Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Hotspur · 6th June 2018, 05:20 AM

Thanks for the attachment. It might hold more water as to Osborn being responsible for the G stamp if it was mentioned in the attached article.

I am reminded of a 14th century edict regarding armour and arms quality with the inent of disallowing Flemish goods to favor England production but with the demand quality be met. At the same time, barrels of blades entering London and being dispersed throughout Britain to be furbished in country.

I see no proof of all Osborn officer sword blades (and why would it be only officer's blades?) bearing the G stamp. Nor the mark exclusive to his wares (you do make a point he may be supplying others). The German resident not mentioned in that article I have to assume was either JJ Runkel (who was called out for his German blades) or the S&K agent. Whomever it was, was still selling blades to English furbishers and trade flourishing despite this report.

1808 is a rather late date, in regard to several of the patterns that turn up with the G stamp and not marked to Osborn. If the G stamp is to be assumed to exclusive to blades made through his production, where is the smoking gun? Why a G? Why were some marked GG?

There might be a better argument that blister/shear steel blades were phasing out as cast steel blades were coming in. Despite this report attached that Osborn was in fact producing these blades, I'd be interested in seeing more about his mills and foundries (producing thousands of blades). I had spent some time years ago looking at steel production and the changes in ownership and or control of sword blade production. Yet, the G mark seems reclusive as to why the stamp was appearing.

Anyway, the Bolton I just showed has that similar bright etch in a timeline some might expect quite early for such work, when most of it's contemporaries are blue&gilt. Should we then assume that Bolton was always working with Osborn and Osborn not just producing the blades but etching them as well? One thing I have noticed over the span of a decade or so is a rather individual type/style of b&g needle etching that does not mimic the Osborn blade decorations and so also true of those two bright etched blades shown in this thread.

If you find the time, browse my photo archive linked above and view all the Bates/Bolton blades and the Osborn blades. Note the differences in needle etching. Similar, but at the same time quite dissimilar. Both turning up with G stamps at times.

You might seek out and hail Richard Dellar, as a recently published author regarding British cavalry swords. I don't own the title, as a tangent I have not entirely followed but I do view a lot of US targeted British made swords.

Cheers
GC

In addendum, I have lost my notes on steel production, as I had stored them on the British History Online site. That shelf was wiped clean when they rebuilt their site http://www.british-history.ac.uk/

6th June 2018, 05:20 AM	#12
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 489	Thanks for the attachment. It might hold more water as to Osborn being responsible for the G stamp if it was mentioned in the attached article. I am reminded of a 14th century edict regarding armour and arms quality with the inent of disallowing Flemish goods to favor England production but with the demand quality be met. At the same time, barrels of blades entering London and being dispersed throughout Britain to be furbished in country. I see no proof of all Osborn officer sword blades (and why would it be only officer's blades?) bearing the G stamp. Nor the mark exclusive to his wares (you do make a point he may be supplying others). The German resident not mentioned in that article I have to assume was either JJ Runkel (who was called out for his German blades) or the S&K agent. Whomever it was, was still selling blades to English furbishers and trade flourishing despite this report. 1808 is a rather late date, in regard to several of the patterns that turn up with the G stamp and not marked to Osborn. If the G stamp is to be assumed to exclusive to blades made through his production, where is the smoking gun? Why a G? Why were some marked GG? There might be a better argument that blister/shear steel blades were phasing out as cast steel blades were coming in. Despite this report attached that Osborn was in fact producing these blades, I'd be interested in seeing more about his mills and foundries (producing thousands of blades). I had spent some time years ago looking at steel production and the changes in ownership and or control of sword blade production. Yet, the G mark seems reclusive as to why the stamp was appearing. Anyway, the Bolton I just showed has that similar bright etch in a timeline some might expect quite early for such work, when most of it's contemporaries are blue&gilt. Should we then assume that Bolton was always working with Osborn and Osborn not just producing the blades but etching them as well? One thing I have noticed over the span of a decade or so is a rather individual type/style of b&g needle etching that does not mimic the Osborn blade decorations and so also true of those two bright etched blades shown in this thread. If you find the time, browse my photo archive linked above and view all the Bates/Bolton blades and the Osborn blades. Note the differences in needle etching. Similar, but at the same time quite dissimilar. Both turning up with G stamps at times. You might seek out and hail Richard Dellar, as a recently published author regarding British cavalry swords. I don't own the title, as a tangent I have not entirely followed but I do view a lot of US targeted British made swords. Cheers GC In addendum, I have lost my notes on steel production, as I had stored them on the British History Online site. That shelf was wiped clean when they rebuilt their site http://www.british-history.ac.uk/