# Communities > Antique Arms & Armour Community > Antique & Military Sword Forum >  Wilkinson ledger confusion

## james.elstob

Hi all.

This is a recent acquisition. Standard 1822 infantry officer's sword.

Best quality "HW" proof disc

Blade length: 29 3/4" so lost a little over an inch from the tip but has been reground and service sharpened so presumably this was a historical loss

Blade width: slightly under 1 1/8"

Total length: 35 1/2"

Rather frustratingly the Wilkinson ledger records the buyer only as "Cook" with no initial.

Considering it is such a common name it seems unlikely that further research would identify the officer, although I wouldn't rule out with the expertise available here, that it might be narrowed down. 

Certainly not by me anyway, I'm not knowledgeable enough about research into army lists etc and other source material to get far. 

So the ledger specifies 31 inch Regular Infantry [blade] but I can't make out the words below,  which follow after "36 in". No doubt it will seem obvious to others but I'm just not seeing it. 

My confusion is about the dates in the ledger. The serial number 6096 clearly falls within the known year of issue of 1858.

However the "screwed together" date is clearly April 11th 1855" with the "finished" date being April 21st 1855.

The "proved" and "Retd" dates appear to have been overwritten. 

Anyone have any idea about the reason for the apparent 3 year gap between production and sale of this sword?

----------


## L. Braden

As you suspected, there are numerous Cooks who would fit the time frame, presumably purchasing the sword upon or before promotion to ensign; so, without further info, it would be impossible to pin one down. Anyway, here are most if not all of them:
Arthur Cook, 16 Mar. 58, 5th Regt.
Alfred Cook, 5 June 55, 40th Regt.
Alfred Cook, 15 Dec. 54, 40th Regt.
Henry Cook, 15 June 55, 32nd Regt.
Robert Cook. 4 Apr. 55, 21st Regt.
William Cook, 15 Apr. 56, 7th Regt.
Henry Cook, 15 June 55, 100th Regt.
George Henry Cook, 7 Feb. 57, 2nd Somerset Militia

----------


## L. Braden

P.S. Haven't checked the East India Registers, which would be equally futile!

----------


## james.elstob

> P.S. Haven't checked the East India Registers, which would be equally futile!


No,  quite!   Thanks for the info anyway.   It's about the number of possibilities I expected. 

I suppose it could also be a more senior officer purchasing a beefier sword for use in the field before posting abroad.   

I hope the Wilkinson employee used the time wisely,  that he saved by not writing the initial!

----------


## L. Braden

Alexander Cook, 26 June 56, 32nd Madras N.I.

----------


## L. Braden

Re a more senior officer, I thought of that myself; but the search would have been equally futile, given the number of Cooks. Too bad there are no initials on the sword, which may or may not be uncommon; but given the awful calligraphy in use, that might have posed another ID problem!
Best Regards!

----------


## L. Braden

P.S. What if "Cook" was a mistake for "Cooke"? Horrors!

----------


## MikeShowers

The dates of April 1855 are correct for 6096 so I think what looks like an 8 in the upper right date is actually a poorly written 5.  The "36 in" part is probably referring to the overall length of sword and scabbard as the last two words look like "to shoe."  I can't figure out the middle words, or why the overall length of the sword would be important enough for entry into the ledger.  Maybe Mr.Cook was adamant that the overall length could not exceed 36 inches for some reason?  Is there a scabbard with the sword?  I think finding the original owner would be a monumental task even for someone as talented and determined as L.Braden  :Smilie: 
Cheers,
Mike

----------


## L. Braden

You are absolutely right, Mike: in a case like this, talent and determination (to say nothing of patience) have a definite limit.
Thanks indeed for your valuable input, and Best Wishes Always!

----------


## L. Braden

P.S. On second thought, dare we narrow it down to Robert Cook? June '55 seems late, and Dec. '54 seems early, but I know nothing of when swords were ordered and how long it generally took to supply them - though, in this case, without special or custom engraving, it was evidently readily supplied.

