Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard G
Jim, I agree that this dirk is late Georgian or William IV. There are also other types, the most common being with a turned grip and somewhat resembling a stilletto. I agree that as a type these dirks are associated with Naval officers; but in every case?
What I am speculating is that these dirks are first and foremost Georgian, and although we can say probably Naval, we should not make that assumption if the clues lead elsewhere.
To put it rather simply, would a Naval officer, a Mason, or even a man off the street, who approached a sword cutler for a dirk be shown essentially the same dirk and be told we can 'customise' this to your requirements. Probably the majority of customers would be Naval officers and this would mean the majority of these dirks are Naval, but not necessarily every one. Cathey's could be one of those exceptions
Annis explains his 'strong presumption', but it is only that, due to the absence of any other likely attribution. Unfortunately a quick Google of Georgian dirks will reveal virtually every one is described as 'Naval'. Many obviously are, but some are more akin to hunting knives. Unless dirks were the sole preserve of Naval officers only this seems a too easy and rather sloppy attribution.
Regards
Richard
|
Richard,
Actually I think we agree as reading through your observations it sounds as if we are saying somewhat the same thing. I must admit that even authors and authorities occasionally drop their guard, and fail to over qualify every word and nuance in their text, subject to the criticism and rebuttal of later researchers. It is probably my own perspective, but I typically avoid regarding such matters as being sloppy, and rather subject to revision.
The implication that dirks were primarily a naval weapon I think pertains to the British context, as obviously the dirk was well known outside naval use as well, the Scottish dirk not withstanding.
I indicated that in Masonry, the use of the dirk was in fact worn as a status and ranking symbol, thus certainly something available from outfitters for such purpose. So clearly, not only naval officers would be ordering such weapons. In the case of dirks used by naval officers, as shown in Annis, many of these were clearly personal items, reflecting few or virtually no military or naval features. This has long seemed to be inherently the case with naval officers with their choice of swords as well.
Therefore, as I see in rereading my text which was mostly the progression of research I was doing, I would revise my last comments in accord with what you note.
A British Georgian period (possibly later) dirk with Masonic motif and possible naval association.
Thank you for the well placed observations.
Best regards
Jim