Another basket hilt with military marking

NeilUK · 11th March 2017, 05:32 PM

To return to this subject recently under discussion: I have come across this basket hilt, clearly of top quality, but displaying later military-style markings which I cannot make out. The rack number, 93, is OK and 2 for 'second company' but what are the letters I M D ? Any thoughts welcome. The maker is thought to be Thomas Biggart of Irvine (a town in Ayrshire, in the west.
Neil

Norman McCormick · 12th March 2017, 02:39 PM

Jim McDougall · 12th March 2017, 06:04 PM

It seems this is a pre-Culloden basket hilt which according to material found online is by Thomas Bigart of Irvine, as signed in accord with the manner of other Scottish smiths of the time on the hilt bars. It is estimated c.1730, and while Whitelaw only lists a David Bigart of Kilmaurs (same area) in 1681, it is well established that the Bigart family were important cutlers (but of tableware etc.) through the 17th c. in Kilmaurs. That cutlers often expanded their metalwork into hilting was well known in many cases and that Thomas was likely a family member in nearby Irvine and slightly later seems reasonable.

These letters seem to be applied in the same 'field' manner as many of the British weapons of the second half of the 18th c. The most commonly used convention in these markings with the Scottish units seems to have been
best described with one of the conical pommel basket hilts of the 42nd Highland Regt. on the pommel:
42/A/35
This is on one of the Drury swords and described as : to the 42nd regt. for the first (or 'colonels') company, and the 35th sword issued. It is estimated this would date this sword about 1758, as in 1759, a 2nd battalion was raised and since the first had used letters A to K as letters......those of the 2nd began with L. It is recorded that these swords were ordered to be 'numbered and lettered' accordingly.

With the intriguing example Neil has posted here, it has been suggested in other data I found online that this seems to have found later in the century use probably in the 1790s when the British were establishing what were known as 'fencible' units (from the term defensible, or militia/home defense). The suggestion continues that the sword was issued to the '1st Mounted Dragoons'; 2nd Co.; and the 93rd sword issued.

This seems quite reasonable as if I am not mistaken, by this time in the century, basket hilts were no longer issued to troopers in the regular army regiments, though they were carried of course by officers. Officers of course were not 'issued' weapons, so would not have been so marked.

The 'fencible' and 'yeomanry' regiments operated as militia and outside the normal parameters of regular army regulations and were privately regulated by the local governing of the areas in which they were raised. Therefore they were likely to have followed nominally some of the earlier conventions of the army regulations.

In the IMD, the 'I' looks more like a 'one' as there are no serifs, so more likely a number, and the 1st Mounted Dragoons seems plausible. However, 'mounted dragoons' sounds redundant....dragoons were of course mounted (though they typically fought on foot in earlier times).
The designation of the 'fencible' units it seems chose more 'colorful' titles but did not term themselves 'fencibles' (the only unit I know of that use that designation was the Breadalbane Fencibles). Therefore, 'Mounted Dragoons' may well have been used, but so far have not found record of such unit

This is the sum of what I could find, and my thoughts are speculatively placed as per the online data I found. Hopefully those better versed in these Scottish swords might have more definitive information.

NeilUK · 13th March 2017, 05:56 PM

Thanks, Jim, for your thoughts. I too had considered and dismissed 'Mounted Dragoons' for the same reasons, but I suppose a bit of tautology is not beyond the military mind and the sequence of elements (regiment-company/troop-rack number) would fit. As you say, an officer's sword would not be so marked so we could assume that a quality sword from c.1730 had come into the hands of a common soldier in a militia/fencible regiment (perhaps by inheritance) by 1780-90s. Interesting to ponder these things.
Neil

Jim McDougall · 14th March 2017, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilUK

Thanks, Jim, for your thoughts. I too had considered and dismissed 'Mounted Dragoons' for the same reasons, but I suppose a bit of tautology is not beyond the military mind and the sequence of elements (regiment-company/troop-rack number) would fit. As you say, an officer's sword would not be so marked so we could assume that a quality sword from c.1730 had come into the hands of a common soldier in a militia/fencible regiment (perhaps by inheritance) by 1780-90s. Interesting to ponder these things.
Neil