----------


## james.elstob

> The dates of April 1855 are correct for 6096 so I think what looks like an 8 in the upper right date is actually a poorly written 5.  The "36 in" part is probably referring to the overall length of sword and scabbard as the last two words look like "to shoe."  I can't figure out the middle words, or why the overall length of the sword would be important enough for entry into the ledger.  Maybe Mr.Cook was adamant that the overall length could not exceed 36 inches for some reason?  Is there a scabbard with the sword?  I think finding the original owner would be a monumental task even for someone as talented and determined as L.Braden 
> Cheers,
> Mike


Hi Mike, 

You are correct,  6096 was correct for 1855.  Problem solved.  

There is no scabbard unfortunately.

----------


## james.elstob

> P.S. On second thought, dare we narrow it down to Robert Cook? June '55 seems late, and Dec. '54 seems early, but I know nothing of when swords were ordered and how long it generally took to supply them - though, in this case, without special or custom engraving, it was evidently readily supplied.


It's a perfectly logical piece of speculation and probably the closest it's possible to get without more information.

It's certainly closer than I thought could be achieved when I first read the ledger.   It's awesome to be able to call on such expertise offered simply for the passion of doing it!

Thanks all

----------


## james.elstob

On further reading into 21st regt of foot it seems they suffered heavy losses in the battles of Alma and Inkerman in 1854.   

Would it be likely that they recruited from home rather than field promotions?  It seems reasonable that they might do both which generates the need for new ensigns to equip themselves around that time.

P.S. Just out of interest, Ensign Robert Cook purchased into Lieutenant in Feb 1857,  Captain in April 1863 then gained his Majority in Oct 1877.   All with the 21st.

----------


## Will Mathieson

Weel to shoe? Spelt wheel incorrectly if it is wheel?  Some scabbards had a wheel attached to the shoe to avoid wear.  Possibly a senior officer?  The blade is a medium, 1" to 1 1/8", a regular blade is 1 1/4" wide.

----------


## james.elstob

> Weel to shoe? Spelt wheel incorrectly if it is wheel?  Some scabbards had a wheel attached to the shoe to avoid wear.  Possibly a senior officer?  The blade is a medium, 1" to 1 1/8", a regular blade is 1 1/4" wide.


Not sure about "wheel",  they've put an "i"  in that word as you can see its been dotted. 

Perhaps an officer of longer standing replacing a sword after some hard field service.   Or perhaps he sat on his old one.   I've come to terms with the not knowing very quickly after taking up collecting!

----------


## Will Mathieson

Looking again they have the blade as regular "rg inf" Possibly wiel?   Possibly comparing the writing to other proof pages with the same details you may be able to know what it says?

----------


## james.elstob

> Looking again they have the blade as regular "rg inf" Possibly wiel?   Possibly comparing the writing to other proof pages with the same details you may be able to know what it says?




"???  laid to shoe" perhaps?   What would be laid to the shoe?

----------


## Will Mathieson

Possibly describing overall length? Odd that it's recorded since the hilts were standard size and yours appears to be.

----------


## james.elstob

> Possibly describing overall length? Odd that it's recorded since the hilts were standard size and yours appears to be.


Yep seems a strange measurement to mention.   

Could it say "paid to shoe"?   although what other options would there be than to shoe a scabbard

----------


## L. Braden

Have checked the army lists again re senior officers and promotions to seniority in 1855, and here are the results:
Alfred Cook, 40th, lieut. 25 April.
Henry Cook, 32nd & 100th, lieut. 31 August.
Capt. & Adjt. William Surtees Cook, capt. h.p., unatt., lst Somerset Militia.
Capt. John Cook, 3rd Royal Westminster Middlesex Light Infantry.
Take your pick! (Or revert to an ensign.) :Confused:

----------


## L. Braden

CORRECTION: As I suspected, but had to confirm, in the British Army, senior or field officers were not company officers (e.g., lieutenants and captains) except for captains holding an adjutant appointment, which limits the list to Wm Surtees Cook. In other words, lieutenants and captains were considered to be junior officers, even when they sometimes, perforce, performed the duties of senior officers, as in emergency situations in warfare or some other exigency in the absence or incapacity of a senior officer. :EEK!:

----------


## L. Braden

P.S. What threw me off was that Lt. & Adjt. Henry M. Havelock referred to captains (and perhaps lieutenants) as "field officers" in a letter written in 1857. Now, either he was mistaken or the term was loosely used in the mid-19th century for company officers. I'm in no mood to try to find out, having spent enough time on this subject, so I hope that someone else knows the answer offhand or is willing to research it.

