![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,176
|
![]()
Thanks, Dmitry. I was wondering if anyone else had questioned that chest. Too bad for the Smithsonian, but perhaps it was for a Mountain Artillery unit as first suggested? In any case, I think its safe to say that many of the so-called private purchase naval weapons will remain either unclassified or of a questionable state. Too bad, as I find this area of collecting both fascinating and frustrating.
Case in point- http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT I believe this sword that just ended is the real deal, but I'm having trouble deciding if it were made earlier and re-stamped in Victoria's reign or if it really was made post 1840 perhaps as a merchantman's protection from hostile boarders (espec if they were sailing off the Malay/African/E Indian coast). The guard on this one is the classic sheet iron type as seen in Gilkerson's 'Boarders Away' as private purchase. Another troubling thing about this sword (whose blade resembles the later Brit m1812) is that it's guard is like the sword I purchased. Mine as a similar crown with weak R under it and possibly a very faded V (VR). my sword has the straight blade usually attributed to pre-1815, so thus this marking is discouraging to me, unless spurious or added later. In truth, my sword is in excellent condition except for this weak marking, making me suspect it was "reissued" later in life during the later period. Opinions on this marking/sword/reissuance? Last edited by M ELEY; 20th August 2010 at 09:51 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 607
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,176
|
![]()
Ahhh, so you suspect a rat, eh? OK, do you think it is a 'parts-sword' from real hilts of the era or a down-right fake? Several of these have popped up in auction catalogs over the years with the markings either being "VR" or "RN" (the latter, I presume, for Royal Navy, which is a completely spurious marking). I hear what you are saying and do want to get to the truth on this one. Very frustrating that now there are fakes popping up even in some of the more obscure markets.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 228
|
![]()
Dear M Eley
I'm a new member. Sorry to get to this thread late. I don't recognise the markings on your briquet. However, these were imported into the USA, mainly it seems from Russia. I think these may have been used in the civil war. Can't be sure. However, I've purchased a Russian example from the US recently and have seen quite a few available from there. So it's not impossible it's a Russian import marked in the US. Ron |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,176
|
![]()
Hello Ron and welcome to the forum,
Actually, we were discussing the iron-hilted example private-purchase boarding cutlass pictured in the ebay auction I posted. Yes, the briquets certainly made their way around. To date, I am aware of the pattern being in France, Austria, Russia, South America and possibly Spain? As far as the strange markings on the briquet, I believe others had it right with their attribution to Bannerman 's catalogs. I've seen one other sword listed as being from his "collection" with the same marking. It just seems too contempoary to the piece to me... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 607
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 228
|
![]()
Hi Dmitry
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it was imported during the civil war. It may have been imported before the civil war. If so, it may have been used during the war. I have a briquet I purchased from America. It is Russian but it has the markings CA on it and I've been told this is associated with the civil war. Since then I have seen dozens of briquets for sale from America, all Russian and all with the marking CA on the blade. Ron |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 607
|
![]()
Russia never exported any arms to the US, or anywhere else, aside from probably just the Kingdom of Bulgaria, which was even less industrially-developed. In fact, quite the opposite, the US companies exported arms into Russia, and later into the Soviet Union.
The briquet with the CA marking that you have sounds like a an Italian bersaglieri or police hanger from the WWII period or thereabout, and is indeed quite abundant. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 607
|
![]() Quote:
If so, then this is not a rat, but a 'Himalayan mouse hare'. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,176
|
![]() Quote:
![]() Thanks for the clarification on that. Yes, looking at an eBay auction, it is often hard to distinguish between what is real and what is "made in India" ![]() Still, not an obvious fake per say, but now that you point this out, a definite possibility. It does seem to lack legitimate aging. Still leaves me in a quandry about my piece mentioned in another thread, though mine does seem to have a nice patina. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 228
|
![]()
Hi, yes. I would agree the briquet, even at first glance, looks pretty dodgy.
I'd say the very existence of a mark of that nature on a recently manufactured sword is spurious and would be enough to classify it as 'fake' rather than merely 'made in India'. Of course, this is not a very good fabrication, but if it were an honest example it would say something like "Made in India" on the blade. I don't know Bannerman's catalogue. However, the marking is quite poor. I am more familiar with English swords than American markings, so thought it might be possible it was a US marking of some kind. However, clearly not. Even I can see that. The cutlass looks good. A nice piece. It's a pity these things are so hard to find with scabbards. I must say, I rather like the briquet as a sword. I know it's as common as muck but it's a nice solid and sturdy little sword and that's probably why it was so successful. It must have been cheap and easy to produce. And relatively reliable for the purpose - as a secondary weapon. I think the Germans only introduced it into their own armoury in the late 1860s or early 1870s - quite a long time after the Napoleonic period. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,176
|
![]()
Yes, the briquet pictured was very common, but an earlier French form that came out in the late 18th was rarer and had a nice look to it.
The iron hilt is the one we were discussing and still no diffinitive answer. Some classify them as naval, others as possible Brit Life Guards and, of course, the Mountain Artillery swords of the later 19th c. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|