Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 18th October 2018, 10:20 PM

I will have to move toward correction as well as I was thinking that the application of this REEVES marking and BIRMN was not in the typical English manner, and that perhaps Spanish blades were being marked with a spurious signature.
In going through notes I have found that on 'export' blades from England, in the case of those to India, MOLE placed on his blades for tulwars (though in the case I found c. 1890s) at the upper blade quadrant at forte
MOLE
BIRMN
Obviously this was much later than we presume this sword as it is a M1821 pattern, but we realize that REEVES was producing most of the 1821/29 pattern up to the replacement with the M1853.
Actually about 1840s he was experimenting with a new type of tang which was a full tang with the grips attached to either side in a 'sandwich' fashion.

We may presume that by the 1840s, the old style blades (for 1821) were probably ceased in production and by 1848 he was using the new style with full tang for officers blades. The blade of the example posted here seems reprofiled in comparison to the original 35" blades.

While it was customary for English makers to stamp their name on the back of the blade near the hilt (this was done on other ranks blades to the end of the century). ......on officers blades a more elaborate makers panel was etched at the forte.

I thought this forte stamp with C S REEVES / BIRMN was out of order but after seeing the MOLE blade for India with the same abbreviation and on the face of the blade...I think export blades from Birmingham must have used the name and this abbreviation on the face of the blade in this manner. It would seem that the same maker in Spain producing similar hilts as the British M1821 must have had some of these Reeves blades.
At this point we cannot presume whether exported to Portugal or not....its believed provenance is insufficient to gauge that....and the markings seem consistent with some sort of unit marking. The absence of the arsenal AE just means the sword must have been issued privately as in militia or possibly police units.

I know that in Mexico there were units of police called 'rurales' who were appointed by local officials to patrol remote regions and they wore swords of all manner acquired from surplus or obsolete stores. It seems in Spain there were similar remote units but I cannot recall more details.

Incidentally.....Reeves was working with Wilkinson by 1850s and finally acquired by them by 1880s..........Mole was also a subcontractor for Wilkinson and handled many of their export contracts but not officially acquired until 1920s.

Interesting that these 'Spanish' M1821s were first posted and discussed over 15 years ago, then again several times over the years on other forums. It is always rewarding to see cold cases revisited and possible solutions found.

18th October 2018, 10:20 PM	#15
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,744	I will have to move toward correction as well as I was thinking that the application of this REEVES marking and BIRMN was not in the typical English manner, and that perhaps Spanish blades were being marked with a spurious signature. In going through notes I have found that on 'export' blades from England, in the case of those to India, MOLE placed on his blades for tulwars (though in the case I found c. 1890s) at the upper blade quadrant at forte MOLE BIRMN Obviously this was much later than we presume this sword as it is a M1821 pattern, but we realize that REEVES was producing most of the 1821/29 pattern up to the replacement with the M1853. Actually about 1840s he was experimenting with a new type of tang which was a full tang with the grips attached to either side in a 'sandwich' fashion. We may presume that by the 1840s, the old style blades (for 1821) were probably ceased in production and by 1848 he was using the new style with full tang for officers blades. The blade of the example posted here seems reprofiled in comparison to the original 35" blades. While it was customary for English makers to stamp their name on the back of the blade near the hilt (this was done on other ranks blades to the end of the century). ......on officers blades a more elaborate makers panel was etched at the forte. I thought this forte stamp with C S REEVES / BIRMN was out of order but after seeing the MOLE blade for India with the same abbreviation and on the face of the blade...I think export blades from Birmingham must have used the name and this abbreviation on the face of the blade in this manner. It would seem that the same maker in Spain producing similar hilts as the British M1821 must have had some of these Reeves blades. At this point we cannot presume whether exported to Portugal or not....its believed provenance is insufficient to gauge that....and the markings seem consistent with some sort of unit marking. The absence of the arsenal AE just means the sword must have been issued privately as in militia or possibly police units. I know that in Mexico there were units of police called 'rurales' who were appointed by local officials to patrol remote regions and they wore swords of all manner acquired from surplus or obsolete stores. It seems in Spain there were similar remote units but I cannot recall more details. Incidentally.....Reeves was working with Wilkinson by 1850s and finally acquired by them by 1880s..........Mole was also a subcontractor for Wilkinson and handled many of their export contracts but not officially acquired until 1920s. Interesting that these 'Spanish' M1821s were first posted and discussed over 15 years ago, then again several times over the years on other forums. It is always rewarding to see cold cases revisited and possible solutions found.