Brian Wolfe

It is interesting that you've tied the Occupy movement to communism, I never thought of them in that way. However, now you mention it I suspose they are much alike. The old, "I don't want to risk anything or invest anything, except possibly sweat, but I want a bigger piece of the riches". I do respect your views and defend your right to state them...unlike the communist party. Chains are chains only the holders of the keys change. Respectfully, Brian

Very nice, I like it. Regards Brian

Sorry, the system wouldn't allow me to post two views together this time. Here is the other view. Regards Brian

This is a view of the markings on the cuffs. Regards Brian

This is an example of the "D" type handcuff of the ratchet variety made by Hiatt. These were used from as early as 1900/1910 but this specimen is more than likely from the 1970s. The key, numbered 798, is a replacement for the original cuffs that have the number 368 stamped on the shank. I would say that another clue, as if an additional clue is necessary, that the key is a replacement is the style of the key itself is that a set of cuffs from the 1970s should have a key that is shorter and lacks the beaded shank as seen on this one. The ratchet style allows the cuffs to fit a variety of wrists. A "set" size could allow a smaller wrist to slip out of the restraint allowing the suspect to flee the officer. Some members will know very well that it can be more dangerous for the suspect to do a runner and be caught than simply remaining in custody in the first place. One of the things I've noticed about the ratchet style is that there seems to be no way to prevent the cuffs from accidently tightening up on the suspect once they are on the wrist. Modern cuffs have a lock device that the officer can activate to stop the cuffs from accidently tightening on the wrists. I will post a pair of more modern cuffs another time and discuss this feature as well as how the cuffs I have already posted work. Regards Brian

Hello Robin, Any chance I can convince you to post some photographs of your specimens of early nippers? Regads Brian

In these final views you can see the difference in the width of the shanks. The 1968-74 specimen measures 11mm and the 1900/1910 specimen is 13.5mm in width. I have been informed that the wider shank was usually a requirement of the Colonial Office. It looks like we colonials needed extra restraining. Regards Brian

Here are some views of the markings on the handcuffs. There are no police service indication marks and I will not spend a lot of time describing what you can see in the photos. One picture/thousand words thing. ;)

Continuing with this theme is another pair of handcuffs from my limited collection. This is another pair of "D" style cuff made by Hiatt and dates from around 1900/1910 and marked with a number 31. This older pair differs from the "D" style shown earlier, the 1968-74 numbered 592 and issued to the West Yorkshire Constabulary, in weight and width of the shanks. I will show that later on with a compairson to the 1968-74 issue.

Ah, "British Made" still makes me feel good (check the last entry photo). This last photo shows the difference in the keys between an early key and a later one, taken from the featured speciment. The seller felt that this newer key was a replacement as it is not numbered. One can clearly see the move to a more simple method of manufacturing with the newer key. The older key, as you can see, is also considerably longer. Regards Brian

Some more views of the stamping.

Here are some views of the stampings. First the WYC and as you can see it was a good thing the collector who sold these to me knew what the letters indicated as they are rather a mess.

Today I am posting one of my "D" type handcuffs made by Hiatt. These go back a long way but the one I am displaying today is a later type. The specimen is crudly stamped WYC with the number 592. WYC stands for West Yorkshire Constabulary, according to the seller and fellow collector. As I have stated this style goes back a ways and dating handcuffs can be difficult. One could go by the general "look" of the handcuffs and say they are early or later, however, in this case we have a good clue. The West Yourkshire Constabulary was in existance between 1968 and 1974 making this set a later example. Another give away to age, in my opinion, is the key. I have included the key from this set alongside a key from an older set later in this post. Another time I will post an older type "D" specimen to show some more differences. Regards Brian

Hello Steve, Thank you for your opinion, this is exactly what I am looking for. I've never seen these in Canada not even in a police museum. Therefore I would have to assume that Canadian Police Services never used them. I hope to hear more from you on police items. Regards Brian

Les, I, for one, would welcome more from you. This is what makes the forum great. Thanks for getting this started Chris it is a good subject for anyone of any nationality.. Regards Brian

