The lowly (?) briquet, a story of resolution

[Jim McDougall]

I recently relocated a sword that was one of the very first I ever bought, I believe around 1966 at a swap meet in a drive in theater in California.
Young and very wide eyed, this simple 'cutlass' looking sword, heavy and solid to me just must have been a 'pirate' sword.

As years went on, and my obsession increased, I learned that this was actually a well known type of hanger used in the British army in the artillery in the late 18th c. into the 19th. However, it seems to have been a common munitions grade form that was represented in virtually all European armies and all virtually the same with the characteristic cast brass ribbed hilt with short hanger blades of varying length.

Apparently these 'briquets' were in use with the French in mid 18th century in infantry (the term 'briquet appears to be French meaning 'light' earlier describing 'light saber').They were well known in Napoleons army as the ANIX, ANXI, and ANXIII for model years from 1800+

British suppliers apparently saw these as useful for artillery gunners and began producing copies probably in 1790s. While not necessarily good as a combat weapon, they were handy in a utility sense for chopping wood (emplacement construction etc.) though could of course serve as weapon if overrrun.

The thing with these weapons is that they are so common and alike, unless there are distinct markings, it is difficult to identify them by country.
On mine, there were only the initials PS in a cartouche on the hilt.
I tried unsuccessfully to find matching initials in British sword makers etc, but in those days, aside from a few references, there were no clues as to who PS might be.

I assumed many possibilities, including possibly Spanish colonial, but no really convincing solutions. At one point however, I saw some detail on silversmiths and thought, this PS sort of does look like a hallmark. I tried reaching antique dealers handing silver items but most seemed appalled that Paul Storr, one of the most celebrated British precious metals artists, could have produced this 'common' weapon.
This left it 'case closed, unresolved', for decades.

Enter the late Richard Bezdek, with his "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland" (2003) on p. 158........there it was,
PAUL STORR.

Apparently he was not only a goldsmith and silversmith, but a hilt maker and sword cutler, as was indeed often the case in these days as I have learned.
It is noted he apprenticed in 1784-91 under William Rock in London.

In 1792, he entered his first mark: PS !!!
He apparently retained this mark throughout his career, and became famed for his neo classical style in the Regency period. He produced items for King George III, and George IV of England.

It does compellingly appear that this 'lowly' hanger, bought for just a few dollars decades ago in a most unseemly place, has notably historic origins, and while 'just an old artillery hanger' was produced in the workshop of a soon to be famous artisan.

Such is the adventure and joy of being an arms historian, and listening to the stories told by these 'old warriors' as the weapons tell us who they really are.

[Ian]

Great tale, Jim. It is surprising what turns up on some of the "ordinary" old pieces we have had lying around for years. I'm often surprised by unfamiliar marks and little features on ethnographic pieces I've had for years that indicate they are older than thought or "interesting" in other ways. We are always learning something new if we look hard enough and long enough. One of the few benefits of getting old(er). :)

[Jim McDougall]

Great tale, Jim. It is surprising what turns up on some of the "ordinary" old pieces we have had lying around for years. I'm often surprised by unfamiliar marks and little features on ethnographic pieces I've had for years that indicate they are older than thought or "interesting" in other ways. We are always learning something new if we look hard enough and long enough. One of the few benefits of getting old(er). :)


Thank you so much Ian! indeed we ARE getting older, and it is rewarding to be able to finally, after a lifetime of study, be able to reveal the legacy of these old warriors, who now have become part of mine.

[JeffS]

Great story, thank you for sharing.

[fernando]

If i may Jim, some notes on the briquet, both on the "generic" thing as also on your example.
Generic as, this having been produced, and reproduced, in massive numbers among many countries, and also to its affordable price in the market, make it a 'must' in collection beginners.
Concerning your example, i wonder whether PAUL STORR decided to implement his personal touch in the hilt design, by omitting its quillon 'button', or was it that this was cut off during this specific example's life.
Also in addition some notes on this sabre history, some repetitive, in the eyes of the Frenchies, in principle the originators of the so famous briquet ... with the duly translation flaws.

" The grenadier sabers of the old regime were considered more and more cumbersome, it is to remedy this that in 1765 a new model of regulatory saber was introduced, with a shorter blade, reduced to 59.5 cm, the saber d infantry model 1767.
He was immediately given the nickname of "saber lighter" by the cavalry. The word "lighter" in the 17th century first meant "knife" or "penknife", mainly and also: "a small break in iron". To this origin is added "gear": a small kind of sword, a type of dagger, which has also become in dialects: "shoe nail". Its name therefore takes on a somewhat mocking, even haughty, connotation; or even gently affectionate: her small size and the shape of her guard are indeed reminiscent of the lighters used by soldiers in the field to light fires. Then, in 1806, this designation became official.
From 1767, the saber lighter equipped grenadiers, but also non-commissioned officers, corporals, soldiers of elite troops, drummers and musicians, fourriers, and later the Consular Guard then Imperial. The artillerymen also carry the saber lighter, which they most often use to prune the vegetation when they put their pieces in battery. Although it is mainly used for practical and utilitarian purposes rather than warfare, it is an effective weapon, whose point blows are dangerous and whose size blows can cause serious injuries. However, its mass and its size, in view of its usefulness on the battlefield made its tactical justification questionable, to such an extent that in 1806, the Emperor Napoleon 1st promulgated a decree eliminating the wearing of the lighter (which will never be applied), before going back on his decision in 1811.
The lighter saber was used until 1831 by the infantry, when the new model 18311 sword was adopted.
The saber is still (2018) under the name M / 1854 used by the Danish Royal Guard, which has 544 of these sabers in total. They are all German spoils from Waterloo, and later Danish spoils after the 1848-50 war between Denmark and Germany. The saber is worn by grenadiers and non-commissioned officers guarding the Queen and the royal palaces, notably Amalienborg and Fredensborg".

.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, thank you so much for the outstanding material on the background of these interesting weapons. It is always interesting to learn more on just how much history resides in a weapon, regardless of its perceived commonality.
With the quillon button, I am certainly no forensics analyst as far as the structural aspects of this sword's hilt, but it has always appeared that the quillon was broken off.

