree there is a great deal of information presented and evaluated in the great discourse, so I too am 'blowing circuit breakers'!

Norman, again, excellent input and examples well presented. I will be the first to admit I have little experience with French swords. I had never been able to afford the amazing Aries series and I miss Jean Binck's expertise.
The instance you note with the quillon terminal removal is most interesting
though I have trouble understanding such a deliberate and innocuous adjustment.

I can relate to your notes on there not being Continental briquets (of this type) having British markings of any sort, presumably issuance or inspection.
All the poincons all over French swords are these types of administratiive marks of course.

Your notes on the Royal Armouries are telling, and I will say here that it is my impression that the two examples from the 1962 and 1966 references on which I based my identification of my example (over the past 54 years!) did cite the Royal Armouries as one source, National Maritime Museum the other.

Your noting of the error on the 'briquet' (IX1182) being French but actually being Swiss due to Bern armoury marks is concerning. Did the Swiss ever receive French weaponry into their military stores? I have seen instances where markings were regarded Swiss rather than the presumed other origin.

In summary, these are all wonderful facts in rebuttal toward thorough examination of my example, and very much key data which absolutely must be considered in the proper evaluation (again profoundly appreciated).
But, my theory remains that my example which has a rectangular cartouche with the PS initials of Paul Storr (the only maker of the period whose initials correspond) is of a type well known on the Continent (as infantry briquet). The distinct anomaly of a precious metal type 'mark' to a particular maker is British (based on the individual) and only seen in similar context in a similar case (Thurkle).
In these other ranks weapons, notably cast brass examples, this type of stamp or mark in this location on the hilt, does not exist as thus far seen.
The marks that do exist are of course mostly issuance or acceptance poincons.

As Norman has well noted, misteakes of course do exist in records and classifications, which is why I noted the disparity in the references I was citing in the earlier part of this discussion. This pertained primarily to the perception that the only artillery 'briquet' (using the term that typically is mindful to my type hilt despite its collective use) was the 'Spanish pattern'.

In the early days of the efforts toward the standardization and regulation of weaponry in the British army toward the end of the 18th century, the case for other ranks weapons was understandably a maelstrom of inconsistency.
While the 'Spanish' pattern sidearm for artillery is well represented in the art and records c. 1813.
But this selection did not begin until the deployment of forces into the Peninsula in the Napoleonic campaigns.
What of the type sidearm in use in the Royal artillery from c. 1794 (as I noted in earlier post in organization changes) by 'gunners' (again a collective term applied to various participants in the artillery group). ??

The mark in my example is the same as the PS in Paul Storr's registration of 1793. If a contract was issued (as per the protocols of the period by regimental commanders) for a select number of these cheap brass hilt sidearms, why is it not possible that these would not have virtually disappeared in the past two centuries (probably melted down for metal)?
As these were clearly disdained as weapons, not considered collectible by any means nor of stature worthy as trophies etc. what would prevent them being scrapped.
Though Paul Storr was a stellar figure in precious metal art, who would expect his mark in such a pedestrian implement?

As you note Norman, such a weapon would indeed be as rare as 'hens teeth'. You discovered such a case with your NCO's sword and the Royal Armouries.

Thank you again guys, for your patience and taking the time to present arguments in this case. I really do not mean to be obstinate but I really want to seriously evaluate all possibilities in a case which is from a period and situations which were fraught with inconsistency.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Wow guys!!! These are quite a volley of entries!!! and EXACTLY what I always hope for, great observations with perfectly supported data. Thank you!



Your noting of the error on the 'briquet' (IX1182) being French but actually being Swiss due to Bern armoury marks is concerning. Did the Swiss ever receive French weaponry into their military stores? I have seen instances where markings were regarded Swiss rather than the presumed other origin.

Hi Jim,
The Briquet I have which has the Berne armoury marks was manufactured in Solingen by Gebruder Weyersberg and not sourced from France. I guess they were contracted by the Swiss from Solingen manufactories. I got in touch with the Bernisches Historisches Museum. Quirinus Reichen of the Military Dept supplied me with the details. It is the sword of an infantry orderly 1843 pattern used by Berne and several other Swiss Cantons. The pattern was in use by them for approx 20 years. I erroneously gave the date in a previous post as 1830.
My Regards,
Norman.


