Brian Wolfe

That was quite interesting

I had never heard of the hoaxer, thanks for adding to the story.

Regards

Brian

Really? None was intended. I shall await your details.

Regards and more than a little confused (happens more and more with age).?

Brian

Just when I was starting to doubt the health of this forum this post appeared, the item was identified and then the post took on a life of its own, so-to-speak. Just like in the past, it's good to see this sort of "sport" is not extinct. 

Now before my statement generates hate mail, I was just kidding about the health of the forum.

Regards

Brian

Hello Dave,

Your comment brought back memories of being firmly reminded that he or she was an "alleged offender"; the court will make any further determination.

"Yes your worship" eyes down trying to look ever so humble, was the prescribed response. Ah the good old days.

Regards

Brian

I can't help but wonder if this is a WWI era trench truncheon. I've seen similar in the past but this one has an especially interesting look to it.

I hope others will weigh in on this post.

Regards

Brian

An exceptional display, thanks for the photos. Full points to you.

Regards

Brian

Hi Blackrose,

Personally I have always stayed away from hooks. Not only do you run the chance of a reaction between the metal of the hook and the steel in the blade the item may be accidentally knocked off the hooks and require opening the display case to remount the item. This may not be a problem and I may not understand exactly what you are using for the display case. I have mounted daggers in shadowboxes and used light weight fishing line (6 lb / 2.7 kg) called Trilene. This is transparent and almost invisible. You can mount the items on a backing board "sewing" them on and then mount the backboard into the display. If you ever need to remove the items just take the back board out of the display and cut the line. Then simply remount them if needed later on. 

This has always worked for me and in several decades of collecting and mounting weapons for display and never been a problem.

Let us know how you make out and if possible show us the results. I'm sure other members would also be interested.

Good luck

Regards

Brian

Hi Hashim,

That is one beautiful medal indeed. Well done in finding one I can't begin to imagine how rare these must be. Thanks for sharing the image of your latest find, you made my day..

Regards

Brian

Hi Duncan,

This could prove to be the most valuable information in the forum for some poor devil. Thanks for taking the time to alert us.

Regards

Brian

Hello Dave,

I agree with Peter on the issue of the urban legend of "weighted" truncheons. A number of years ago, here on the forum, there was a proposed competition to produce a lead weighted truncheon using only hand tools. It was not too well received and I think I was the only one to complete the assignment.  I was in contact with Mervyn through Skype quite frequently back then and we talked about the likelihood of such items being used in the UK and it was his opinion that this was never the case. 

Here in Canada the Ontario Provincial Police carried a weighted leather "sap"  in the 1960s (?) but this was an issued item and not a modification of an existing piece of equipment. The sap was around 6 to 8 inches in length and fell out of use quite quickly, if memory serves me correctly. 

Good luck with the book.

Regards

Brian

I have been told, by Ed Haynes a number of years ago, that once a soldier is awarded a medal he (or she) is expected that medal or the ribbon without the medal to appear on the medal bar by the time of the next parade. Apparently it takes time for the medal to arrive in the soldier's hands. I have several with what looks like medals missing when in fact is is a matter of just the ribbon there representing the medal itself. I suspect that the tailor's copies fill that regulation's need, providing the service person has the funds, which lower ranks probably lack.

Regards

Brian

I would agree with 922F, this is probably a tailor's copy. The one I have is struck from silver, named and the detail is much more "crisp" especially the word "Territorial" on the medal's bar.

Still a tailor's copy is not worthless in a collection at least until an original comes along.

Regards

Brian

Another nice collection Alan. Thanks for sharing them with us.

Regards

Brian

Hello Alan329,

Welcome to the GMIC and a great collection as well by the way. Well done.

Regards

Brian

Well done Dave, a very nice looking display. I'm in the process of trimming down my collection as well;  I have pretty well run out of space.

Thanks for sharing your pictures of your new den.

Regards

Brian

You certainly posted a sword that had me looking through my reference books. The "R" looks like an attempt to copy the first letter of the famous sword supplier, Runkel" of Solingen. Runkel wrote Solingen with a spiral start to the "S" which looks to have been attempted on your sword. The more I looked at my references the more I must agree with Peter. Possibly this was an attempt to "cash in" on the great need for swords during the Napoleonic War.

During the Napoleonic campaigns Infantry Officers often equipped themselves with the  Pattern 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre rather than the light weight spadroon normally carried. The Pattern 1803 Infantry Officers sword looks a lot like the 1796 Cavalry sabre. I have one that actually has the Cavalry blade with the Infantry hilt. I wonder if the original owner of this sword was one of those officers who wanted a sword more like the cavalry sabre but not the weight. He might have purchased a cheaper sword to use in the field keeping his 1796 Infantry Officers sword (spadroon) for dress occasions. I like this sword and I think there may be a great story behind it, if only we could find out what that was.

