# Communities > Antique Arms & Armour Community > Antique & Military Sword Forum >  Hawkes & Co. & general retailers question !

## Peter Walker

Hi all,

(Just a little relaxed friday afternoon post to practise my typing skills and posting photos...as well and increasing my minimal knowledge of Brit swords! )

Several times Mr Wilkinson-Latham has kindly posted the following info for tyro collectors:-

'Here is a scan of some of the RETAILERS Wilkinson supplied. They most times carry the Wilkinson logo as well and a sword number on the spine and maybe HW proof mark (If BEST PROVED as ordered) or one of the other slugs if Outfitter's quality.

BEST PROVED @ £3-15-0
PROVED - OUTFITTER'S QUALITY @ £2-2-0
The OUTFITTERS QUALITY which were used for colonial contract swords as well as Outfitters who who wouldn't pay the BEST PROOF price used a variety of slugs including
PROVED over a Crown -
PROVED over a Fleur de Lys
PROVED T
And remember it ain't a Wilkinson unless it says so as these retailers ordered from other makers as well !!"


It seems from numerous posts that Hawkes & Co. were good customers of Wilkinsons, my question is did some retailers have exclusive arrangements with Wilkinsons ? ie: they only puchased swords from Wilkinsons ?

From RWL's posts in order to ID a 'Wilko' sword (sorry... i'm Australian and we colonials love to create nicknames !!! :Stick Out Tongue: )  Robert states that:-

1) "They most times carry the Wilkinsons logo..."
2) "..as well as a sword number..." 
3)"..and maybe HW proof mark...or one of the other slugs..." 

Could a sword still be of Wilkinson manufacture if it only has a genuine proof slug ? ...but not the 'Wilko logo' ...the number could of course be a retailers order number ....

From the above my little Hawkes & Co. 'Levee' P1897:-

a) Doesn't have the Wilkinsons logo (strike 1! :Embarrassment: );
b) Has a number but a Hawkes number, as No.7646 can't be a Wilkinson number (strike 2 ! :Embarrassment: ),
c) The proof slug has a 'crown over proved'.
rather than a 'proved over crown' (strike 3.. and.. YOU'RE OUT !!!! :Mad: ).

And so, sadly, my little Hawkes can't possibly be a Wilkinson manufactured sword supplied to Hawkes & Co. ? 

From this amateur attempt of sword identification I was wondering if the variation of the proof to a 'crown over proved' was an attempt to give other manufacturers proved swords credibility, whilst still respecting the Wilkinsons proof slug ?

I wonder if Wilkinsons ever blacklisted a retailer for selling swords that copied their proof slugs exactly ?    

Peter

----------


## Robert Wilkinson-Latham

> Hi all,
> Hello Peter
> Answers in BLUE
> regards 
> Robert
> It seems from numerous posts that Hawkes & Co. were good customers of Wilkinsons, my question is did some retailers have exclusive arrangements with Wilkinsons ? ie: they only puchased swords from Wilkinsons ?
> Answer is No. retailers and Tailors bought usually from those who had the sword in stock and, yes, some bought on price.
> From RWL's posts in order to ID a 'Wilko' sword (sorry... i'm Australian and we colonials love to create nicknames !!!)  Robert states that:-
> 
> ...



Peter[/QUOTE]

----------


## Peter Walker

Thanks again Robert,

I knew you would have all the answers .....but I didnt want to 'pester' you specifically as you spend a lot of time answering much more complicated questions !!!!

I thought when no one replied.... that maybe my questions were too simple...!!

I'm living in Madrid, Spain but when I get back to the UK for a visit I'll have to make a concerted efffort to pick up a copy of Robsons and/or one of your books !

----------


## Martin R John

Maybe despite the the most knowledgeable advice in the world the rank amateur can contribute something. 
I suspect this 1897 of yours is indeed a Wilkinson.

I also have a Hawkes and Co with the same proof slug, an 1821 LC though, but I also have a Wilkinsons 1821 LC with the same proof slug.

Both are a "Crown over proved" although in the case of the Wilkinson it is on the  counter guard face whilst for the Hawkes it is on the guard face as in all my other officer type swords.

----------


## Robert Wilkinson-Latham

> Maybe despite the the most knowledgeable advice in the world the rank amateur can contribute something. 
> I suspect this 1897 of yours is indeed a Wilkinson.
> 
> I also have a Hawkes and Co with the same proof slug, an 1821 LC though, but I also have a Wilkinsons 1821 LC with the same proof slug.
> 
> Both are a "Crown over proved" although in the case of the Wilkinson it is on the  counter guard face whilst for the Hawkes it is on the guard face as in all my other officer type swords.


It is still _my_ belief that as this mark was used by others for their swords and Trade swords, one has to factor in other considerations and I do not think the etching style and quality on Peter's sword matches up to Wilkinsonquality in design and also application of the etch.
I have also seen Pillin and Thurkle blades with the crown proof mark as well as early JR Gaunt blades. 
But as I have always said, in the collecting of swords, there is nearly always more than one answer (unless you have a numbered Wilkinson and can get the proof Stub details) and we all interpret the evidence we see and have out own opinions - That is the joy of this fine hobby!