P.S. I did have a conversation over 10 years ago with someone at the National Maritime Museum about mistaken identification of some of their items, had a good chat with a lovely lady about shooting the .303 Lee Enfield

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Jim,
The Briquet I have which has the Berne armoury marks was manufactured in Solingen by Gebruder Weyersberg and not sourced from France. I guess they were contracted by the Swiss from Solingen manufactories. I got in touch with the Bernisches Historisches Museum. Quirinus Reichen of the Military Dept supplied me with the details. It is the sword of an infantry orderly 1843 pattern used by Berne and several other Swiss Cantons. The pattern was in use by them for approx 20 years. I erroneously gave the date in a previous post as 1830.
My Regards,
Norman.


P.S. I did have a conversation over 10 years ago with someone at the National Maritime Museum about mistaken identification of some of their items, had a good chat with a lovely lady about shooting the .303 Lee Enfield

Hi Norman,
I misunderstood in your post #49 when you noted Royal Armouries IX1182 tagged as French but with the Swiss mkg. from Berne and the comment about mistakes.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Fernando, I have understood that the term briquet was colloquial as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, which was explained in one of my cited references I believe. Actually the term was minimized or parenthesized if I recall in the descriptive test...

I wasn't clear ... enough, Jim. After 1806 the term Briquet did become its actual documented name. But don't give it much notice .
What is more noteworthy is that, in the day you produce or find evidence that Paul Storr took off his cufflinks and rolled up his sleeves to cast a brass hilt, you will win a whole case of Drambuie .

[Bryce]

G'day Jim,
Here is another example of a set of initials in a cartouche on a brass hilt. In this case it is on a French ANXI light cavalry sabre.

If Paul Storr who was a silversmith was indeed making brass sword hilts, they would most likely be for private purchase officers' swords, rather than mass produced enlisted men's swords.

Cheers,
Bryce

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Jim,
Here is another example of a set of initials in a cartouche on a brass hilt. In this case it is on a French ANXI light cavalry sabre.

If Paul Storr who was a silversmith was indeed making brass sword hilts, they would most likely be for private purchase officers' swords, rather than mass produced enlisted men's swords.

Cheers,
Bryce

Thanks very much Bryce! It does seem that poicons (punches or cartouches or markings or touch marks or whatever the proper term is) appear quite a bit on French swords which seem to have a predominance of brass in this period.

I have the impression that Storr was not yet in his premier stature as a silversmith c. 1794, but was apprenticed and then working with Rundell and Bridge who were working with precious metals and were retailers. Thus they would have been supplying the private purchase officers swords you note.

One point I have been desperately trying to convey is that what I am suggesting is that in a bizarre twist of the conventions of the time in production of hilts, especially in mundane other ranks hangers such as this...Paul Storr MIGHT have produced a number of them in a contract or agreement 'outside the box'.

Perhaps it was a fiendish ploy or prank to imitate the fine hilts for private purchase officers having a silversmiths mark placed in accord with such hilts in a lowly privates common briquet?

As nobody seems to have ever heard of these 'briquets' used by the British army EXCEPT two of the premier sages of arms study in 1962 and 1966 who apparently felt strongly enough in their identification to place these in their books I am left in a total quandry. Myself, as a novice collector in those days 50 years ago, totally believed what they said.........never expecting the identification to be patently dismissed these decades later, even without the Paul Storr dilemma.

I feel strongly that the comments by scholars who have deeply studied the swords of the British army in noting the difficulties and conflicting material in identifying these less documented weapons are well placed.
The deference to accepting the notion that a silversmith would have made such 'lowly' items seems logical, however in the references I have consulted it is noted that at times even these 'specialists' would cross over to make military goods in order to keep busy (referring to 1790s , Mowbray, op. cit.).

Still just feel like there is a good case here, but clearly a lot more research to be done

[corrado26]

For those interested in this infantry sabres or briquets:

There has been an exhibition in Germany and in Switzerland some years ago where have been on display lots of such sabres of all European countries. Over that there has been a very informative catalogue with 125 pages that is still today a good rendition for those who want to know some more details about this type of arm.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

I wasn't clear ... enough, Jim. After 1806 the term Briquet did become its actual documented name. But don't give it much notice .
What is more noteworthy is that, in the day you produce or find evidence that Paul Storr took off his cufflinks and rolled up his sleeves to cast a brass hilt, you will win a whole case of Drambuie .