Aristocratic Duellists While reading “The Great British Bobby” by Clive Emsley, I ran across this passage that I thought would be of interest to Military as well as the Police historians in our forum. You’ll have to read to the end for, what I find, an interesting fact about a very well known historic personality. Historians have recently pointed to a growing refinement in manners apparent at least from the early eighteenth century. This led to increasing limitations on male aggression, particularly among those social groups that considered themselves respectable. The development was largely encouraged by peer-group attitude and approval, but sometimes it was even enforced by the courts. One of the clearest manifestations of the development was the way in which duelling was increasingly frowned upon in early nineteenth-century England. Even so, there continued to be men, particularly in the military, who responded to a perceived slight against their honour with a challenge. Wimbledon Common, which abutted “V” Division of the Metropolitan Police District, was a popular place for such confrontations. Towards the end of the 1830s the local magistrates were sufficiently concerned about the number of duels on the Common to seek a new parish constable for Wimbledon. They found their man in Thomas Hunt Dann, a local miller who lived with his family in a windmill that overlooked a site popular with duellists. In the late afternoon of 12 September 1840 Thomas Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan., and Captain Harvey Tuckett faced each other on the Common twelve paces apart. The first shots of both men missed their targets. Tuckett fired a second time, and missed again. Cardigan took his second shot; the ball ripped its way under Tuckett’s ribs, exiting his body by his spine. The duelists and their seconds were not aware of being observed. Constable Dann, standing 20 feet up on the stage of his mill, had seen their coaches arrive and, as the scene began to unfold, he suspected their intentions. He called to his wife to keep watch on the proceedings as he rushed into the mill to get his constable’s tipstaff: ‘I did not like to go without my authority’. He ran the 220 yards to the scene, arriving moments after Cardigan’s second shot. He arrested Cardigan, took Tuckett’s card and ordered a surgeon to take him home and see to the wound – a wound which Tuckett was fortunate to survive. It says much for Dann’s courage, his commitment to his office and his faith in the standing of that office, that he was prepared to confront and arrest a man who was clearly his social superior and who was among a cluster of other men who were also his social superiors. Moreover, while the prickly Cardigan and his entourage may, in private, subsequently have mocked Dann as a local Dogberry, they bowed to the authority of his office. Cardigan and his second, Captain John Douglas, got into a post-chaise with Dann and were escorted by him to the nearest Metropolitan Police station at Wandsworth, where Dann handed over his charges to Inspector John Busain. It was not the first time that Dann had been involved in prosecuting duelists; and he claimed that he had even managed to prevent some confrontations. But the Cardigan duel was exceptional in that the earl stood trial before his peers. Dann, his wife and their fourteen year old son gave evidence at the Home Office, before the Grand Jury and then in Cardigan’s trial in the House of Lords. The earl was acquitted on the charges of intent to murder, and intent to maim and inflict grievous bodily harm, largely on a technically. Cardigan went on to lead the Light Brigade into the Valley of Death at Balaclava. Dann went back to his mill and probably remembered, with advantages, that particular feat on Wimbledon Common and its aftermath. Regards Brian

Policing Aristocratic Duellists While reading “The Great British Bobby” by Clive Emsley, I ran across this passage that I thought would be of interest to both Police and Military historians. I may post this in the appropriate Military interest section as well. Historians have recently pointed to a growing refinement in manners apparent at least from the early eighteenth century. This led to increasing limitations on male aggression, particularly among those social groups that considered themselves respectable. The development was largely encouraged by peer-group attitude and approval, but sometimes it was even enforced by the courts. One of the clearest manifestations of the development was the way in which duelling was increasingly frowned upon in early nineteenth-century England. Even so, there continued to be men, particularly in the military, who responded to a perceived slight against their honour with a challenge. Wimbledon Common, which abutted “V” Division of the Metropolitan Police District, was a popular place for such confrontations. Towards the end of the 1830s the local magistrates were sufficiently concerned about the number of duels on the Common to seek a new parish constable for Wimbledon. They found their man in Thomas Hunt Dann, a local miller who lived with his family in a windmill that overlooked a site popular with duellists. In the late afternoon of 12 September 1840 Thomas Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan., and Captain Harvey Tuckett faced each other on the Common twelve paces apart. The first shots of both men missed their targets. Tuckett fired a second time, and missed again. Cardigan took his second shot; the ball ripped its way under Tuckett’s ribs, exiting his body by his spine. The duelists and their seconds were not aware of being observed. Constable Dann, standing 20 feet up on the stage of his mill, had seen their coaches arrive and, as the scene began to unfold, he suspected their intentions. He called to his wife to keep watch on the proceedings as he rushed into the mill to get his constable’s tipstaff: ‘I did not like to go without my authority’. He ran the 220 yards to the scene, arriving moments after Cardigan’s second shot. He arrested Cardigan, took Tuckett’s card and ordered a surgeon to take him home and see to the wound – a wound which Tuckett was fortunate to survive. It says much for Dann’s courage, his commitment to his office and his faith in the standing of that office, that he was prepared to confront and arrest a man who was clearly his social superior and who was among a cluster of other men who were also his social superiors. Moreover, while the prickly Cardigan and his entourage may, in private, subsequently have mocked Dann as a local Dogberry, they bowed to the authority of his office. Cardigan and his second, Captain John Douglas, got into a post-chaise with Dann and were escorted by him to the nearest Metropolitan Police station at Wandsworth, where Dann handed over his charges to Inspector John Busain. It was not the first time that Dann had been involved in prosecuting duelists; and he claimed that he had even managed to prevent some confrontations. But the Cardigan duel was exceptional in that the earl stood trial before his peers. Dann, his wife and their fourteen year old son gave evidence at the Home Office, before the Grand Jury and then in Cardigan’s trial in the House of Lords. The earl was acquitted on the charges of intent to murder, and intent to maim and inflict grievous bodily harm, largely on a technically. Cardigan went on to lead the Light Brigade into the Valley of Death at Balaclava. Dann went back to his mill and probably remembered, with advantages, that particular feat on Wimbledon Common and its aftermath. Regards Brian