----------


## gordon byrne

Been pondering on the question of the difficult abbreviations of the proof docket, and as the overall length of the sword in scabbard could easily be 36 " inches, my guess on the wording is

*36 " from rivet to shoe*. The rivet being the end of the tang riveted over at the top of the pommel, and the end of the shoe being the extremity of the scabbard.

----------


## L. Braden

"In no mood" :Hyuk!: 
"Colonels, Lieutenant-Colonels, and Majors, are called Field Officers. ... Subaltern Officers are Lieutenants, Cornets, Second Lieutenants, and Ensigns." (Lt. E. S. N. Campbell, A Dictionary of the Military Science, London 1844.)
"Field Officer -- An officer above the rank of captain and below that of general." (Maj. Gen. G. E. Voyle, A Military Dictionary, London 1876.)
Ditto many more 19th-century British sources. Can't account for Havelock's evident mistake in assuming that company officers other than adjutants like himself were senior officers. But evidently only captains (not lieutenants) as adjutants were considered senior! Phew!!

----------


## james.elstob

> Been pondering on the question of the difficult abbreviations of the proof docket, and as the overall length of the sword in scabbard could easily be 36 " inches, my guess on the wording is
> 
> *36 " from rivet to shoe*. The rivet being the end of the tang riveted over at the top of the pommel, and the end of the shoe being the extremity of the scabbard.


Hi Gordon,  yes it does look like it could be rivet,   but... oh dear...  when i had a sit down and think I suddenly realised I have been a little....  foolish!

This sword did in fact arrive with a scabbard, which I had put immediately away when hanging the sword and forgotten all about. 

Below are images with sword and scabbard in comparison.  The first measured from the base of the blade,  the second from the tang button. 




The length of the handle is exactly 6" BTW,  matching my other circa 1857 HW 1822p. 

So if it was originally a 31" blade, it wouldn't fit in this scabbard, which is only 30 1/2" plus 1/2 inch to the tip of  the drag. 

Is this therefore possibly a new scabbard to account for a shorter blade after a loss of tip or did they simply  start with a 31" regulation blade then reduce it to suit the officer's requirements?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the manufacturing process could chip in.  Would Wilkinsons grind down a regulation blade by over an inch or would they forge a shorter blade?

This could be one reason why the 36" measurement was specified on the proof docket although as you can see the whole sword and  scabbard in its current state are 37" total length. 

Apologies to all for the oversight about owning the scabbard.

----------


## John Hart

Out of interest, what did Richard think the wording was?  He usually supplies a "translation" with the ledger copy.

John

----------


## james.elstob

> Out of interest, what did Richard think the wording was?  He usually supplies a "translation" with the ledger copy.
> 
> John


Hi John,   thanks for pointing that out.   I went back to the original email and found a letter attachment which I had overlooked when downloading from my phone. 

Richard has indeed provided his opinion on the wording as: - 

36 in(ches) fr(om) rivet to shoe. 

So the wording seems confirmed however this could not have been correct for a 31 inch blade plus 6 inch handle.

I had assumed there was a loss of tip from the blade as it's only 29 3/4" but perhaps it was always this length.   Although the scabbard and sword total 37" now,  there is an excess at the bottom of the scabbard of around 1".  

Perhaps this is actually a larger than original replacement scabbard with the smaller original plus sword amounting to only 36".  

However that fails to take into account shrinkage of the leather washer and some loss from the tip from sharpening which would probably mean the current scabbard was perfect for the sword at new. 

How much room is there usually left at the bottom of the scabbard?

----------


## Will Mathieson

The blade would be 31" as stated in the proof page. I have found scabbards fit within 1/4" or less of the blade length. Sometimes the loss of the leather washer has the tip of the blade bottoming out.
Measure the hilt again i think you'll find it to be closer to 5 1/2".