[M ELEY]

Wow, Jim! That is an incredible unfolding story on your briquet! It is always extremely satisfying when one can pin down an origin, maker, time period or battle-used item so succinctly! Glad you saved this item all those years to finally illuminate those that collect these sword types. I am also fascinated how the tradesmen and guilds often cross-trained and made multiple items to sell in their shops. I'm reminded of Paul Revere, noted American Revolutionary War hero, silver-smith and cannon maker! So glad you were able to pin down the initials. I'm still trying to find an American pewter smith's initials unsuccessfully, having gone through many books, catalogs, auction sites, etc.

Fernando, thank you for adding the informative history (along with Jim) on the briquets. It can be noted that many of the early pattern French naval hangers of the late-18th century had a very similar pattern of plain brass hilt with single integral knuckle bow, short curved chopping blades, grooved grips, etc (Gilkerson's book has examples listed). Not to be confused with it's maritime cousin, the briquet was strictly an infantry-type sword (to confuse matters more, I have even seen infantry types with a very tiny anchor stamp, leading some collectors to believe naval, but I assume the mark is just the smith's own stamp). A very enjoyable read!

[fernando]

... Not to be confused with it's maritime cousin, the briquet was strictly an infantry-type sword (to confuse matters more, I have even seen infantry types with a very tiny anchor stamp, leading some collectors to believe naval, but I assume the mark is just the smith's own stamp)...
Certainly not, Captain; you can bet your money on the existence of a briquet for the Navy ... and you will win ;).
Besides a zillion French websites announcing Briquets with the anchor (hilt and even scabbard mouth) as being Navy connected, we may read more reliable sources assuming that there was a Navy version ... whether Navy artillery, Coast guard, you name it.

.

( from French Wiki)

Saber lighter model of the year IX
After the revolution, a new version of this weapon will be produced: that of the Year IX.

blade length: 59.5 to 62 cm
arrow: 1.12 to 2.6 cm
heel width: 3.38 to 3.5 cm
blade type: flat
frame: cast brass, monobloc
splines: 36
scabbard: in black leather, with two brass fittings, yoke with trigger guard
A slightly modified version is also created for the Navy.


(From the French Nvy Museum)

The museum's collections did not yet include a graded gunner's saber: only two soldier gunner's sabers of the 1772 and 1784 models were in inventory.
From 1792, the model of saber acquired by the museum now distinguishes the rank gunners. However, it was supplied in its time only to the 160 sergeants of the 1st Marine Artillery Regiment, which made it extremely rare from the outset. This specimen is the only certified witness to date of this ephemeral formation: this regiment was indeed created by decree of June 14, 1792 and abolished on January 28, 1794.
It is about a saber-lighter (Briquet) of the troops of the Navy designed on the model of the saber-lighter of infantry of 1782. The production of this weapon, identified by the punch to the rooster, is original: in order to provide for the needs from the war, from 1792, multiple iron workshops, in Paris and in the provinces, were converted into makeshift workshops for the production of weapons. They were named Republican Workshops.

(Imagine such conversation in a Native venue)

...What could you tell me about this lighter saber, which has the particularity of having punches representing a marine anchor? ...

... if there is none ... or as a simple manufacturing variant, your Mle is a colo infantry lighter from the completely regular restoration period.
a pity that the scabbard didn't have an anchor too ... see even 2 since mine, whose chappe was punched on both sides, found a little brother here a short time ago ...

...Model 1816 lighter of private manufacture, obviously for a government order with a punch that I presume to be that of an artillery controller. ...
...The anchor is the Navy's reception hallmark, but I cannot comment on the authenticity of this hallmark.
Who in the Navy has benefited from orders from the private sector? It is more common for the National Guard....

... Did not the Coastal artillery dependent on the navy have national guard legions? ...

... I will be surprised that the anchors are not original ...

... I am not saying that they are not good, but there is an investigation to be carried out to understand how weapons from private diggers could have been carried in units whose weaponry depended on the Navy.
To be dug perhaps on the side of the Coast Guard of the National Guard under the July Monarchy....


.

[M ELEY]

Wow, 'Nando! Thank you very much for this information! I have seen that very mark (the anchor stamp) on the more common briquet patterns, but assumed they were not necessarily proof of naval usage- the same way the fleur de lis isn't always a French mark, nor a fouled anchor always a naval affectation (the U.S. state of Maryland used the anchor on their militia swords during the Federalist period to show that their state was the 'home' of maritimers).

I had of course forgotten about all of the various branches of naval units (Coast Guard, Marines, etc) who would have been so armed with such swords versus the typical sailors. This actually great information and now I'll have to try and add one of these to my own collection should I ever find one again!

[kronckew]

Just to muddy the waters: (;))

See Anchor Stamp (https://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7180&highlight=swedish+anchor+mark) see p[osts 27-28.

Eskiltuna made blades for a lot of nations.

[M ELEY]

Arrggh! Wayne, you are killing me! No, actually this is good information and it supports my earlier point that not all anchor-stamped swords are necessarily naval, but apparently some of the briquets were, which makes sense when you look at the development of the naval sword into the late-18th/early 19th c.

[fernando]

Dear Mark, i thought that by now you wouldn't easily take Wine's baits :rolleyes: .
We are talking about French Briquets with the anchor; not whatever items you find out there with the 'morbid' intent to muddy the waters (SIC).
You can find the anchor in a zillion things, from hallmarks to American weapons, in which the anchor has metaphoric means.

[Jim McDougall]

Well then I guess my totally 'naive' notion of this briquet (the one my original post) being a 'pirate' cutlass, was not entirely without merit.
These munitions grade weapons which were so ubiquitous throughout European armies, could easily have been acquired by private vendors to supply vessels' arms lockers.

The 'anchor' is of course a device that is among many used semiotically by makers, in trade etc. and not necessarily directly maritime connected.
The signature devices with multiple cross bars seen often on Spanish blades as well as the Solingen versions of them have often been termed 'anchors'.
The term anchor often has had certain religious symbolism.