Last in this series is a closer view of the boss with its floral design, which I believe puts the manufacturing date in the earliest part of the 1900s. Regards Brian

Here is a closer view of the manufacturer's name and part of the latch device on the officer's "loop". There is also a closer view of the latch device here as well.

W. Dowler Nipper or Come along My first entry from my collection is a specialized type of handcuff called a “Nipper” or “Come Along”. These were intended to be used when escorting a prisoner, for example from a jail cell to the court room. The device has no key and relies in a clip to the side of the larger of the two loops for the wrists. The small loop was to be used on the prisoner’s wrist while the larger was for the police officer. A question I have is whether this device was meant to actually encircle the officer’s wrist or did the larger loop with the catch act as a grip. I would think that if it were only attached to the prisoner the device could be twisted forward to “encourage” the prisoner to advance in a forward direction or twisted backwards to put the prisoner to the ground if the need arose. It is times like this that I regret not having my younger brother living close by in order to carry out such experiments as in the past. However, that could be a contributing factor in his reluctance to maintain a closer relationship. The guy has never had much of a tolerance for such research, or perhaps it is a lack of a sense of humour. I would like to hear opinions on this point; the use of the Come Along not on my treatment of my little brother. The specimen from my collection shown below was made by W. Dowler, a company founded in 1744 and located in Birmingham, England. They are better known for the production of buttons, Vesta matches, hand bells, letter balances, swords and whistles according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_Dowler_%26_Sons This particular “Nipper” was made in the early twentieth century according to my research and looks almost exactly the same as the Hiatt manufactured specimens of the early 1900s. There is a boss where the two halves connect and rotate. The very early Hiatt examples have a flower pattern stamped or engraved on this boss. Opinion: The specimen featured here also has this floral design so I am assuming that this is a very early example. This would place the date of manufacture either at the very end of the Victorian period or at least well within the Edwardian period. A further assumption is that these would be generally less common than the more standard handcuffs of their times. Further to the rarity I would, based on the number of examples I’ve seen during my research, assume the W. Dowler manufactured Nipper is rarer than the ones produced by Hiatt. Again I would like to hear opinions, pro or con, regarding these opinions. Regards Brian

Ever since there has been a need to apprehend a suspected criminal and transport or hold them until support (“backup” if you are a fan of the television police officer stereo-types) to arrive there has been a need for devices to render the suspect incapable of flight. I will say that not all suspects are rendered incapable of flight and in at least one case I know of handcuffs made it “inconvenient” to take fright, but escape in this case was prevented. Did you know that having your hands secured behind your back when taking flight and the officer tossing his baton so that it fowls your feet can result in severe facial abrasions and a broken nose? Let me close this part of the post by saying that sometimes a civilian with a cam-recorder can be a blessing. Over the past 200+ years one of the leading manufacturers of handcuffs and other police equipment has been the Hiatt Company, now part of Safariland. For more information on the Hiatt Handcuff Company check out the link below. http://www.handcuffs.org/hiatt/index.html The website for “Handcuff Warehouse” has this to say about Hiatt and Safariland. The Hiatt Handcuff brand has been discontinued. Hiatt Handcuffs in England was acquired by American company Armor Holdings in 2006. Armor Holdings was then acquired by British company BAE Systems. The Hiatt factory in Birmingham, England was closed in late June, 2008. BAE has moved the Hiatt factory to New Hampshire and will be making the Hiatt handcuff line under the Safariland brand. They will also consolidate all other restrains made by BAE companies under the Safariland brand. This includes Monadnock disposable restraints and NIK Flex-Cufs. Availability of Hiatt products is limited to stocks on hand. The new Safariland handcuffs are now available. (Sic) Opinion: In a world where everything has been subjected to the “new” look and political correctness and any thought to the traditional is purely lip service we have a company name such as “Safariland” manufacturing and selling police equipment. Safariland? Really? It sounds more akin to a company that manufactures clothing for the urban Great White Hunter look, selling items that allow the weekend outdoorsman to pretend to be an adventurer, not a company that seriously manufactures police equipment. You may be thinking that, “Brian’s blood pressure must be up again and he’s on a rant”. Perhaps but check out their website. http://www.safariland.com/dutygear/restraints/chain.aspx You can actually purchase coloured handcuffs! So there you go you can now handcuff your suspect with pink handcuffs. Perhaps this is really for the “kinky crowd” but if that is the case then do you really want that associated with serious policing. This is just one man’s opinion and perhaps it is better that I work in the Conservation field now. It just seems that the whole industry has slipped from good solid tradition to the fly-by-night commercialism. Yet when you are called to duty you are expected to deliver the good old fashioned service the public expects and demands. The purpose of this post it not really to rant and rave about whether policing traditions have slipped or not as that it too subjective and the older I get the more prone I have become to be set in my ways. The purpose of this post is to discuss the different handcuffs and restrains used in the past by British and Colonial Police Forces. I will start off, with the next entry, with an example by W. Dowler rather than something from Hiatt, which will come later. Please feel free to post examples from your own collections along with stories and opinions from your own days of service. Regards Brian

