Question about a briquet

Dmitry · 18th August 2010, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

If anyone has a copy of Boarders Away II out there and a scanner, the arms chest on pg 189 again has this sword stored away with other weapons. Could they send us the pic here to open the discussion further? This chest is also not clear as to where it was used, but Gilkerson does explain why he believed it to be naval.

Little-known fact - the naval attribution of that chest of arms was contested and disproved in a lengthy article in one of the Royal Armouries Yearbooks; I forget for which year, but I can find out.

M ELEY · 20th August 2010, 09:13 AM

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?

Dmitry · 20th August 2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

I believe this sword that just ended is the real deal,

Sorry, but I don't..

M ELEY · 21st August 2010, 04:36 AM

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.

Ron Anderson · 21st August 2010, 11:30 AM

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

M ELEY · 21st August 2010, 01:42 PM

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...

Dmitry · 27th August 2010, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Anderson

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

Russia didn't export anything to the US or the CS during the American Civil War. No swords, no guns, nothing.

Ron Anderson · 28th August 2010, 03:19 AM

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

Dmitry · 22nd August 2010, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

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?

I view it not as a fake, but as a fantasy, since it is not a spurious duplication of a historical object. Blade is probably 'Made in India', but that is just a guess.
If so, then this is not a rat, but a 'Himalayan mouse hare'.

M ELEY · 22nd August 2010, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmitry

I view it not as a fake, but as a fantasy, since it is not a spurious duplication of a historical object. Blade is probably 'Made in India', but that is just a guess.
If so, then this is not a rat, but a 'Himalayan mouse hare'.

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.

Ron Anderson · 23rd August 2010, 08:21 AM

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.

David R · 25th October 2013, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmitry

Little-known fact - the naval attribution of that chest of arms was contested and disproved in a lengthy article in one of the Royal Armouries Yearbooks; I forget for which year, but I can find out.

Apparently the chest was the "Estate Arms Chest" for a wealthy magnate during the Chartist period in the UK.....

Morgan · 31st March 2014, 11:17 PM

I am piggy backing on this thread because one of the patterns of briquet pictured here interest me as well. Here are some more pics of what might be a german briquet. It has only unit markings on the bottom of the hilt, and also a fullered blade. I have heard that the Russians and Spanish had fullered blade on their briquets sometimes. It has the narrower, less rounded version of the knuckle-guard.There are only 26 ribs on the grip by the way.

Morgan · 27th December 2014, 08:08 PM

I am adding to this rather old thread as I have been doing some research on this type of sword due to a briqet/sabre/cutlass I acquired. I originally thought it might be an infantry NCO sword. It has a blade that is 26 and 1/4th inches long and over 1 3/8 inches wide at forte. It has a two finger wide fuller on both sides. I feel that it is a late 18th early 19th century blade. Wonderful look and balance. Great blade! The whole sword is covered in a lacquer that could have either been put on by the museum that owned it (there is a cursive numbering on the forte in white ink that suggests a museum) or perhaps by naval personnel if I ascribe to the idea that this sword was for a ships armoury. I have left the lacquer on at this point. The hilt poses some questions for me. It has no markings on it at all, however the grip has 28 ribs as the French ones do. I compared it to my 1816 briquet and there are differences in dimensions and weight. The 1816 has a larger and heavier hilt. I have posted some pics. One pic is my new briquet/sabre by itself. The other pics are the hilts of both for comparison. The 1816 pattern is on the right in both pics. Perhaps this pattern on my new one will be familiar to someone. I'd like to know what date/nationality the hilt might be from or is they have seen this hilt/blade configuration before and in what context. Worse case scenario is the hilt is "modern" but I'm not sure how to tell.....P.S. I'm a different Morgan than the one on the prior post.

20th August 2010, 09:13 AM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	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.

31st March 2014, 11:17 PM	#13
Morgan Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 3	Briquet! I am piggy backing on this thread because one of the patterns of briquet pictured here interest me as well. Here are some more pics of what might be a german briquet. It has only unit markings on the bottom of the hilt, and also a fullered blade. I have heard that the Russians and Spanish had fullered blade on their briquets sometimes. It has the narrower, less rounded version of the knuckle-guard.There are only 26 ribs on the grip by the way. Attached Images

27th December 2014, 08:08 PM	#14
Morgan Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 3	I am adding to this rather old thread as I have been doing some research on this type of sword due to a briqet/sabre/cutlass I acquired. I originally thought it might be an infantry NCO sword. It has a blade that is 26 and 1/4th inches long and over 1 3/8 inches wide at forte. It has a two finger wide fuller on both sides. I feel that it is a late 18th early 19th century blade. Wonderful look and balance. Great blade! The whole sword is covered in a lacquer that could have either been put on by the museum that owned it (there is a cursive numbering on the forte in white ink that suggests a museum) or perhaps by naval personnel if I ascribe to the idea that this sword was for a ships armoury. I have left the lacquer on at this point. The hilt poses some questions for me. It has no markings on it at all, however the grip has 28 ribs as the French ones do. I compared it to my 1816 briquet and there are differences in dimensions and weight. The 1816 has a larger and heavier hilt. I have posted some pics. One pic is my new briquet/sabre by itself. The other pics are the hilts of both for comparison. The 1816 pattern is on the right in both pics. Perhaps this pattern on my new one will be familiar to someone. I'd like to know what date/nationality the hilt might be from or is they have seen this hilt/blade configuration before and in what context. Worse case scenario is the hilt is "modern" but I'm not sure how to tell.....P.S. I'm a different Morgan than the one on the prior post. Attached Images Last edited by Morgan; 27th December 2014 at 09:32 PM.

21st August 2010, 04:36 AM	#4
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	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.

21st August 2010, 11:30 AM	#5
Ron Anderson 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

21st August 2010, 01:42 PM	#6
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	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...

28th August 2010, 03:19 AM	#8
Ron Anderson 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

23rd August 2010, 08:21 AM	#11
Ron Anderson 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.