I understand, the colloquial/pejorative or whatever use of the term briquet became regulation lingo in 1806 after its plethora of meanings began to refer to the general 'type' of these swords.....I hope I have qualified that enough, but I think I get the general drift.

Your prize suggestion of a case of Drambuie is GOOD INCENTIVE!! and I think I will go through a case as I try to wade through this ever building mountain of information.......again I REALLY appreciate you guys' tenacity and patience as we 'try' this case.
Stubborness is a Scottish trait (uh, Norman you agree?) so I continue with my defense of this 'ugly duckling' sword that has rested in my charge for over half century.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I understand, the colloquial/pejorative or whatever use of the term briquet became regulation lingo in 1806 after its plethora of meanings began to refer to the general 'type' of these swords.....I hope I have qualified that enough, but I think I get the general drift.

Let me be precious and transfer the original text; you will interpreter it as per your wishes:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Your prize suggestion of a case of Drambuie is GOOD INCENTIVE!!

And i will even give you some hint. Here is an assessment made by a 'General' (top member) of the world largest French speaking forum of militaria:

Si il n'y a pas d'autres poinçons sur la lame ou la garde il est probable (pour ne pas dire certain !) que ce sabre n'est pas un modèle réglementaire français. Peut-être avait il été fabriqué pour la Garde Nationale ou peut-être est il étranger ...
Je ne connais pas le(s) poinçon(s) PS dans un cartouche rectangulaire.


Meaning as you know:

If there are no other poinçons on the blade or the guard, it is likely (not to say certain!) that this saber is not a French regulation model. Maybe it was made for the National Guard or maybe it's a foreigner ...
I do not know the PS punch (s) in a rectangular cartouche.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... is a Scottish trait (uh, Norman you agree?)...

I prefer the Portuguese (?) saying: Stubborness only exists if there are two stubborn .

.

[Jim McDougall]

LOL, well Fernando, you know we have had a stubbornness for many, many years now and quite complete But thats how we learn. If everybody agreed on everything, how much testing would get done?

Thank you for this translation, which surely does eliminate this 'briquet' from being French. Could it be British ????

I found another book by Wilkinson-Latham, "British Cut & Thrust Weapons", 1971. In this (plate 28), there is another photo of the 'foot artillery hanger' but here it is captioned c.1830.
In this book, there is little text (p.27) but here the descriptions are deeply flawed, "...foot artillery privates, later to be known as 'gunners' were armed with a brass hilted hanger (but here is the rub, it notes plate 27 and 28.....plate 27 is an 1751 infantry hanger!!! nothing to do with artillery!).........which remained their defensive weapon until 1853".

The photo of the 'briquet' in this 1971 book seems virtually identical to the example he shows in his 1966 book (as plate 66) and which has the same identification as foot artillery gunners sword, but states c. 1814.

I then thought to check photo credits, and while in the 1966 book none are shown, but 1971 does, and states 'authors collection'. In the 1971 photo, there is no mention of the possible 'Trotter' affiliation but the sword appears to be the same one.

Going back to the 1966 "British Military Swords" introduction, I felt a most familiar and personally connected description in many ways like my own beginning in collecting which began with British swords as well, and ironically in the year this book was published.

He describes his being fourth generation of the family of Wilkinson Sword Co. and how he acquired a copy of "Sword, Lance and Bayonet" (Ffoulkes & Hopkinson), in the late 1930s just after it was published. He describes his difficulties in collecting as there were many anomalies not covered in this book, which began his own book decades later from his research.

Here he makes a key observation, " ...I would sound a cautionary note on the subject of military effigies, paintings and prints, where I have noticed a tendency to present the subject with the sword hilt not visible. When the hilt is seen, however, full use is made of 'artistic license'".

In his acknowledgements he thanks A. Kennard and W. Reid of the Tower of London; Col. Appleby of the National Army Museum; Capt. Laing of United Services Institution and Commander W.E. May of the National Maritime Museum. He also relied greatly on the huge corpus of notes and records of his father and grandfather's.

While these findings from my original sources for my classification of my briquet clearly present concerns, I wanted to present them here in good faith for the benefit of all of us participating in this discussion.