It truly is Neil!! and that has always been my obsession. I have been working at trying to learn more on these basket hilts with all these great examples lately, and have spent quite a few hours going through notes and references. I'm afraid sometimes my 'pondering' becomes Tolstoyean rambling and I fear I over speak in these posts, but all those hours of searching and scribbling notes have to go somewhere

Thank you for the patience and well shared thoughts .
Jim

11th March 2017, 05:32 PM	#1
NeilUK Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Scotland Posts: 122	Another basket hilt with military marking To return to this subject recently under discussion: I have come across this basket hilt, clearly of top quality, but displaying later military-style markings which I cannot make out. The rack number, 93, is OK and 2 for 'second company' but what are the letters I M D ? Any thoughts welcome. The maker is thought to be Thomas Biggart of Irvine (a town in Ayrshire, in the west. Neil Attached Images

12th March 2017, 02:39 PM	#2
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,575	Last edited by Norman McCormick; 12th March 2017 at 10:18 PM.

12th March 2017, 06:04 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,739	It seems this is a pre-Culloden basket hilt which according to material found online is by Thomas Bigart of Irvine, as signed in accord with the manner of other Scottish smiths of the time on the hilt bars. It is estimated c.1730, and while Whitelaw only lists a David Bigart of Kilmaurs (same area) in 1681, it is well established that the Bigart family were important cutlers (but of tableware etc.) through the 17th c. in Kilmaurs. That cutlers often expanded their metalwork into hilting was well known in many cases and that Thomas was likely a family member in nearby Irvine and slightly later seems reasonable. These letters seem to be applied in the same 'field' manner as many of the British weapons of the second half of the 18th c. The most commonly used convention in these markings with the Scottish units seems to have been best described with one of the conical pommel basket hilts of the 42nd Highland Regt. on the pommel: 42/A/35 This is on one of the Drury swords and described as : to the 42nd regt. for the first (or 'colonels') company, and the 35th sword issued. It is estimated this would date this sword about 1758, as in 1759, a 2nd battalion was raised and since the first had used letters A to K as letters......those of the 2nd began with L. It is recorded that these swords were ordered to be 'numbered and lettered' accordingly. With the intriguing example Neil has posted here, it has been suggested in other data I found online that this seems to have found later in the century use probably in the 1790s when the British were establishing what were known as 'fencible' units (from the term defensible, or militia/home defense). The suggestion continues that the sword was issued to the '1st Mounted Dragoons'; 2nd Co.; and the 93rd sword issued. This seems quite reasonable as if I am not mistaken, by this time in the century, basket hilts were no longer issued to troopers in the regular army regiments, though they were carried of course by officers. Officers of course were not 'issued' weapons, so would not have been so marked. The 'fencible' and 'yeomanry' regiments operated as militia and outside the normal parameters of regular army regulations and were privately regulated by the local governing of the areas in which they were raised. Therefore they were likely to have followed nominally some of the earlier conventions of the army regulations. In the IMD, the 'I' looks more like a 'one' as there are no serifs, so more likely a number, and the 1st Mounted Dragoons seems plausible. However, 'mounted dragoons' sounds redundant....dragoons were of course mounted (though they typically fought on foot in earlier times). The designation of the 'fencible' units it seems chose more 'colorful' titles but did not term themselves 'fencibles' (the only unit I know of that use that designation was the Breadalbane Fencibles). Therefore, 'Mounted Dragoons' may well have been used, but so far have not found record of such unit This is the sum of what I could find, and my thoughts are speculatively placed as per the online data I found. Hopefully those better versed in these Scottish swords might have more definitive information.

13th March 2017, 05:56 PM	#4
NeilUK Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Scotland Posts: 122	Thanks, Jim, for your thoughts. I too had considered and dismissed 'Mounted Dragoons' for the same reasons, but I suppose a bit of tautology is not beyond the military mind and the sequence of elements (regiment-company/troop-rack number) would fit. As you say, an officer's sword would not be so marked so we could assume that a quality sword from c.1730 had come into the hands of a common soldier in a militia/fencible regiment (perhaps by inheritance) by 1780-90s. Interesting to ponder these things. Neil