Regards

Brian

There is an interesting myth surrounding the design of the “dumb-bell” cross section blade. This is a myth that has been around from the very issuance of this pattern and has been held as fact by many sword collectors in the past. Unlike the scandal over inferior British blades, both sword and bayonet, of the mid 1800s this was not, to my knowledge, exaggerated by the media or politicians of the day to further their personal agendas. Rather than stumbling through a paraphrasing of the work of another I will quote the passage from John Wilkinson Latham’s book, British Military Swords, From 1800 To The Present Day, page 17, first published in the U.S.A. in 1967.

“Whether the following story is true or not the author would not like to say, but it has been handed down from father to son and is one explanation of how such a blade came to be adopted.

  Both Wilkinson and Mole had been asked to submit patterns of a new hilt for the infantry sword and, commencing in 1890, various different designs were put forward by both companies. However, just presenting a sword guard by itself did not really show what the sword would in fact look like if completed with a grip and back piece. It was therefore the practice to mount these swords on dummy blades, the majority of which were rough rolled and ground. Eventually, in 1892, one of the above manufacturers – and there was no record of which it was – submitted a hilt which fulfilled all the requirements of the War Office specification. This hilt was mounted on a roughly finished blade which had not yet had its edge ground and was therefore dumb-bell shaped. The story goes on that approval was given not only to the hilt but of the complete sword, and thus a new pattern was born having a blade which in fact had no edge.”

The idea that a sword Pattern would have been based on a gross error is, to my way of thinking, most doubtful indeed. To give full credit to Mr. Latham, he did state that he was not about to present this as a proven fact. Therefore this should probably be filed under the heading of mythology. I noticed that the section in his book containing this story had the number 7 denoting the notes at the end of the chapter. However, when I checked this I found the reference was to cavalry swords used by infantry officers at the outbreak of WWI. Given the drive by the British to develop a thrust-centric sword as far back as the Napoleonic Wars (1803 – 1815) it is quite doubtful that this would finally come about by pure chance.

Aussiesoldier, in his excellent post (see above), has given credit, and rightfully so, to Colonel G.M. Fox, Inspector of Physical Training at the Board of Education as being influential in the design of this sword.  In support of what aussiesoldier has suggested I offer the following section from Brian Robinson’s book, Swords of the British Army, the revised edition, pages 164 & 165, published 2011. 

“It appears that the blade owed its design to Colonel Fox, the Chief Inspector of Physical Education Training at the Board of Education, who was later responsible for the design of the Pattern 1908 Cavalry sword and owed something to his fencing experience.”

Anyone who has either participated in the sport of fencing or even watched such matches will attest that “giving point” or thrusting is used rather than cutting actions. I think this pretty well puts the old myth to bed once and for all, even though there is always room for a good story..

Regards

Brian

Hi aussiesoldier,

Thanks for the submission it was most interesting.

I was hoping others would join in on what I think a most interesting subject, thanks again.

My example is marked to the 1st (Canadian) Hussars.Sorry for the poor quality photo.

Regards

Brian

Congratulation on an excellent addition to your collection, well done.

Regards

Brian

Hi Nightbreak,

So your the fellow who reads my blogs. Good to hear from a fellow over taxed and under-appreciated, Canadian. Happy fiirst day of spring.?

Regards

Brian

Hi Mark,

I must have been experiencing a senior's moment when I wrote "William" as when I review the photos now it looks clearly like a "G" for George.Looks like I was not the only one to have missed that, except for you,. well done. I have written several articles for publications in Australia and New Zealand and some have been on early British police. Suddenly people started to call me the "British Police Guy" which I am not. Perhaps I should forward this post to those I correspond with as proof that I am not an expert on matters police. British or otherwise. ?

I will say this with some degree of confidence regarding the "faking" of such items. Most copies seem to come from India and Pakistan, this is with items other than truncheons but could include them as well. The nature of those who produce copies, replicas or fakes is one of financial gain, call it greed if you will. This is not a racist remark, only a fact of business. They produce a multitude of any one item, be it swords, daggers, medals etc. this is because of profit. There is little to no profit in reproducing a truncheon, they are just not that popular on the collecting market. Since we don't seem to see a lot of these, and if we did they would be in the form of the type of truncheon we normally see and not the shape of the one you have, this is not likely to be a target for the faker. 

