Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - The lowly (?) briquet, a story of resolution

Jim McDougall · 6th October 2020, 07:01 AM

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.

6th October 2020, 07:01 AM	#75
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,738	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.