Obviously Wilkinson'Latham's first and subsequent books are the result of him cataloguing his own collection and trying to present sound references for future collectors and scholars. The eminent panel listed as his consultants are but a few of those he was in touch with on a regular basis, so we must believe that the identification of this sword was soundly familiar.

Wilkinson-Latham, as an ardent collector and research his entire life, would seem likely to have abridged any error or misidentification of the weapons he spent his life researching. The fact that he presented the 'briquet' shown in his first book of 1966 (compiled in over 30 years of research) and then again in 1971, suggests that he felt the classification was correct. It is interesting that his dating moved from 1814 to 1830, which suggests these had remained is use for some time.

His reluctance to place high value on paintings and art work make me wonder if perhaps he knew the Dighton and Hamilton-Smith paintings but did not accept the 'Spanish pattern' type artillery swords as necessarily valid.

There remains the illustration of the briquet as British artillery gunners sword in the late Claude Blair's "European and American Arms" (1962), which was certainly well known to Wilkinson-Latham as well as the author himself. If there would have been disagreement on this, it surely would have been corrected after the publication of the 1966 book. All of these men who were among a very close community of arms scholars and authors were constantly in communication together, as I learned in many years as a member of the Arms & Armour Society in London .

Now, the business with the PS marking and Paul Storr is a much deeper well, and of course, to be continued.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

never expecting the identification to be patently dismissed these decades later

Hi Jim,
I don't think anybody is dismissing your thinking, more trying to root out the truth. The Paul Storr attribution to me is considerably less important than determining whether Briquet type swords were used by the British Army at any time or in any theatre. As far as the 1962/66/71 attribution is concerned, to me the jury is still out as no other subsequent text that I know of backs up their thinking. I am always delighted to find out something new and would be really interested should a new, to me anyway, British Army sidearm come to light. I really hope your quest bears fruit but I am still doubtful. Perhaps an e-mail to the Royal Armouries and/or the Tower Armouries might give a definitive answer.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Fernando,
Looks like 28 to me.
My Regards,
Norman.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Fernando,
Looks like 28 to me.
My Regards,
Norman.

Thank you Norman,

The quantity of the French an XI version (1802-1803).
Mind you, this detail does not oblige for a specimen being French. If in fact it represents French regulation, it may as well be reproduced by anyone with casting facilities. I would submit myself to the whipping post if the majority of foreing examples out there are not reproduced using moulds extracted from the (Frenchie) originals. I can not see an 'artist' designing a briquet from his own inspiration and achieve by coincidence a form just like the traditional thing.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Thank you Norman,

The quantity of the French an XI version (1802-1803).
Mind you, this detail does not oblige for a specimen being French. If in fact it represents French regulation, it may as well be reproduced by anyone with casting facilities. I would submit myself to the whipping post if the majority of foreing examples out there are not reproduced using moulds extracted from the (Frenchie) originals. I can not see an 'artist' designing a briquet from his own inspiration and achieve by coincidence a form just like the traditional thing.

While the French version discussion is interesting as it reveals the keen similarity to my briquet, which I have contended is British, there is no intention of suggesting it is French. The 'French connection' was nothing more than a comparison used by Robson (1975) in my original posts.

I am trying to think of how I can best word this to explain, my hope has been to show this simple artillery gunner hanger as BRITISH as my original resources classified it in 1966.
Then, with the distinct initials PS in the hilt, that it might possibly be from the silver smith Paul Storr c. 1800 to fulfill a possible contract of a number of these munition grade hangers 'for the cause' .

This is a common design, used by most of the countries in Europe in thier armies at the time and shortly thereafter , and whose design was NOT dreamed up by Paul Storr in an artistic vision, nor was he inspired in one, but CONTRACTED to duplicate this design.
He will have used blades from a cutler, and as he is described, a HILT MAKER would have cast and mounted them on a set NUMBER of swords.
This was NOT a work of art intended for display, but a contracted number of swords supplied as directed by either ordnance, commander or official requesting them.
It was a 'job', and huge volumes of swords were hilted and mounted in this manner OF VARIOUS TYPES FOR VARIOUS REGIMENTS.

Thus far I have not seen anything which suggests the type of hanger which was used by BRITISH foot artillery in 1794 or the years prior to going to the Peninsula. The references to the 'Spanish pattern' sword allege that the term was for its use in the Peninsula, so what was around before that?