Wilkinson Tulwar

CharlesS · 12th April 2015, 12:34 PM

Archer,

Interesting sword and lovely blade. The pommel strikes me as somehow having been altered. What's your take from what you can see there?

archer · 12th April 2015, 06:14 PM

Charles,
Perhaps a crushed presentation Hilt. While somewhat resembling the knuckle bowed hilt in the Manton catalog which appears to be symmetrical. this one is not at all. The odd pommel disk is both tear drop shaped and mounted askew. I haven't a clue if this was a personal modification, or who may have made the hilt and if others exist. The disk may have been a crude repair, odd since the blade has not been sharpened. My hope is that Berkley, McCormic, Jeff and others will fill in the blanks. There seems to be
Manton of Calcutta catalogs out their with photos.

spiral · 12th April 2015, 06:29 PM

Am I missing something?

Queen Elizabeth the 2nd came to reign in 1953 & the style of marking looks later than that.

archer · 12th April 2015, 11:31 PM

Hi Spiral,

You made a great point. Thus far my only reference has been the post I cited.
This weapons age is a total mystery to Me. Putting it in at least the50s may
well mean it is a presentation of some sort and explain why the blade was never sharpened. Thank you, Steve P.S. The same label is etched on both sides of the blade.

Norman McCormick · 12th April 2015, 11:37 PM

Hi Archer,
Presentation piece could be an explanation although the hilt doesn't look to me to be of presentation quality, it would appear maybe to have been rehilted or perhaps just not very well repaired at some point in its life. The only other explanation I can think of would be a special order run for some individual or group.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. Indian hilts are not necessarily mounted 'in line' with the blade therefore giving the effect of hilt and blade out of 'kilter'.

archer · 13th April 2015, 05:19 AM

So, what are we looking at here? How late would this blade as etched have been made? That would give us a time frame. My comments about presentation were based on the Manton catalogs description. I have to agree it was likely hilted in India due the confined hand area. The comment on the pommel "disk" has mainly to do with it's odd shape. So is it just a very recent knock off?

kahnjar1 · 13th April 2015, 06:20 AM

I would suggest that Manton & Co have nothing to do with this sword whatsoever. They have been out of business for too long, and anyway were quality GUN makers. They may have sold swords, but as far as I am aware did not make them.
As for this being a presentation sword TOTALY made by Wilkinson, I would rather doubt it. They would not have hilted a quality blade with a hilt like this IMHO.
I believe you have something knobbled together.....

Norman McCormick · 13th April 2015, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archer

So, what are we looking at here? How late would this blade as etched have been made? That would give us a time frame. My comments about presentation were based on the Manton catalogs description. I have to agree it was likely hilted in India due the confined hand area. The comment on the pommel "disk" has mainly to do with it's odd shape. So is it just a very recent knock off?

Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1952 and Wilkinson closed its sword business in 2005.

Jim McDougall · 13th April 2015, 06:17 PM

Perfectly deduced guys!!! In reading this it is truly a pleasure to see this kind of analysis and discussion!!! Excellent points on Manton etc.
True forensics, thanks so much.

12th April 2015, 06:14 PM	#2
archer Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 373	reply Charles, Perhaps a crushed presentation Hilt. While somewhat resembling the knuckle bowed hilt in the Manton catalog which appears to be symmetrical. this one is not at all. The odd pommel disk is both tear drop shaped and mounted askew. I haven't a clue if this was a personal modification, or who may have made the hilt and if others exist. The disk may have been a crude repair, odd since the blade has not been sharpened. My hope is that Berkley, McCormic, Jeff and others will fill in the blanks. There seems to be Manton of Calcutta catalogs out their with photos. Attached Images

12th April 2015, 11:31 PM	#4
archer Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 373	Great point Hi Spiral, You made a great point. Thus far my only reference has been the post I cited. This weapons age is a total mystery to Me. Putting it in at least the50s may well mean it is a presentation of some sort and explain why the blade was never sharpened. Thank you, Steve P.S. The same label is etched on both sides of the blade.

12th April 2015, 11:37 PM	#5
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,618	Hi Archer, Presentation piece could be an explanation although the hilt doesn't look to me to be of presentation quality, it would appear maybe to have been rehilted or perhaps just not very well repaired at some point in its life. The only other explanation I can think of would be a special order run for some individual or group. My Regards, Norman. P.S. Indian hilts are not necessarily mounted 'in line' with the blade therefore giving the effect of hilt and blade out of 'kilter'. Last edited by Norman McCormick; 13th April 2015 at 12:14 AM.

13th April 2015, 05:19 AM	#6
archer Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 373	Hilt So, what are we looking at here? How late would this blade as etched have been made? That would give us a time frame. My comments about presentation were based on the Manton catalogs description. I have to agree it was likely hilted in India due the confined hand area. The comment on the pommel "disk" has mainly to do with it's odd shape. So is it just a very recent knock off?

13th April 2015, 06:20 AM	#7
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,789	I would suggest that Manton & Co have nothing to do with this sword whatsoever. They have been out of business for too long, and anyway were quality GUN makers. They may have sold swords, but as far as I am aware did not make them. As for this being a presentation sword TOTALY made by Wilkinson, I would rather doubt it. They would not have hilted a quality blade with a hilt like this IMHO. I believe you have something knobbled together..... Last edited by kahnjar1; 13th April 2015 at 08:32 PM. Reason: Slight re-jig of text

12th April 2015, 12:34 PM	#1
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,854	Archer, Interesting sword and lovely blade. The pommel strikes me as somehow having been altered. What's your take from what you can see there?

12th April 2015, 06:29 PM	#3
spiral Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,712	Am I missing something? Queen Elizabeth the 2nd came to reign in 1953 & the style of marking looks later than that.

13th April 2015, 06:17 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Perfectly deduced guys!!! In reading this it is truly a pleasure to see this kind of analysis and discussion!!! Excellent points on Manton etc. True forensics, thanks so much.