I understand it as F for fils. I don't know if a link to SFI would cause a problem but a discussion over the decades. A quote from Robert Wilkinson-Latham
Quote:
SHF " this is for Simon Helvig & Fils ( sons in French ) A maker from the Alsace region of France.
This may give you a idea of date range which seems 1830'ish to 1850's (??????)
This one sold at Bonhams recently (June 2012)
A French Louis Philippe era officer's sword
circa 1830-48
Slender 30 inch blade of hollow triangular section with 12 inch blued and gilt panel engraved with conventional motifs and maker marked SHF (Simon Helvig et Fils) above the hilt. Brass hilt comprising oval shell molded with rooster and banners; knucklebow with foliage and lion's mask; pommel in the form of a crowing rooster. Grip with mother-of-pearl plaquettes.
Condition: Blade showing minor spotting, the blued and gilt decoration faded. Hilt fine and showing traces of silver plating.
|
Granted, this was from a Bonham auction but I could point toseveral threads at SFI and again, dozens of listings attributing the SHetFils to Helvig. The thread # is 110360-SHF-(simon-helvig-et-filles)-sword&highlight=hoppe
See my inquiry post #6 in that thread and following replies.
I approached this at SFI a few years ago and the contention was that Hoppe did not use the mark we see on this blade above, indeed dozens I have archived as blades meant for the US (eaglehead pommel swords). Others insist the book plate shared above is correct. Honestly, it would not be the first disagreement but it is a mark SHetFils and SH for a ciouple oof decades and while the jury still seems to be out and a very divided opinion, Helvig is how I approach the mark, vs Hoppe. Helvig in Alsace and Hoppe in Soingen.
Cheers
GC