Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bryce
G'day Jim,
Here is another example of a set of initials in a cartouche on a brass hilt. In this case it is on a French ANXI light cavalry sabre.
If Paul Storr who was a silversmith was indeed making brass sword hilts, they would most likely be for private purchase officers' swords, rather than mass produced enlisted men's swords.
Cheers,
Bryce
|
Thanks very much Bryce! It does seem that poicons (punches or cartouches or markings or touch marks or whatever the proper term is) appear quite a bit on French swords which seem to have a predominance of brass in this period.
I have the impression that Storr was not yet in his premier stature as a silversmith c. 1794, but was apprenticed and then working with Rundell and Bridge who were working with precious metals and were retailers. Thus they would have been supplying the private purchase officers swords you note.
One point I have been desperately trying to convey is that what I am suggesting is that in a bizarre twist of the conventions of the time in production of hilts, especially in mundane other ranks hangers such as this...Paul Storr MIGHT have produced a number of them in a contract or agreement 'outside the box'.
Perhaps it was a fiendish ploy or prank to imitate the fine hilts for private purchase officers having a silversmiths mark placed in accord with such hilts in a lowly privates common briquet?
As nobody seems to have ever heard of these 'briquets' used by the British army EXCEPT two of the premier sages of arms study in 1962 and 1966 who apparently felt strongly enough in their identification to place these in their books I am left in a total quandry. Myself, as a novice collector in those days 50 years ago, totally believed what they said.........never expecting the identification to be patently dismissed these decades later, even without the Paul Storr dilemma.
I feel strongly that the comments by scholars who have deeply studied the swords of the British army in noting the difficulties and conflicting material in identifying these less documented weapons are well placed.
The deference to accepting the notion that a silversmith would have made such 'lowly' items seems logical, however in the references I have consulted it is noted that at times even these 'specialists' would cross over to make military goods in order to keep busy (referring to 1790s , Mowbray, op. cit.).
Still just feel like there is a good case here, but clearly a lot more research to be done