This is a view of the reverse which is the same for all classes. Regards Brian

Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter, Cross of Honour of the German Mother. This was a state decoration and civil order of merit awarded to mothers for exceptional merit to Germany. This decoration was awarded from 1939 until 1945 in three classes, these classes being, bronze, silver and gold. All of the classes were awarded to mothers who exhibited exemplary motherhood and in the case of the bronze or 3rd Class award conceived four to five children. The silver or 2nd Class was awarded to mothers with six to seven children and the gold or 1st Class to mothers with eight or more children. The award was introduced by decree in Berlin in 1938 by the then Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler and awarded annually mainly on Mother’s Day as well as other national association’s annual events of celebrations. The award of this decoration was highly regarded by the German Government and the mothers nominated for the award were thoroughly investigated to assure that they met the qualifications. A number of benefits were associated with the award including a small financial benefit and preferential treatment within public service such as medical, clothing, schooling and housing. Upon the death of the recipient the Mother’s Cross of Honour was, by statute, allowed to be inheritable by the bereaved family as a keepsake of remembrance. The design of the cross is based on an elongated iron cross similar to the cross of the Teutonic Knights Order. The body of the cross is blue with a narrow white enamelled border. A sunburst with a roundel in its centre with the words, “DER DEUTSCHEN MUTTER”, English translation: OF THE GERMAN MOTHER around a black swastika is situated where the two parts of the cross intersect. The reverse features the date of introduction, “16 Dezember 1938” beneath which is a facsimile of the signature of the Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. I believe it is quite rare for any national leader to actually have their signature appear on the reverse of a medal of decoration. Not that this is an actual autograph per sae, however, it is a copy of his signature which I personally find interesting. From what I have read, from several sources, Adolf Hitler held his own mother in very high esteem. This, in my opinion, may have been a why his signature appears on the German Mother’s Cross. The award was worn around the neck on a thin blue and white ribbon. This was the only official manner of wear though a miniature example is known which was worn suspended from a blue and white bow made of the same ribbon as the neck ribbon. This was a semi-official approved version and a bow alone was also authorized for general everyday wear. The decoration could be withdrawn at any time after being awarded if it was found that the recipient acted in a manner which conflicted to the criteria set out for the award. An example would be if the mother abandoned her children At the end of World War Two and the fall of the Third Reich all medals and awards bearing the swastika became illegal to wear and so the Mutterehrenkreuz (Mother’s Cross of Honour) also became illegal and therefore was no longer worn. Opinion: It has been held that Hitler implemented this award only to encourage large families in order to fill the ranks of the German military. However, one should keep in mind that when this award was first introduced the world had just gone through a change in morals and a life style not in keeping with the family values of the past. The Roaring Twenties had just ended and a need to bring the thinking of the younger population back in line with the more traditional family values was needed. While this indeed had the additional “benefit” of providing a larger number of young men for military service I believe there were more reasons than purely providing cannon fodder. One of the reasons for my statement is that Germany has not been the only country to implement an award to honour mothers who raised several children in an appropriate manner. In 1920 France implemented the Médaille de la Famille française (Medal of the French Family). Another example would be the Order of Maternal Glory and Mother Heroine of the Soviet Union from the same era. Sources: Wikipedia: Cross of Honor of the German Mother Examples: From the author’s collection

Welcome back Leigh. Regards Brian