Another factor in determining an authentic specimen of any collectable is in the finish. In the case of swords, the fit of the parts and the quality. Since I have retired I have become a professional wood turner, turning (no pun intended) a long time hobby into a paying proposition. I could copy any truncheon on the lathe, which is not great feat. However when it comes to the paint this is in the realm of an art restorer to copy the age and deterioration over time. Once you know your topic it comes down to a gut feeling about collectables. This is covered in the book, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. 

Perhaps this would be a good topic for another blog in the future here on the GMIC, which no one reads. Makes one wonder why I bother...sucker for punishment I suppose.?

I hope this truncheon is the start of a fine collection.

Regards

Brian

Hi Mark,

I would say that you have a 100% original piece. The truncheon is in excellent condition yet the paint is showing its age, which is exactly would one would expect. I have a feeling this was used more like a tipstaff in the sense that it showed the officer's authority rather than something that was used to get a criminals "attention". Possibly a rural constable.

I would put this one in my collection in the blink of an eye, had I the opportunity.  Well done on an excellent William IV specimen. 

Regards

Brian

More great finds, thanks for sharing them; you have made me rethink and consider this area of collection

Regards

Brian

Hi Graham,

An excellent collection, thanks for sharing it with the membership.

Regards

Brian

British Foot Artillery Private’s Sword c. 1820

The Foot Artillery Private’s Sword c.1820, is sometimes referred to as the “Spanish Sword or Hanger” named for its use during the Peninsular War of 1807-1814. This British sword measures around 29 inches over all, with a 24½ inch blade without a fuller and has a D shaped hand guard. 

One of the issues I have with this particular sword is the time period designation of circa 1820 when it has been documented to have been in use throughout the Peninsular War of 1807 to 1814. Further, if that is the case then it is not a stretch of the imagination to see this sword in use at the time of the Battle of Waterloo (1815).  A better circa date, in my opinion, would be c.1812 especially considering the war of 1812 was raging in Canada between Britain and the United States, therefore a significant date upon which to base a circa date. I believe this circa date was first set by Brian Robson, Swords of the British Army, as he was unable to locate any “Pattern” documents and was going by the mention of this sword in an official report titled, Select Committee on Artillery Equipment in 1855. This report states that the Spanish pattern hanger was worn in 1820 and continued to be worn by all gunners and drivers attached to field guns until 1826. All of this considered it would appear that this sword was in use from 1807 to 1826.

It is interest that at this time (Peninsular War) that the horse artillery was issued with the large curved sabre of the Light Cavalry.  This would seem a very un-gamely weapon at 33 inches to have been worn around the artillery pieces. Paintings of the battles of that era clearly show the Pattern 1796 Light Cavalry Troopers Sabre in use around the guns.

Other paintings, also of that period, show the Foot Artillery sword being worn by gunners (see image below).

A lot has been said by so-called experts about the Foot Artillery sword being a poor weapon and of little use for defence by the gun crews if they were over-run by the enemy. One of the reasons that I do not like to write about weapons I don’t have in the collection is that accepting the opinion of others who, in most cases, never handled the swords, let alone in battle, may be perpetuating a falsehood. This is one case where I must agree with those experts. When compared with the Pattern 1796 Cavalry Troopers Sabre, in use by the Horse Artillery of the same time period, the Foot Artillery Sword is far too blade-heavy.  Both swords are of about the same weight but the weight distribution for the Foot Artillery sword makes it feel much heavier than that of the 1796 Cavalry Sabre.

What does this mean when it comes to the gun crews defending themselves? The weight distribution in the 1796 Cavalry Sabre allows the user to parry an enemy’s sword then recover and deal his own cut or thrust.  The Foot Artillery sword being blade-heavy would defend, or parry, as well as the 1796, however recovery of the weapon in order to deliver a counter blow would be very difficult, if not impossible. This scenario is involving being overrun by cavalry as the enemy is moving quickly through the line of guns.  In the case of enemy infantry the parry of a bayonet would be followed up with a blow from the musket’s stock or butt plate. Being unable to counter strike with the sword is a definite detriment for the gunner.

It seems strange that any sword should be considered as ineffective, however, it should be remembered that ever since the advent of dependable firearms the sword has not been the principle weapon of war. This is a good topic by itself and one that we may look at in detail in a future article. The artilleryman’s principle weapon, in this case, is his cannon and the sword, if he has one, for self defence as a last resort.

Regards

Brian

Below is a picture the Foot Artillery Private’s Sword and one of the 1796 Cavalry Trooper’s Sabre.  The artillery men from the painting Royal Artillery Dislodging French Cavalry by Denis Dighton (1792 – 1827) shows the gunner in the centre of the photo wearing the Foot Artillery Private’s Sword in the middle of his back, well out of the way of operating the artillery piece. The French Cavalry are in the background just below the hills.