----------


## james.elstob

> The blade would be 31" as stated in the proof page. I have found scabbards fit within 1/4" or less of the blade length. Sometimes the loss of the leather washer has the tip of the blade bottoming out.
> Measure the hilt again i think you'll find it to be closer to 5 1/2".


Hmm,  yes it's 5 6/8".  

The sword and scabbard still measure 37" rivet to shoe with a compressed washer.    Looks like he got an unwanted extra inch and a bit total length. 

Also there is only 30 5/8" of room in the scabbard.   Even with a washer 3/8 of an inch thick the scabbard is at absolutely capacity for a 31 inch blade.  So either the blade was a little shorter to start off with or this is a replacement scabbard. 

My gut feeling is that it's the former.   The blade need only be say 3/8 shorter with a thick washer and that would have given enough clearance on the scabbard. 

A reminder that ultimately Victorian era sword manufacturing doesn't fit with modern standardised manufacturing expectations that measurements will be dead on.

----------


## Will Mathieson

Blade would not be shorter than recorded when made. What is the scabbard measurement from the mouth to the end not including the drag? A 3/8 washer is far too thick, at maximum the sword would have an 1/8" or less thick washer.

----------


## L. Braden

Back to the ID! Like so many other officers' swords without custom engraving, etc., my assumption is (as James suggested) that it was intended as a combat and/or practice weapon rather than a dress sword. Why pay extra for a fancy sword only to have it break or be otherwise damaged in practice or combat? So, unless the owner wanted it only for practice, is it likely that militia officers like John Cook and Wm Surtees Cook would have wanted such a sword, considering that their units were not involved in combat? It seems more likely that it was intended for combat, which narrows the ID down to the ensigns listed above. But logic or common/practical sense may not apply in this case as in others!

P.S. Since the sword may have been used only for practice, I doubt that we'll ever be able to make a positive ID of the owner.

----------


## james.elstob

> Blade would not be shorter than recorded when made. What is the scabbard measurement from the mouth to the end not including the drag? A 3/8 washer is far too thick, at maximum the sword would have an 1/8" or less thick washer.


Measurement of mouth to end of scabbard (not including drag) is 30 5/8.  

One of the measurements on the proof docket must be incorrect.  Either it was shorter than a 31" blade or rivet to shoe was greater than 36".

Would the docket be made out at point of order then the sword is put together.? If so,  amongst the pile of regulation infantry blades wouldn't there be a tolerance in length.   Do you know what the outliers to this might be  be ?

----------


## james.elstob

> Back to the ID! Like so many other officers' swords without custom engraving, etc., my assumption is (as James suggested) that it was intended as a combat and/or practice weapon rather than a dress sword. Why pay extra for a fancy sword only to have it break or be otherwise damaged in practice or combat? So, unless the owner wanted it only for practice, is it likely that a militia officer like Wm Surtees Cook would have wanted such a sword, considering that militia units were rarely if ever involved in warfare combat? It seems more likely that it was intended for combat, which narrows the ID down to the ensigns listed above. But logic or common/practical sense may not apply in this case as in others!


Seems like sound logic to my 21st century layman's brain.   

Just to play devils advocate though,  when your a victorian toff,  playing at soldiers around the local County perhaps you want to look like the 'real deal'!

----------


## L. Braden

:Cool:  :Wink:  :Big Grin:

----------


## Will Mathieson

The drag on the scabbard does not appear to be a Wilkinson, the profile being different. I have an 1855 Wilkinson guards sword and infantry swords and the drags are a different profile than yours. 
It is not uncommon for dealers to shove a sword in any scabbard that accepts them. Can you post photos of the whole scabbard and its mouth? Looks to have French flavour to it and meant for a more curved blade?.

----------


## L. Braden

> Back to the ID! Like so many other officers' swords without custom engraving, etc., my assumption is (as James suggested) that it was intended as a combat and/or practice weapon rather than a dress sword. Why pay extra for a fancy sword only to have it break or be otherwise damaged in practice or combat? So, unless the owner wanted it only for practice, is it likely that militia officers like John Cook and Wm Surtees Cook would have wanted such a sword, considering that their units were not involved in combat? It seems more likely that it was intended for combat, which narrows the ID down to the ensigns listed above. But logic or common/practical sense may not apply in this case as in others!
> 
> P.S. Since the sword may have been used only for practice, I doubt that we'll ever be able to make a positive ID of the owner.


