Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 29th November 2010, 12:31 AM

What I am saying is that these letters, which do seem to be E I C, are placed in the same configuration as used in the E I G stamps.

Regarding the spurious marks....it seems to me that what I said was to be wary of these markings, in my initial post as I had not yet found my notes and did not recall the EIG data.

I cannot find the place where I made any comment about spurious markings for 'monetary gain'. I did note that Indian armourers often placed spurious markings on thier blades to imply higher quality. This is of course well known in many ethnographic situations. My comments on 'commercial' markings was directed at independant large companies and organizations in India who often employed thier own security forces. This derived from my idea that the acronym EIC might have been one of those. Again before I found my notes.

I am not saying you are wrong about anything, but we are indeed both trying to communicate in examining possibilities, which I am failing miserably at

I have a hard time seeing these marks, but since they are so badly stamped, I thought they might be EIG, as they are in that configuration. What I said after that was that maybe, since the EIC was ending after 1858, and the EIG was taking over, possibly they were using EIC for a short time even though not using the rampant lion. ...suggesting this as transitional.

The triangle is confusing because it was, as far as I have known in these years of research, never seen a triangle used by EIC as a mark of any kind.
I would love to see data showing otherwise of course.

The EIC was of course private entity, not government, so the arrow would not have been used with EIC...but then there are no arrows seen in these photos, only triangles.

What I think is that if these are EIC and triangle, they must be transitional and used as marks before the government took over and made the mark EIG with broad arrow,

Jens, thank you for answering, and in explanation, I am unclear on which dates she officially was declared Empress of India, but I have always thought she became so while still remaining Queen of England. Much as the British Raj was thought of as a separate entity from the British homeland, and mostly there were separate markings etc. applied......the cyphers on weapons to Indian service had VRI. I dont know on the coins, which I only mentioned to suggest material on them would add more detailed data on dates.
I always thought the Empress title was sort of an addition to expand her official rule to India, and despite that, she was still considered Queen.
The Empress title would have broadened her rule to the 'Empire', but Queens did not technically rule empires.
In any case, thank you for the clarification.

Getting back to the markings, my apologies for not being able to more correctly word my comments. It is often amazing at how sometimes the most seemingly simple matters can become so complex.

Thanks for your patience guys,
All the best,
Jim

29th November 2010, 12:31 AM	#14
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,742	What I am saying is that these letters, which do seem to be E I C, are placed in the same configuration as used in the E I G stamps. Regarding the spurious marks....it seems to me that what I said was to be wary of these markings, in my initial post as I had not yet found my notes and did not recall the EIG data. I cannot find the place where I made any comment about spurious markings for 'monetary gain'. I did note that Indian armourers often placed spurious markings on thier blades to imply higher quality. This is of course well known in many ethnographic situations. My comments on 'commercial' markings was directed at independant large companies and organizations in India who often employed thier own security forces. This derived from my idea that the acronym EIC might have been one of those. Again before I found my notes. I am not saying you are wrong about anything, but we are indeed both trying to communicate in examining possibilities, which I am failing miserably at I have a hard time seeing these marks, but since they are so badly stamped, I thought they might be EIG, as they are in that configuration. What I said after that was that maybe, since the EIC was ending after 1858, and the EIG was taking over, possibly they were using EIC for a short time even though not using the rampant lion. ...suggesting this as transitional. The triangle is confusing because it was, as far as I have known in these years of research, never seen a triangle used by EIC as a mark of any kind. I would love to see data showing otherwise of course. The EIC was of course private entity, not government, so the arrow would not have been used with EIC...but then there are no arrows seen in these photos, only triangles. What I think is that if these are EIC and triangle, they must be transitional and used as marks before the government took over and made the mark EIG with broad arrow, Jens, thank you for answering, and in explanation, I am unclear on which dates she officially was declared Empress of India, but I have always thought she became so while still remaining Queen of England. Much as the British Raj was thought of as a separate entity from the British homeland, and mostly there were separate markings etc. applied......the cyphers on weapons to Indian service had VRI. I dont know on the coins, which I only mentioned to suggest material on them would add more detailed data on dates. I always thought the Empress title was sort of an addition to expand her official rule to India, and despite that, she was still considered Queen. The Empress title would have broadened her rule to the 'Empire', but Queens did not technically rule empires. In any case, thank you for the clarification. Getting back to the markings, my apologies for not being able to more correctly word my comments. It is often amazing at how sometimes the most seemingly simple matters can become so complex. Thanks for your patience guys, All the best, Jim