Thank you again everybody for the comments and input on my briquet story.

[kronckew]

Dear Mark, i thought that by now you wouldn't easily take Wine's baits :rolleyes: .
We are talking about French Briquets with the anchor; not whatever items you find out there with the 'morbid' intent to muddy the waters (SIC).
You can find the anchor in a zillion things, from hallmarks to American weapons, in which the anchor has metaphoric means.

The only 'wine' I drink now is Port. ;) - as sailor's say, usually at anchor, on shore leave, "Any port in a storm". :D

We appear to be talking about briquets from many nations, you even mentioned Denmark! Let's not forget that many nations were (Forcefully) incorporated into the Empire and supplied troops to the French. with very slight differences, briquets were made by many nations under french control to supply their needs as well as the french. Briquet hilts appear on a variety of blade styles too.

After trafalgar, there was very little need for French naval sailors and Marines, or naval cutlasses, so Nappy took advantage of them by incorporating them into the Imperial Guard as artillerymen, at which service they served well. I could see some briquets being accepted into 'naval' service by these Imperial Guards and used exclusively onshore, using their own 'naval' acceptance stamps instead of the less elite 'army' ones.


Guarde Imperiale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailors_of_the_Imperial_Guard)

The Marines of the Imperial Guard (French: marins de la Garde Imperiale) and sailors formed a naval unit within the Imperial Guard of Napoleon I. The men of the unit not only operated as naval infantrymen but as gunners (after the training they had received in naval gunnery), sailors and engineers. Napoleon himself stated "They were good sailors, then they were the best soldiers. And they did everything - they were soldiers, gunners, sappers, everything!"

They were decimated in the Peninsular wars, and the Rusiian campain, but still there at waterloo, covering the retreat, and accompanying Nappy to St. Helena. Their Officers retained their naval, rather than army, ranks. Officers wore their distinctive sabres as in the wiki link's images, see below. Not a wild strech to think the newer recruits at the end may have carried briquets.

[fernando]

My apologies for the misspell, Waine :o .

[kronckew]

My apologies for the misspell, Waine :o .
Almost there... :p

Best Regards,
WAYNE

p.s. - I do actually own a Frenchy Briquet. Not my favourite hanger tho. Bit heavy.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jim,
My contribution to your story. A Briquet of mine made by Gebruder Weyersberg and stamped with arsenal marks for Berne, Switzerland. I contacted a museum in Berne and was told that it was an N.C.O.'s sword from C1830. It has a false back edge running for approx 6 inches which you can just make out in the photograph. I haven't actually handled many of these Briquets but I don't remember seeing another with a false back edge.
My Regards,
Norman.

[fernando]

... Almost there... :p
No can do. We seldom use the 'ipsilon' over here, so such key got stuck in my keyboard. We have to do with the ' i ' for the mean time; it sounds the same, anyhow :D .

...p.s. - I do actually own a Frenchy Briquet. Not my favourite hanger tho. Bit heavy.
I too had a briquet long ago; but i let it go, as it didn't meet my demands, collection wise.
By the way, is it my eyes or the blade of your briquet looks as not being the right one ? :o

PS
I can see dozens of Frenchies being sent to hell for their lies.

SABRE BRIQUET DES TROUPES DE MARINE MODELE DE L'AN IX
Ce modèle à 36 cannelures sur la poignée, quillon en forme de trompette croisière avec poiçon à lancre.

La lame est plus longue que celle de l'infanterie et mesure 63,5 cm poinçons à l'ancre et "B" ; "M" surmonté d'une rous crantée.


.

[kronckew]

...

By the way, is it my eyes or the blade of your briquet looks as not being the right one ? :o

...

.

As far as I recall it's a German blade, for a French Model AN XI Infantry Sabre Briquet, from around 1830. Curved but Bit straighter than most. Artillery version or Faschinenmesser?

[fernando]

Mine was a very regular one, i believe AN IX, bought locally, naturally left on the battle field by the Napoleonic forces during the invasions. A couple poinçons on the guard and an ilegible name in the blade ... but no anchor, though ;) .

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim,
My contribution to your story. A Briquet of mine made by Gebruder Weyersberg and stamped with arsenal marks for Berne, Switzerland. I contacted a museum in Berne and was told that it was an N.C.O.'s sword from C1830. It has a false back edge running for approx 6 inches which you can just make out in the photograph. I haven't actually handled many of these Briquets but I don't remember seeing another with a false back edge.
My Regards,
Norman.


Thank you Norman, excellent entry!! and seeing these still being produced and used in 1830s, especially in Switzerland. It seems that beyond the 'Landsknechts' there is little discussed on the military of this country.

Cap'n Mark, as always thank you for coming in, I knew ya would as the action word 'pirate' lurked here! and there just had to be at least a few of these in the arms lockers of the 'Brothers'.
Good note on Paul Revere, whose being a silversmith drew a compelling parallel with this Paul Storr product, and illustrates how many guys who produced swords (as cutlers they acquired blades and made hilts) were indeed precious metal artisans.
The best place to find such silversmiths in American context is "The American Sword" by Harold Peterson. Most of the editions include a section and roster of silversmiths (who often of course made pewter). Beyond that there are compendiums of such shops in antique references, but not sure about marks as hallmarks were for precious metal.
However, in the Storr sword, his mark was in this brass hilt, and the hallmarks required by assayers of course absent, so maybe the same is true of pewter.

[fernando]

Dear Jim, could you manage for a more accurate picture of the PS mark ?
I have turned the Internet upside down and didn't spot a minimum sign that Paul Storr was other than a magnificent silversmith; who has actually suplied some of his high end works to Portuguese aristrocatic families.
The only connection with his contribution to the arms (sword) area would have been silver hilts; which we manage to imagine in a splendid sketch designed by Thomas Stothard, whose works were put into practice by Storr; although the one depicted here was never brought to life.
So, despite Richard Bezdek book mentioning Paul Storr was a 'hilt maker and sword cutler' (per your words) i request your understanding that, this does not mean that such silver smith wizard would come down to integraly imitate a non British (sort of) sword, in cast brass, just for the fun of it. What for ?
So, do you see a a chance that the PS mark on yor briquet was someone elses's ... or even some low profile brass caster using his initials ...