Revised post.

----------


## james.elstob



----------


## gordon byrne

> 


In my opinion this scabbard is not original to the sword, nor of British manufacture and not at all akin with scabbards generally sold  by Wilkinson with Infantry pattern swords.

----------


## gordon byrne

> 


Not on the subject of the sword, but certainly the name, I have the proof information on a Wilkinson Cavalry pattern sword No. 9943  which was made for "*Mr Cook*" and completed  on 5th December 1859; despite all efforts on my part, as yet I've not been able to indentify a Mr. Cook who might have bought a cavalry sword.

I seems that just because we have a name, it is not always the case that history will reveal exactly who the person was?

----------


## L. Braden

Edwin Adolphus Cook, Major (12 Dec. 54) 11th Hussars, and subsequently Lieutenant & Captain, West Kent Yeomanry Cavalry. "Mr" may either be an abbreviation of "Major" or of "Mister", referring to his Yeomanry rank as Lieutenant. Can't find any other Cook in the cavalry in that time period. Hope this helps!

----------


## L. Braden

Moreover, re James's sword! Unless Wilkinson had a rule that the name on the ledger had to be that of the person for whom it was intended (meaning the owner thereof), we don't even know if a Cook was the owner of the sword. It could very well have been ordered by a Cook for someone with a different surname, either as a gift or for some other reason. (You frequently read in letters from officers serving in war who need a new sword, "Send me a Wilkinson's," or words to that effect.) Time to end this exercise in futility!

----------


## L. Braden

P.S., Gordon: Cook was made captain in the WKYC on 1 Oct. 61. Can readily find no record of when he entered the unit.
Best Regards!

----------


## james.elstob

I think we are all agreed then.  Too many  Cooks spoil the broth. 

Thank you,  I'm here all week!

----------


## L. Braden

> P.S., Gordon: Cook was made captain in the WKYC on 1 Oct. 61. Can readily find no record of when he entered the unit.
> Best Regards!


Eureka! Cook was appointed Lieutenant in the WKYC on 22 Jan. 58.

----------


## L. Braden

Or, on second thought, "Mr Cook" may have been one of the Major's two sons or some other relative with that surname who ordered the sword as a gift or whatever.

Nope - too early for either of C's sons. He married in '67. Either C. himself or a relative.

----------


## John Hart

Chipping in late again, but Wilkinsons often used just the surname when recording sales to retailers or outfitters.  And in that vein, OldSwords has a T.W. Cook of Clifford St, London (only a 5-minute walk from the Wilkinson premises in Pall Mall): _"Known to have been supplied some swords from Wilkinsons. Listed as a trade customer in Wilkinsons records. Probably an outfitter."_  Perhaps this is more likely?

John
PS: I agree the scabbard looks wrong for a Wilkinson - the suspension rings are quite thin and the opening in the throat seems to be for more of a wedge-shaped blade.

----------


## L. Braden

I think you've nailed it, John, for both swords. Thanks indeed!  :Smilie:  An outfitter never occurred to me, but should have! :Embarrassment:

----------


## gordon byrne

> Chipping in late again, but Wilkinsons often used just the surname when recording sales to retailers or outfitters.  And in that vein, OldSwords has a T.W. Cook of Clifford St, London (only a 5-minute walk from the Wilkinson premises in Pall Mall): _"Known to have been supplied some swords from Wilkinsons. Listed as a trade customer in Wilkinsons records. Probably an outfitter."_  Perhaps this is more likely?
> 
> John
> PS: I agree the scabbard looks wrong for a Wilkinson - the suspension rings are quite thin and the opening in the throat seems to be for more of a wedge-shaped blade.


Hi John,

Outfitter is quite possible, but as far as my situation is concerned, the fact that he was referred to as Mr, gave the impression he may have been a civilian (not discounting the fact that the outfitter was likely a civilian also).

PS. Re the scabbard, there is only one ring on the scabbard, which is more a characteristic of scabbards from somewhere over the other side of the channel.

