Wow guys!!! These are quite a volley of entries!!! and EXACTLY what I always hope for, great observations with perfectly supported data. Thank you!
Fernando, I have understood that the term briquet was colloquial as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, which was explained in one of my cited references I believe. Actually the term was minimized or parenthesized if I recall in the descriptive test.
Wayne thanks very much for the additional information and explanations, I agree there is a great deal of information presented and evaluated in the great discourse, so I too am 'blowing circuit breakers'!
Norman, again, excellent input and examples well presented. I will be the first to admit I have little experience with French swords. I had never been able to afford the amazing Aries series and I miss Jean Binck's expertise.
The instance you note with the quillon terminal removal is most interesting
though I have trouble understanding such a deliberate and innocuous adjustment.
I can relate to your notes on there not being Continental briquets (of this type) having British markings of any sort, presumably issuance or inspection.
All the poincons all over French swords are these types of administratiive marks of course.
Your notes on the Royal Armouries are telling, and I will say here that it is my impression that the two examples from the 1962 and 1966 references on which I based my identification of my example (over the past 54 years!) did cite the Royal Armouries as one source, National Maritime Museum the other.
Your noting of the error on the 'briquet' (IX1182) being French but actually being Swiss due to Bern armoury marks is concerning. Did the Swiss ever receive French weaponry into their military stores? I have seen instances where markings were regarded Swiss rather than the presumed other origin.
In summary, these are all wonderful facts in rebuttal toward thorough examination of my example, and very much key data which absolutely must be considered in the proper evaluation (again profoundly appreciated).
But, my theory remains that my example which has a rectangular cartouche with the PS initials of Paul Storr (the only maker of the period whose initials correspond) is of a type well known on the Continent (as infantry briquet). The distinct anomaly of a precious metal type 'mark' to a particular maker is British (based on the individual) and only seen in similar context in a similar case (Thurkle).
In these other ranks weapons, notably cast brass examples, this type of stamp or mark in this location on the hilt, does not exist as thus far seen.
The marks that do exist are of course mostly issuance or acceptance poincons.
As Norman has well noted, misteakes of course do exist in records and classifications, which is why I noted the disparity in the references I was citing in the earlier part of this discussion. This pertained primarily to the perception that the only artillery 'briquet' (using the term that typically is mindful to my type hilt despite its collective use) was the 'Spanish pattern'.
In the early days of the efforts toward the standardization and regulation of weaponry in the British army toward the end of the 18th century, the case for other ranks weapons was understandably a maelstrom of inconsistency.
While the 'Spanish' pattern sidearm for artillery is well represented in the art and records c. 1813.
But this selection did not begin until the deployment of forces into the Peninsula in the Napoleonic campaigns.
What of the type sidearm in use in the Royal artillery from c. 1794 (as I noted in earlier post in organization changes) by 'gunners' (again a collective term applied to various participants in the artillery group). ??
The mark in my example is the same as the PS in Paul Storr's registration of 1793. If a contract was issued (as per the protocols of the period by regimental commanders) for a select number of these cheap brass hilt sidearms, why is it not possible that these would not have virtually disappeared in the past two centuries (probably melted down for metal)?
As these were clearly disdained as weapons, not considered collectible by any means nor of stature worthy as trophies etc. what would prevent them being scrapped.
Though Paul Storr was a stellar figure in precious metal art, who would expect his mark in such a pedestrian implement?
As you note Norman, such a weapon would indeed be as rare as 'hens teeth'. You discovered such a case with your NCO's sword and the Royal Armouries.
Thank you again guys, for your patience and taking the time to present arguments in this case. I really do not mean to be obstinate but I really want to seriously evaluate all possibilities in a case which is from a period and situations which were fraught with inconsistency.