.

[Bryce]

G'day Jim,
I wasn't aware that the British ever used this type of sword. They did have the so called "Spanish" pattern artillery short sword. What makes you think your briquet is British?
Cheers,
Bryce

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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]

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.

[fernando]

... 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 ?

... 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 (https://www.edinburghsilver.co/paul-storr-silversmith) , the more distant stays the hypothesis that he engaged in copying and mass producing cast brass military armament.

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 (https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/design-for-a-sword-hilt?all_fields=death&artist_name=&artist_role=&commit=Search&date=&form=objects&index=715&object_type=&sort=name&title=&total_entries=861&utf8=%E2%9C%93) that could well end up being sculpted by Paul Storr ... as quoted.

[Jim McDougall]

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 (https://www.edinburghsilver.co/paul-storr-silversmith) , 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 (https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/design-for-a-sword-hilt?all_fields=death&artist_name=&artist_role=&commit=Search&date=&form=objects&index=715&object_type=&sort=name&title=&total_entries=861&utf8=%E2%9C%93) 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.

[M ELEY]

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- :shrug:

[Bryce]

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.org/battle-of-waterloo/arms-and-armour/type/rac-narrative-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

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[Bryce]

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

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Bryce,
Thank you for these illustrations, which very much show the kind of 'Spanish pattern' you have described and in the article you linked.
Now my quandry is............why did Robson describe the 'briquet' as compared the the French ANIX and ANXI swords, which he was described as short and CURVED?
Further, why did highly reputable authors such as Blair and Wilkinson-Latham show illustrations (Blair's was in a panel of line illustrations); Wilkinson-Latham's was a photo...........while his caption notes there is a marking on the blade which he believes may be 'Trotter', who I think was a cutler of the late 18thc early 19th period.

While the 'Spanish pattern' evidence is profound, and there seems no doubt of course that the artillery men were using it, I am wondering if there is a case for some alternate situation in artillery ranks.
The wording FOOT ARTILLERY seems to have been applied to the captions in the briquets I have used as cites, which both match my example.

Could there be some difference in unit structure or simply terminology?
Again, why the comparison to 'curved' French ANIX and ANXI briquets as were well known in their infantry.

Could there have been infantry units assigned to artillery in some capacity to afford defense to the working gun crews?

I guess after having this sword unresolved in identification with its curious initialed cartouche, and finally coming up with a good (and exciting) hypothesis, I am reluctant to let go yet :)

There have been numerous cases like this with my often unusual collection from decades ago (the briquet I got in 1966), one other was a M1796 British light cavalry saber. I know it was British (made by Thomas Bate).
It was well worn and darkly patinated, with a curious squared notch in the exact tip of the blade, not damage but a deliberate square.

Most baffling was the langet had the letters CsA 4 inscribed. Naturally I thought I had 'scored' a Confederate sword (they were known to use numbers of British swords).
However, every venue of research and contacts with authorities on Civil War arms insisted, these were NOT Confederate markings. Disappointed, I then came up with the convoluted idea that it might be Spanish colonial (Charles IV)....but no sound conclusion.
Then a revelation, it was suggested that perhaps the letters COULD be marks for the armory of Castel sant Angelo, in the Vatican! In the wars of unification in late 1860s, men came from throughout the Catholic realm including Great Britain to defend the Pope.
So while not conclusive, still compelling and I published it as such in the Swedish journal 'Varia' (2004). It had been nearly 30 years in research.

Such are my 'cold cases' and this one is clearly another. Obviously, the true story behind these and many old weapons can seldom be confidently resolved. But compelling resolution is at least of some use as long as options are all offered.

[fernando]

...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.

.

[Bryce]

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

[Jim McDougall]

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

\
Absolutely Bryce!
I recall some years ago when I spoke of my early days of research B.C. (=before computers), and Andrew quipped, "..yeah Jim, but they still had papyrus didn't they?" :)

I can recall sending snail mail letters with overseas postal reply coupons, and my letters eventually responded to in weeks (if lucky), many months, and incredibly some took years. As I recount my 'years' of research on these weapons, those factors considered as well as the dearth of books on the arms gave limited possibiility for the kind of outcomes we have today.

As one of those 'older' guys (I am 75 now) :) I can very heartily agree on your observation on the numbers of examples at finger tips today in just seconds. It took forever to find examples in the old days, and auctions overseas were handled by phone bids (I had to be up in the wee hours for long distance overseas calls). There were great 'gun shows' but it was essential to travel to them often long distances.

Still I treasure my hardbound books, many by the wonderful old sages of arms now gone, and still have the yellowed old letters in the pages.
It is wonderful to have those memories, and at the same time have the amazing new technology and honestly the astute brilliance of the 'new centurions' coming into the world of arms study.
I still welcome learning every day, and often actually from them :)

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jim,
I can't think of a British sidearm that equates to the Continental briquet sabre. The only three I can think of that are remotely similar are the so called Spanish pattern sidearm the Dundas sidearm and the Pioneer sidearm.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim,
I can't think of a British sidearm that equates to the Continental briquet sabre. The only three I can think of that are remotely similar are the so called Spanish pattern sidearm the Dundas sidearm and the Pioneer sidearm.
My Regards,
Norman.


Thank you Norman! That is most helpful and now I need to look further into the examples illustrated in the references cited by the late Mr. Blair (which was admittedly a line drawing, not a photo) and that photo in Wilkinson-Latham.
There are a number of other references which may be helpful that I will loom into......these gentlemen must have had the notion of the 'briquet' as shown from somewhere.

In years of research, I do realize the possibility that as authors of references on arms classifications, they may well have virtually copied material from another reference without further primary research.