----------


## gordon byrne

> Eureka! Cook was appointed Lieutenant in the WKYC on 22 Jan. 58.


Thanks very much for the input on Mr Cook; a possibility but one can't discount the fact that it also could have been the outfitter??

----------


## John Hart

> Hi John,
> 
> Outfitter is quite possible, but as far as my situation is concerned, the fact that he was referred to as Mr, gave the impression he may have been a civilian (not discounting the fact that the outfitter was likely a civilian also).


Hi Gordon,

I think it was James who referred to him as Mr Cook - the proof book copy just says "Cook".

And my mistake on the scabbard - what I took for a lower ring is just a shadow in one of the photographs!  Yes, single scabbard rings are a non-British indicator for sure.

John

----------


## L. Braden

From embarrassed to confused! On 9/12, Gordon wrote that his sword was made for "Mr Cook", and yesterday wrote that "he was referred to as Mr"; and yet today, in a reply to Gordon, John writes that "the proof book copy just says 'Cook'", presumably in reference to Gordon's sword. Is this a confusion of Gordon's sword with James's sword (which we definitely know just has "Cook")? If not, then does the record for Gordon's sword just have "Cook" as well? He says not!  :Confused:

----------


## L. Braden

Incidentally, T[homas]. W. Cook, Sons & Co., of London and Paris, had many designations; e.g., Master Tailors, Court Tailors, Court and Civil Tailors, Diplomatic Tailors, Ladies' Tailors, Military Outfitters and Tailors, Practical Tailors and Outfitters. There was also a Captain T. W. Cook in the Madras Infantry in 1857 and thereabouts. Trivia!

P.S. Correction: Cooke, not Cook (as per a faulty source), in Madras Infantry. Such a mistake prompted me to question the spelling in the register.

----------


## james.elstob

Going back to the scabbard,  it seems that I can discount this as being original to the sword.  

On reading up in Robson I note that the 1822 (edited)  pipeback scabbard is said to have a "small pin which fits into a hole in the guard".   I have an 1822 pipeback officers sword but I can't see such a hole and a review of onlie images (albeit not comprehensive)  did not offer any clues.   

Just out of interest does anyone have images of this pin and hole arrangement?   

Did it persist into the post 1845 Wilkinson blade pattern?  Again if it did,  I can't find the evidence in my 2 examples. 

I do note in the later 2 examples,  including the sword which is the subject of this thread,  that there are two pairs of holes at top and bottom of hilt.   I had assumed that these were for securing the leather lining.   Is this assumption correct?

----------


## Will Mathieson

What page are you quoting in Robsons? 1882 is far too late for pipe backed blades. All I can think of is a naval officers sword where the folding guard locks into the scabbard mount.
You are correct with he holes you mention being for the hilt liner.

----------


## John Hart

> From embarrassed to confused! On 9/12, Gordon wrote that his sword was made for "Mr Cook", and yesterday wrote that "he was referred to as Mr"; and yet today, in a reply to Gordon, John writes that "the proof book copy just says 'Cook'", presumably in reference to Gordon's sword. Is this a confusion of Gordon's sword with James's sword (which we definitely know just has "Cook")? If not, then does the record for Gordon's sword just have "Cook" as well? He says not!


No, I was still talking about James's sword - I should stop accessing SFI on my phone, don't get a decent view of the full thread!

John
I

----------


## james.elstob

> What page are you quoting in Robsons? 1882 is far too late for pipe backed blades. All I can think of is a naval officers sword where the folding guard locks into the scabbard mount.
> You are correct with he holes you mention being for the hilt liner.


Sorry John now corrected,  I meant 1822.   Either clumsiness or tiredness!

----------


## Matt Easton

Hi folks, some observations:

In my experience swords were normally completed a few weeks before new officers were commissioned – so a sword finished in April 1855 would normally relate to an officer commissioning in June or July 1855. That is, if the sword was made for a specific officer and not being supplied to an outfitter.

I'm sorry I didn't see this thread a couple of days ago, because I already knew Cook was an outfitter - I have a very nice Wilkinson also listed as sold to 'Cook'. It is service sharpened and I was very disappointed to discover there was no way of connecting it to an officer!

