T.ulwar and EIC

[Pukka Bundook]

Thank you for your reply Jim!

I have been around, but even though I am interested in the European arms, there is so often on those threads such an overwhelming amount of photos, my computer can't handle it!.......It just takes too long.
Anyway, back to EIC;

I am afraid I do not know what the EIC bailmark looks like.
The mark I have seen, is on both hilt and blade, and is the EIC, one letter stamped at each corner of a triangle.
On blades, the stamp is often not clear, ,...not always applied evenly. On hilts, the stamp often dents the handle a little when applied.

The marks on the one I have were not a part of the sellers description, and indeed didn't show under the grunge until cleaned up a little. Since then, I have seen a few with these marks, and it never crossed my mind it may be spurious!
When looking online at tulwars for sale, the seller often miss-translates the lettering, which indicates to me that it is no ploy for monetary gain. (As in "E I G" or E-C or some such.
As time permits, I will try and add photos of the marks in question.

Thank you again Jim!!

Richard.
The photo is from a sword sold fairly recently, on mine, the stamp appers as an "E,... line... C".

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Richard,
Im sorry I didnt add the marks, I guess I had gotten complacent after the discussions we recently had on them and simply forgot to include examples.
The EIC as noted used the quartered heart, typically surmounted by a 4 (which was actually a disguised cross, issued with the heart in place of the 'orb' with reference to the cross and orb symbol ). In Bengal it seems that the 'flaunched' style heart using that heraldic feature became popular. Both were supplanted by the rampant lion around 1808.....but as noted, these did not end appearance as Indian makers still copied the stamps.
It is interesting to note that the 'V' in the acronym actually stands for 'united', not 'venerable' as is often assumed. In those days the U was written as a V.

As you have noted, by 1858, the East India Company had given way to the British government in its dominion of India.

The marking you show here seems much more modern and of commercial trademark style, and the EIC never used such a marking as far as I know. Also, as I mentioned, they did not mark weapons with thier markings except for the guns and bayonets.

It is well known that in India, armourers characteristically tried to imitate European markings and inscriptions to allude to the quality of thier products.
Often these intrepretations have produced somewhat humorous arrangements of unintelligible psuedo inscriptions, but this seems perhaps a marking of commercial nature. In India there were often instances where commercial entities had guards or security forces issued weapons, for example many swords of British M1853 pattern were made by a firm called Rodwell & Co. for a railroad (Baroda or something if memory serves).

I hope this helps Richard, and again really great to have you back!!! Please keep finding these intriguing tulwars!!! Since that one you restored I always think of you as 'a tulwars best friend' !!!

All the very best,
Jim

[Pukka Bundook]

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.

[Atlantia]

Here are two pictures hilt and blade of the same EIC/triangle stamp. They are ona Tulwar I recently handled in person (but which is not mine).
The stamping looked like it was done in a hurry. Hard but hurried strikes, jumping and ghosting on both. On the hilt the force of the impact has actually noticably dented the grip.
The result though is difficult to make out, in fact I had to point out to the owner that it appeared to be some kind of EIC stamp.
I would have thought if it was done to add value, it would be done with enough care to make sure it was readable?
This looked much more like a 'Bang, Bang, next!' approach.
That said, its not a style of EIC stamp I've seen before.
Perhaps all from the same armoury?

[Pukka Bundook]

Atlantia,

You have stated exactly what I was trying to say!.............how the marks would be clearer if intended to add value.
Also, the dented grip is very typical with these marks.

Very much a "bang bang get 'em done" type marking.
All the markings I've seen are exactly the same as well, an unlikely occurance if we had a rash of counterfeit marks.
To me, it all points to these marks being bonafide, yet my original questions remain.....

Thanks for the extra photos Atl!

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks so much guys for the great responses! I'm really glad you brought this up Richard, as I really needed to get my material on EIC markings organized.
All my focus had been on the balemarks, and as they were used on the locks of guns primarily. As I noted, I hadn't recalled seeing this type of marking with the triangles.

I found a group of notes from research back in '97 including some communication with David Harding, who had just completed publishing :Small Arms of the East India Company", and there were groupings of markings mostly of the quartered heart and later rampant lion.
The 1827 naval officers sword with the lion above the fouled anchor was indeed characteristic, and I have seen them on army swords as well, but as part of the hilt motif, not as markings on the blade.

Gene, thank you for sharing the pictures of the tulwar and observations, which well corroborate the triangle marking Richard posted on these swords.

I finally found the information in these notes, after the Mutiny it is known that the British government took over in India. In 1862 I believe, when the transition was in place, Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, and cyphers on blades and other materials were with the ligature VRI.
Information on much of this is found in material on the coins of India.

Apparantly materials were stamped , instead of the EIC balemarks, with EIG (East India Government) marks which were in this same three point configuration, but with a broad arrow where the triangle is seen here.
This continued through WWI and certainly later, though I am unclear on why the triangle here would be in place of the arrow (which was of course the long standing mark of British ordnance all the way back to Henry VIII).

As with most government processing, there were of course viewing and acceptance marks placed at various locations, and these stamps applied with varying effect were most likely the result of careless processing or damaged stamps.

With this being the case, it would seem that these tulwars were likely among stores for native regiments, who of course often preferred carrying their traditional tulwars. Many were produced by contractors in India, or in some cases by contractors in England. I have seen tulwars produced by Mole, who subcontracted for Wilkinson, and in other instances, some regiments preferred British regulation military patterns.

I'm sorry for the inadvertant red herring about commercial markings, and this information on the EIG rather than EIC is I hope helpful.

All the best,
Jim

[Pukka Bundook]

Thank you for the information Jim!

I would think that the EIC stamp would not have the broad arrow, as the EI Co was independant, and not a goverment concern.
Now, When were they stamped?...I don't know!

It does make sense that EIG would carry the broad arrow though.
Here is the blade of the 1827;

All best,
Richard.

[Jim McDougall]

Absolutely right Richard, the EIC would not have used the broad arrow, but after 1858 and the effective demise of the EIC .......the arrow, which was used by the BO (board of ordnance) might have been used by the newly developing EIG.
On British weapons, after the Crimean war the broad arrow and BO was replaced by WD (War Department) and the broad arrow.

For India, and the Raj, it was an entirely different sector, and the EIG with the broad arrow was used. Again, I cannot imagine what the triangle is supposed to represent, but the EIG in that configuration is a match to the examples I have noted.

Supposedly weapons and ordnance to India were marked ISD (India Stores Dept.) but it does not seem to be the case universally. There are numerous stamps and acronyms for certain armouries and depots but I havent found that list yet.

All the best,
Jim