I sincerely hope that is not the case here, as obviously my entire hypothesis for Paul Storr(due to initials in hilt) will be defeated categorically if there is no evidence of a briquet of French style in British service.

There was another case of 'cross influence' between French and British weapons in the latter 18th century with the officers spadroon with five ball decoration on the guard of c. 1780 . The style apparently took hold in England, but by about 1800 became popular in France and was shown in their references as ' l'Anglaise' as a type.

This returns me to Brian Robson (1975) who (as I previously noted) describes the artillery sabers of early 19th c. as 'like the French ANXI and ANIX briquets and with short curved blade (obviously contrary to the 'Spanish pattern'.
Looking at the art works he cites, the weapons shown are clearly not like mine which IS like the French briquet, so the comparison is obviously contrary to his previous comment.

In looking at the many types of briquet (the curved knuckleguard integral to the entire brass hilt cast in one unit) of other countries I have never seen a cartouche with two initials in it as on mine. It seems invariably there are various kinds of numbers instead.

With that, what was most compelling to me is that British hilt makers early (in latter 18th c.) did sign (with two initials) hilts they made even if not of precious metal.
Either my example is in accord with that reference as I have suggested and perhaps even more an anomaly than I had earlier thought, or entirely a fluke in the maelstrom of truly similar briquets in other European armies.

While the Spanish style artillery sword being noted clearly had considerable presence in issue to British ranks, is it POSSIBLE? that a French style briquet type sidearm was indeed tested in small production numbers to British gunners in the latter 18th century period in which Storr did operate a metal work factory?
And that the authors I have cited used some now lost reference which showed this instance and which was understandably obscured by the notable volume of 'Spanish style'?

I wish these gentlemen were still available to ask directly.

[Jim McDougall]

As I presented this briquet hanger in my original post, I only cited my sources, which were of course effectively my words. I have taken to get illustrations of the pages of these references to show how I formed my opinion.
While it is suggested that there is apparently an absence of awareness of this type sword in British context......these sources might at least show my reason for my hypothesis.

These pages, top to bottom:
1,2,3: "European & American Arms", Claude Blair. N.Y. 1962 pp.96-97

4: "Swords for Sea Service" (2 Vol.) W.E.May & P.G.W. Annis, HMSO, 1970,
p.333

5,6,7: "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland" Richard Bezdek
2003
8: "British Military Swords 1800-to Present Day", 1966, #66

In the volume by Blair, example (e) is shown as a FOOT ARTILLERY GUNNER sword, in the plates of British swords.

In photo 4, the page from May and Annis (p.333) describes makers of hilts, using the convention of marking their hilts with their initials (c.f. as per example FT= Francis Thurkle)....even if NOT silver.

In photos 5 and 6 are the Bezdek entries concerning Storr, and various partners including his apprenticeship in 1790s with silver workers as well as hilt makers.

Most compelling was this photo of one of these 'foot artillery gunner' swords taken from John Wilkinson-Latham (1966, example 66) which is noted as c. 1814 (shown here as photo 8). In the text he notes a mark on the blade which he believes is TROTTER (though indecipherable).

Photo 7 shows the page from Bezdek with Thomas Trotter, sword cutler 1814-1820.

So in a reference from 1966, by John Wilkinson-Latham identifies one of these briquets as British foot artillery gunners sword c. 1814-20, and that a mark on the blade even indecipherable he considers Trotter, an established English sword cutler.
Since Blair (1962) has identified this same hilt as foot artillery gunner sword, it would seem that Wilkonson-Latham was in accord.

As Paul Storr was working as a silversmith 1790s onward and took over manufacturing factory in 1807 with Rundell, and was in that setting until 1819, is it possible he may have absorbed the convention of the two initial marking of hilt even of cast brass?

The Wilkinson-Latham example (#66) is identified c. 1814.
Thomas Trotter (if indeed this was the mark) worked 1814-20 as a sword cutler. Which means he was procuring blades in that period, the same time that Storr was running the factory for Rundell.

In these early days of establishing contracts between Board of Ordnance, the varied cutlers and blade makers as well as hilt makers, when the idea of regulation patterns was just in early stages. ...the idea that a pattern of this type does not exist in British context just does not seem likely. We know the 'Spanish' pattern was widely known and used, it is strange that the pattern or type I have known and supported by these authors is deemed non existent.

[Jim McDougall]

In "The American Eagle Pommel Sword", Andrew Mowbray, 1988, p.24, discussing Birmingham, England,
"...as diverse as the city's talents might have been, it is clearly revealed by a close reading of the various directories published during the period that nearly all the trades came together at some point to join in the manufacturing of military goods. There was also an extensive cross over between various specialists in order to keep busy. Candlestick makers would have been produced brass castings as well as turnings for muskets, pistols and fowlers and swords when the need for such work exceeded the capabilities of those more intimate to the trade".

In reviewing Robson's revised 1996 "Swords of the British Army", it seems there s a great deal of confusion on the Spanish pattern swords for artillery gunners as opposed to the 'saw back' pioneer type of the same time which he denotes as from 1820. The paintings by Charles Hamiliton Smith and Denis Dighton were with these 'Spanish' type depicted but the works date from 1813 and 1815.

Returning to the possibility of Storr perhaps producing this type of hanger for use in artillery units, these were times of war with Napoleonic campaigns of course, and if he ran a factory in 1807-19 in a partnership, would he perhaps have placed his touch mark in a cast brass hilt?

In photo 4 of my previous post I mentioned Francis Thurkle the silver hilt maker, and found an old article showing his initials in a rectangular cartouche like the one on my PS hanger. As noted, Thurkle placed his 'mark' on hilts regardless of metal used, would Storr have followed this convention?
If it was a subcontract in a partnered company?