This steel scabbard is definitely not a Wilkinson one and I would say it's not British. The throat is all wrong for a British sword, as well as the other differences noted.

Given that this sword was supplied to Cook, I actually find it very interesting that it is such a specific order - normally outfitters would just buy standard regulation swords. You would have thought that such a specific customer would have gone to Wilkinson directly.

Nice sword though.

----------


## L. Braden

Which makes me wonder again if one (if not both) of the Cooks was an officer. But how common was it to omit the initial(s) of the name. And in the case of Will's sword, there's no name at all! How common was that? In the case of "Mr Cook" in the ledger re Gordon's sword, I doubt that it was an abbreviation for the military term of "Mister", which was usually used only in addressing or verbally referring to a junior officer - altho I could be wrong about that! Nor can I find any precedent for "Mr" being an abbreviation for "Major", altho some record-keeper might have thought it so.

----------


## L. Braden

An additional search found these abbreviations for Major: M, Mr, Mjr, Majr, Maj. 
M, Mr, and Majr are evidently uncommon, but in the case of Mr, still within the realm of possibility.

----------


## Matt Easton

In my experience, if the Wilkinson ledger writes 'Mr', it's because the person is specifically not military.

----------


## Matt Easton

I should add, I know at least one example where the 'Mr' in question turned out to be a family friend of the officer - the sword was being bought as a graduation present. And another example where it is a 'Mrs' and that lady ran an outfitters (her husband having died and she took over the business).

----------


## L. Braden

Am adding "Ma" to the list! Anyway, here's one of several sources for "Mr":
"That night his quarters near Richmond were 'at Mr Norton's' (Major Norton; this abbreviation for major is used elsewhere." (Hill & Watkinson, Major Sanderson's War: Diary of a Parliamentary Cavalry Officer in the English Civil War, 2009.)
However, I'm inclined to agree that "Mr Cook" refers to a civilian. But what civilian? The outfitter or some other? And what about just plain "Cook" re James's sword? How common was it to designate someone without a proper title or even initials? Really inefficient, insufficient, and downright sloppy record-keeping; and in the case of Will's sword, egregiously so!

----------


## Matt Easton

The ledger here just says Cook. I'd be fairly confident that it refers to the outfitter therefore.

----------


## james.elstob

If Mr Cook the civilian outfitter from 'round the corner' ordered fair number of swords from Wilkinson either in person or via his staff I can see the ledger being noted as "Mr Cook" and even,  once the Wilkinson staff were familiar with the arrangement just as "Cook". 

Regarding the unusually specific order to be put through an outfitters,  there could be reasons why an officer might not go direct.   Perhaps Mr Cook was the trusted family tailor? 

Perhaps Mr Cooks shop records are tucked away in a drawer somewhere just waiting to be discovered!

----------


## John Hart

> If Mr Cook the civilian outfitter from 'round the corner' ordered fair number of swords from Wilkinson either in person or via his staff I can see the ledger being noted as "Mr Cook" and even,  once the Wilkinson staff were familiar with the arrangement just as "Cook".


I'm with you on that, James - after all these were just order book entries for use within the Wilkinson factory, not receipts which would have been given to the customer (which I'm sure would have been far more formal and businesslike).  They're a record of the proving of the blade, occasionally with notes on specific details of the construction, to track the sword via its serial number as it moved through the manufacturing process.  I've seen a similar proof book copy for "Flight", for example, who were another military outfitters.

John

----------


## L. Braden

To avoid mistakes, it obviously wasn't deemed sufficient by management to have just the job number on the form. Otherwise, why is "For" there? The insufficiency or sloppiness was not proper identification (e.g., "T W Cook" instead of "Mr Cook" or just "Cook", as if there were no other Cooks; or, in other cases, no name at all!) Moreover, these forms were not always completely filled out, which has resulted in unanswered questions nowadays and likely efficiency problems back then. And if some items were not considered important, why are they on the form?  So, I stand by my opinion, if for no other reason than that these issues have led to wasted time and effort on the part of I.D.ers and frustration on the part of collectors. However, even though I have often been helpful in this I.D. game, I will refrain from playing it hereafter - or involving myself in any other likely controversy.

----------

