Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Pukka Bundook · 27th November 2010, 07:42 PM

Hmmmm...You have me wondering about all this Jim.

Feelings are worthless, yet I have seen these same marks time and again, and get the 'feling' they must amount to something.
I can't help but think that if these marks weren't genuine, they would have been stamped better......as in not half-stamped as many appear.
(If one were to mark something to increase its value, would you not mark it in a way that can easily be decifered?)

I must clarify that I don't think the East India Company had these swords made. I am sure they did not, but I do think it possible that they were marked in this way when they fell into the posession of the E I Co.

One often sees the arms of india marked with armoury marks to which they did not originally belong, and I am wondering if the EIC marked 'spoils of war' or whatever in a similar manner?

I'm not done with this yet Jim, as it's all a bit fuzzy!

Best of everything,
R.

PS,
The attached pic of the tulwar quillon is one from a very well known arms dealer's catalogue.
The other picture is from an English auction house, and is of a sword apparently made for an officer of the EIC, in 1827.
(Drewatt's catalogue)
The two swords have nothing in common, but I added the hilt photo as it seems to bear the right marks, and is apparently an example of a sword marked for the company on production. (tho' this is a separate matter really!)

R.

27th November 2010, 07:42 PM	#5
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Hmmmm...You have me wondering about all this Jim. Feelings are worthless, yet I have seen these same marks time and again, and get the 'feling' they must amount to something. I can't help but think that if these marks weren't genuine, they would have been stamped better......as in not half-stamped as many appear. (If one were to mark something to increase its value, would you not mark it in a way that can easily be decifered?) I must clarify that I don't think the East India Company had these swords made. I am sure they did not, but I do think it possible that they were marked in this way when they fell into the posession of the E I Co. One often sees the arms of india marked with armoury marks to which they did not originally belong, and I am wondering if the EIC marked 'spoils of war' or whatever in a similar manner? I'm not done with this yet Jim, as it's all a bit fuzzy! Best of everything, R. PS, The attached pic of the tulwar quillon is one from a very well known arms dealer's catalogue. The other picture is from an English auction house, and is of a sword apparently made for an officer of the EIC, in 1827. (Drewatt's catalogue) The two swords have nothing in common, but I added the hilt photo as it seems to bear the right marks, and is apparently an example of a sword marked for the company on production. (tho' this is a separate matter really!) R. Attached Images Last edited by Pukka Bundook; 27th November 2010 at 08:28 PM.