[fernando]

Looks like it will be hard to determine that Paul Storr, on his own senses, went on producing Briquets, unless factual evidence is found out there; not just by association of ideas.
Whether Thurkle made silver (and other metal) hilts, these seems (to me) that were 'one of a kind' examples, not a production in numbers. Then thinking of Storr, a silversmith Guru; to make a (one) sword you need an atelier (workshop); to cast a number of brass hilts for an army contract you need a factory... and a different attitude, i guess.
On the other hand, while joining two (or more) letters in a cartouche of a certain shape may give an idea of a determined silver smith mark, this is a recurrent procedure; their "trick" to distinguish one from the other, is basically the detail within the cartouche form. Even rectangles may be seen "by the dozen"; Storr himself registered a few different ones.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Looks like it will be hard to determine that Paul Storr, on his own senses, went on producing Briquets, unless factual evidence is found out there; not just by association of ideas.
Whether Thurkle made silver (and other metal) hilts, these seems (to me) that were 'one of a kind' examples, not a production in numbers. Then thinking of Storr, a silversmith Guru; to make a (one) sword you need an atelier (workshop); to cast a number of brass hilts for an army contract you need a factory... and a different attitude, i guess.
On the other hand, while joining two (or more) letters in a cartouche of a certain shape may give an idea of a determined silver smith mark, this is a recurrent procedure; their "trick" to distinguish one from the other, is basically the detail within the cartouche form. Even rectangles may be seen "by the dozen"; Storr himself registered a few different ones.


.


Fernando, thank you! That was exactly what I was looking for, examples of the 'touch mark' of the silversmiths. The rectangular cartouche enclosing the maker's initials just as I showed with the Thurkle example in my previous post was placed to illustrate the convention of doing this with silver smiths and in the time period late 18th into 19th and surely considerably beyond.

As you noted earlier, there is profoundly no way anyone could possibly be aware of all makers marks, touch marks, punzones etc. as there was not as much consistency as one would like to imagine. It has been said that as makers mark stamps wore out or broke, it was not necessarily the case that an exact copy would be the replacement.
In many articles on sword examples such anomalies as flaws in the punches or stamps were strong indicators of authenticity in examining individual swords, just as the case in authenticating mint marks on coins.

With the possibility of a silver smith such as Paul Storr handling a contract of brass hilts for government supply of munitions grade hangers seems heightened by the facts that he was a hilt maker, and he was indeed running a factory for his partner.

My idea has been, this is not a single sword made on a whim by a famed silver smith, but a contract of indeterminate number of munitions grade swords. The suggestions are that this type of hilt or in fact sword did not exist in British other ranks because of the confusing representation (as per Robson, 1996) of the so called Spanish pattern, the 'pioneer' pattern hangers shown in art of 1813,15 for artillery, seem to compellingly sate the case.
However, with the degree of inconsistency in government and ordnance protocol and procurement of the periods from 1780s through the Napoleonic wars, the notion of a singular contract of a number of swords such as this does not seem unreasonable.

The best evidence we have of such a possibility is the examples I have shown from highly reputable arms authors (Blair, 1962 and Wilkinson Latham 1966) which clearly show these brass (French infantry style) briquets as British.
The example in Wilkinson-Latham (1966) implies a name on the blade may be Trotter, an English cutler 1814-20.
Storr ran the factory 1807-1819.
If he oversaw such a singular contract, perhaps in special arrangement with the Crown (the Prince Regent was keen on military matters, indeed having a number of sabers made for his cavalry regiment)......does iit not seem possible Storr might have placed his 'touch mark' in these hilts, even though brass?
We know that Thurkle and others did so even on hilts that were NOT silver.

This hanger is not a single one off sword, but I think a survivor of possibly a defined number of these 'European' style briquets (not just French) that may have been made by Paul Storr, a silver smith strongly connected to the Crown during the Napoleonic wars period.

Thank you Fernando for helping keep this investigation fluid, as I know I am learning a lot, even if my theory ends up not being proven.

[kronckew]

All the briquets shown so far have had D-guards.
Here's one they made earlier:
(1789)

[Jim McDougall]

All the briquets shown so far have had D-guards.
Here's one they made earlier:
(1789)

Thanks Wayne, all of which briquets? Who they?
Is this British or French?
Interesting pommel capstan or fixture.

[Jim McDougall]

Just to ramble a bit further, as have been locked in this pile of books and notes it seems hopelessly, and cannot let this dilemma go.

I looked again at the Wilkinson-Latham (op. cit 1966) reference, and on p.38, he notes that '...information on swords for artillery and other ranks is very sparse and contradictory'. !!!! ya think? :)

Further, '...artillery privates, later to be called gunners are shown by Col. Charles Hamilton Smith in his DRAWINGS in 1814 as armed with a brass hilted artillery hanger (plate66) which it appears they carried until 1853".



Moving to 1975, with Robson (op. cit. p.154) he notes,
"...in the early years of the 19th c. ordinary artllerymen were armed with a SHORT CURVED SWORD with a straight brass knucklebow hilt closely similar to the FRENCH ARTILLERY SWORD (BRIQUET) of ANIX and ANXI (1801-03).

Here he then notes the sword as same as Denis Dighton 1813 and Charles Hamiliton Smith 1815, both specifically titled and illustrating the 'Spanish pattern' sword.

When Wilkinson-Latham described his 'FOOT ARTILLERY GUNNERS' hanger of c.1814, he notes the Charles Hamiliton Smith DRAWINGS......but does NOT specify the title.

SO:
Could there be OTHER Charles Hamiliton Smith 'drawings'? which Wilkinson-Latham was referring to?

In 1794 there were corps of captains commissaries and drivers to provide drivers and teams for the field guns. In 1793 the Royal Horse Artillery already had its own horseand teams for each troop. In 1801 this corps was replaced by corps of gunner drivers. The Royal Artillery were referred to colloquially as 'the gunners' (as opposed to Royal Horse Artillery who carried cavalry pattern swords).

As Paul Storr, per the plate Fernando shows, used a rectangular touch mark registered 1793 (as on my example), is it reasonable to think that perhaps hangers of that of my example were in use by 'gunners' (possibly the drivers moving the guns) from 1793 until the advent of the Spanish pattern (sometime pre 1813 probably about the time of beginning the Peninsular campaigns). Since the Spanish pattern is much like the example Fernando shows in previous post, possibly then was the transfer.

So this COULD be a Paul Storr contract c. 1794 to c. 1807 (?).

[kronckew]

Thanks Wayne, all of which briquets? Who they?
Is this British or French?
Interesting pommel capstan or fixture.

The Google source said French, I've read they used that style hilt up to the French Revolution. I used that photo as I couldn't find a photo of mine which apparently is a Spanish Grenadier version that looks just like it, but appears to have a slightly longer and straighter blade (and it's scabbard).

As these had to actually be carried, I also include a photo of the baldric attachment for the scabbards that have a staple rather than a mushroom post to secure them, just to round out the info of this thread.

I found the photo of mine! (below) the odd pommel bit seems to be an extension of the casting to cover an apparently longer tang without extending the grip area. half of it is a threaded cylindrical domed pommel 'keeper'with an end slotted section. It is a bit odd... I note the D-guard one in the baldric photo also has a flat white leather sword knot with a bit of red (tassle/slider?) showing. And the bayonet. Blue uniform? Is it US/UK? Looks a bit like it might be similar to the above artillery photo with the windmills. My scabbard is missing it's chape, has a brass staple on the other side of the throat piece. To complicate matters, the blade has an etched and bordered panel that says 'GRENADIER'. - the French for Grenadier is oddly, 'Grenadier'. ;)

See also https://www.histoire-pour-tous.fr/histoire-de-france/4915-les-sabres-briquets-francais.html - use google translate to read it in english.

or https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.histoire-pour-tous.fr%2Fhistoire-de-france%2F4915-les-sabres-briquets-francais.html

I am getting rather confused...a bit of information overload...

[fernando]

The article titled "LES BRIQUETS DE L'ANCIEN REGIME/ THE BRIQUETS OF THE OLD REGIME", does not mean that short sabres were titled with such name by then. The one sword first shown shown was actually called model 1767, an evolution of the XVII century Grenadiers sabre.
The nickname Briquet, a term colloquially used in earlier period for more than one thing, incuding pejorative approaches, was only officially applied to short sabres in the Premiere Empire, as my be read in a 1806 regulation.
Meaning that, even the most spread versions like the An XIX (1800-1801) model, are nowadays called Briquets, not in the period.
Am i correct, Wayne ?


.

[fernando]

...That was exactly what I was looking for, examples of the 'touch mark' of the silversmiths...
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,

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jim,
I'm a bit stuck here, in more than 50yrs of playing with sharp and pointy's I have never seen a Continental briquet type sword with British issue marks or British regimental marks. I do not claim by any manner that such an item is not out there but if it is it must be the proverbial hen's teeth. However hen's teeth do exist, e.g. the sword in this post, http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17145&highlight=1796+sergeants was confirmed recently by the Royal Armouries as indeed a 1796 pattern nco's sword and it seems the very few examples they have do not have the scabbard, so a scarce item but a known pattern. Privately raised regiments and militia were outfitted by the raiser/s and of course export/commerce was practiced extensively so maybe this is a possibility although I'm not hopeful. Texts and Museums do get things wrong as we all know and in fact looking into your Briquet I delved into the Royal Armouries collections and found a Briquet, museum no IX.1182, tagged as French but it is in fact Swiss as it is described as having a crowned double A which is the Bern Armoury mark so mistakes are still out there. I have attached images of the British sidearms that I know of with brass stirrup hilts.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jim,
I just noticed your Briquet has had the quillion terminal removed. I have a French ANXI sabre with the same modification. Made in Klingenthal, poincons J.A. Kranz inspector 1812, F.L.Lobstein reviser 1804/21, J.G.Bick controller 1812/15. Might be something.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Norman McCormick]

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.

[fernando]

For whatever is worth, Jim's Briquet, potentially not being British production, shows no undeniable evidence of being French, as it does not bear the traditional poinçons, those applied at KLINGENTHAL (http://www.klingenthal.fr/marquages_etat.htm).
Notwithstanding plenty other casters/makers produced them in non State facilities ... as it appears.

[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.

[kronckew]

...
Meaning that, even the most spread versions like the An XIX (1800-1801) model, are nowadays called Briquets, not in the period.
Am i correct, Wayne ?
.

True, just like the ubiquitous name we call swords of the renaissance with long narrow blades and complex handguards "Rapiers" when they didn't use that appelation at the time...and the Iberian recurved swords we call 'Falcata' instead of Kopis.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. :)

As long as we all use the same name for these briquet style hilts now, Alles In Ordnung.

(p.s.- Thanks for finding the 'y'. :D )

[fernando]

... A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. :)...
What a romantic vein, old chum :rolleyes: .

[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]

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

[fernando]

... 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 :shrug:.
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 ;) :rolleyes: :D.

[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]

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.

[Jim McDougall]

I wasn't clear ... enough, Jim. After 1806 the term Briquet did become its actual documented name. But don't give it much notice :shrug:.
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 ;) :rolleyes: :D.


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.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[fernando]

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:

... 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.


... 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]

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 Jim,
https://collections.royalarmouries.org/tower-armouries.html Volume 2 page 295 no images but blade markings noted.
My Regards,
Norman.

[fernando]

Jim, can you count the cannelures (ribs) on the grip of your briquet; 36, 28 ... or other ?

[Norman McCormick]

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

[fernando]

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]

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.


Hi Norman, I didnt mean it like that, what meant to say is that I had no idea there was a question of the validity of the identification. BTW, I really like your style in the tenacious research you clearly engage with the sources you have cited. An email to these sources might be useful, but quite honestly I have reservations on the potential for response let alone viable information.
It was hard even in the old days with snail mail.

[Jim McDougall]

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?

[Bryce]

G'day Jim,
I don't why this pattern of sword is called the "Spanish" Pattern. They were certainly in use before the Peninsular War. Here is one marked "Osborn". Henry Osborn stopped using this mark when he joined with John Gunby in 1806. Here is another marked Woolley and Deakin, which also dates it to before the Peninsular War.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Bryce]

Here is an excerpt of a journal article from the 70's which also sheds some more light on this subject. The authors were calling this sword the "Prussian" pattern sword. I would like to find where the name "Spanish Pattern" came from.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Jim McDougall]

Wow! Bryce! This is brilliant!!!!
I have never heard of this article before, but in those days long back, I was focused on other conundrums, not realizing this solitary briquet was a resounding one itself! I thought it was identified as much as it was going to be and my interests were in British cavalry swords.

This material is truly unbelievable and FULLY explains how Wilkinson-Latham came to this British foot artillery description on this briquet. The article here mentions the briquet dilemma beginning with Charles Ffoulkes in his seeing a number of these in the Tower with date 1830, and simply presumed they were British as they were in the Tower!!!

So here's the deal, Wilkinson-Latham's father was close friends with Ffoulkes, and in fact it was he that presented young John with a copy of his 1937 book.
If John was so influenced by Ffoulkes, then quite plausibly this was the source of his own identification of the briquet.

Clearly no true research had been done on these weapons carried by the foot artillery so this seemed a reasonable solution.

When I mentioned the 1971 Wilkinson-Latham book, I noted that the briquet was plate 28, again labeled foot artillery gunners hanger (with the 1830 date that Ffoulkes had seen on the Tower examples). But, most bizarre is plate 27, listed as a foot artillery hanger c. 1760!!!!
I thought this was totally wrong as its a M1751 infantry hanger, even with Samuel Harvey's bushy tail fox!

But right there in this article, its says the foot artillery was carrying the M1751!!!!

Then to the mysterious Prussian pattern, and the brass hilt swords (which seem to be the 'Spanish' pattern') and are (to me) remarkably similar to the so called M1780 light cavalry sword.
As you note, they were in use before the Peninsular war (1807).
Wooley and Deakin ceased as partners in 1803 (I think there are some questions on this date).

Whatever the case, it seems you have soundly resolved the 'British' briquet dilemma, and while a bit disappointed, I am relieved to have the correct answer.
BUT, now what do I do with the PS mystery?
With all the confusion with the swords in this time, it seems there is always the chance that some obscure dealing could have initiated the briquet in an off one off grouping, but to say 'tenuous' would be an understatement :)

At this point, I totally accept that the British briquet is a myth derived from a misperception, apparently by Charles Ffoulkes in the 1930s. That is actually good to know, but NOW.....
Who WAS PS??????????? Was it Storr???? and WHY a briquet?\

The plot thickens here at SWORD MYSTERY THEATER!!!! :)


There goes my case of Drambuie, but I think a dram now.

[Bryce]

G'day Jim,
Here is the rest of the article on artillery swords.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Jim McDougall]

Bryce,
Thank you so much for adding the rest of this most salient article.
What I find confusing, much as the authors support, is just what was the 'Prussian' pattern? It seems the 'Spanish pattern' was indeed very much of the 'sword bayonet' form, and the Dundas was like the pioneer type swords similar in appearance but with saw back.

It appears to confusion concerning these 'foot artillery' gunners hangers/briquets began with Charles Ffoulkes, the writer on British arms, who saw several of these in the Tower, and presumed them 'British' being in that context. However, as has been noted, not one of these in the form of mine (orig post) reflects any acceptance marks as would be standard with such other ranks weapons.

The apparent assumption was adopted by Claude Blair "European and American Arms" (1962) in a line drawing; from there perpetuated by John Wilkinson-Latham in his book on British military swords (1966). The date presumed with these was 1830, probably based on the fact that the name 'Trotter' is thought to be on the blade. Thomas Trotter was a military outfitter and supplier of swords etc. in 1820s-30.

Returning to Paul Storr. He registered his own mark in 1793, coincidental with the beginnings of hostilities with France, which culminated in the Napoleonic wars in 1803. While he worked for the firm of Rundell & Bridge, who had contracts for the Royal House, George III and his son, the Prince of Wales (later George IV), he wished to keep his own identity and ran his own factory in Soho.
In the early 1790s, the Trotter firm was a prevalent supplier of military supply and materials, who were also situated in Soho.

King George, and his son, were both keen on military matters, and while focused on the elite aspects of cavalry and fashion, were certainly aware of the ever present forboding over the possibility of French invasion. There was a certain bolstering of the military as well as militia type units.
While Rundell & Bridge as well as Storr, were busily fashioning fancy silver wares for the Royal Collections, is it not possible a very limited order of briquets, following French (and Prussian?) design might have been commissioned. We know that George designed and ordered special swords for his own 10th Hussars, the regiment for his son the Prince of Wales.

While this unusual sword, stamped with the PS cartouche (Paul Storr?) in the manner used by other maker of fine sword hilts Francis Thurkle (FT) in the same type square. ....has no acceptance marks.....it seems possible that a short run of such weapons MIGHT have happened. While such 'cartouches' were typically used on wares of precious metal, Thurkle is noted to have used his regardless of the metal used in the object.

While Storr is listed in Bezdek as a 'hilt maker' in addition to his primary functions as silversmith and goldsmith........he does not appear in Southwick, which of course lists makers of silver hilts (as Thurkle does appear).
It is noted that during the wars with France (1793-1815) the 'war effort' reached into all trade and industry, with those businesses extending their efforts and production into the sphere of military supply as required.

Though it would seem to strain the parameters of coincidence that I may have acquired such an item by such an important maker in such mundane circumstances, I will add here that I do have one of the 'special' sabers designed and ordered for the Prince of Wales 10th Hussars c,. 1807, one of the 27 in original order (these never exceeded a total of 70-90 swords by 1821). Is it possible that the Royal House, patrons of Storr, might have placed a special order for these briquets (of which none apparently survive except this one) in the same manner as the rare 10th Hussars sabers.

These circumstances by the fact that there is no identifiable record of this pattern for foot artillery gunners in the dismal records concerning the other ranks for artillery, as well as that these kind of weapons were probably melted down for the brass, suggests the potential rarity of this item. Naturally this idea is admittedly fanciful, but in my view warrants further scrutiny.

I look forward to ideas, observations, and of course rebuttals to further discuss.