----------


## Peter Walker

> It is still _my_ belief that as this mark was used by others for their swords and Trade swords, one has to factor in other considerations and I do not think the etching style and quality on Peter's sword matches up to Wilkinsonquality in design and also application of the etch.
> I have also seen Pillin and Thurkle blades with the crown proof mark as well as early JR Gaunt blades. 
> But as I have always said, in the collecting of swords, there is nearly always more than one answer (unless you have a numbered Wilkinson and can get the proof Stub details) and we all interpret the evidence we see and have out own opinions - That is the joy of this fine hobby!


Robert,

Whilst you are the expert and almost certainly 100% correct that my Hawkes wasn't made by Wilkinsons, from Martin's post it seems Wilkinsons did use the 'crown over proved' for his sword (at least) in lieu of 'proved over crown' in the proof slug....(but other makers copied the proof marks)...

Just on the question of etching...could the 'spartan' etching around the double triangle 'star' be due to the limited space on the levee sword (which is only 7/8" wide) ......just a thought..the etching elsewhere appears pretty good (to the untrained eye !!)....much better than my Thurkles anyway !!..

I didnt mention that my little levee had a 'Made in England' on the back of the blade (well that rules out a Solingen maker I guess  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): !) ..does this have any bearing on matters?

Maybe someone here on SFI has a Wilkinson levee P1897 and could post a picture of the etching around the proof slug and silence my annoying childlike inquisitiveness once and for all !!!  



Cheers

----------


## Peter Walker

> It is still _my_ belief that as this mark was used by others for their swords and Trade swords, one has to factor in other considerations and I do not think the etching style and quality on Peter's sword matches up to Wilkinsonquality in design and also application of the etch.
> I have also seen Pillin and Thurkle blades with the crown proof mark as well as early JR Gaunt blades. 
> But as I have always said, in the collecting of swords, there is nearly always more than one answer (unless you have a numbered Wilkinson and can get the proof Stub details) and we all interpret the evidence we see and have out own opinions - That is the joy of this fine hobby!


Robert, 

Thanks for your expert advice ...and so much for my forlorn hope that a 'crown over proved' proof mark might indicate something !! 

I had a good look in 'Old Swords' (something I should have done in the first place !  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): ) and there was examples of Hawkes, Manton, Firmin, Samuel Bros, Guthrie & Valentine all using the 'crown over proved' slug. So in addition to the firms you mentioned, and Wilkinson's (from Martins R John's specimen) quite a few firms used this proof slug !.... so it doesn't help much only having this particular slug as the only means of identifying a swords maker....

One question though, (if you or anyone else see this post that is !).....I thought that Hawkes & Co. were only retailers/outfitters, but several of the swords on 'Old Swords' are marked 'Hawkes.... Manufacturers to the Queen/King..'....did they make their own swords at some time ?    

cheers
Peter

----------


## Robert Wilkinson-Latham

> Robert, 
> 
> Thanks for your expert advice ...and so much for my forlorn hope that a 'crown over proved' proof mark might indicate something !! 
> 
> I had a good look in 'Old Swords' (something I should have done in the first place ! ) and there was examples of Hawkes, Manton, Firmin, Samuel Bros, Guthrie & Valentine all using the 'crown over proved' slug. So in addition to the firms you mentioned, and Wilkinson's (from Martins R John's specimen) quite a few firms used this proof slug !.... so it doesn't help much only having this particular slug as the only means of identifying a swords maker....
> 
> One question though, (if you or anyone else see this post that is !).....I thought that Hawkes & Co. were only retailers/outfitters, but several of the swords on 'Old Swords' are marked 'Hawkes.... Manufacturers to the Queen/King..'....did they make their own swords at some time ?    
> 
> cheers
> Peter


Until the use of the Royal Warrant was tightened up some in the 1950's, one could have all sort of wording. Hawkes did have the Royal Warrant for Military items to Queen Victoria, Edward VIII etc aqnd they certainly 'manufactured' uniforms and regalia and by a slight of hand also used this on sword blades rather than By Appointment which was in essence  the truth.
Now to one other alternative. Hawkes may well have put together swords from bought in parts. 
While Mole supplied blades and parts to Pillin, Thurkle and Starkey, there is no mention in his Private Customer (as opposed to Government) Ledgers of him supplying Hawkes with parts or even complete swords.
I would say that, on reflection, your Levee sword could be from any of these makers. However, the Wilkinson etching Master plates have only TWO etches for Hawkes, normal and levee size which they used for Hawkes's orders.



if you compare these with yours it might take you a little further but I doubt it.  Your etching is different I seem to remember and Wilkinsons would use only their Master Plates.
If I could see a photo of the Proof area and the name then i might be able to identify the etch.
Robert
PS For completeness; here are Hawkes's addresses for your sword and the examples shown with the Piccadilly address.

Hawkes & Co of 14 Piccadilly. London  	
1853 - 1890  	
Hawkes & Co, Ltd 1 Savile Row, London 
1891 - to date (As Gieves and Hawkes)

----------


## Peter Walker

> Until the use of the Royal Warrant was tightened up some in the 1950's, one could have all sort of wording. Hawkes did have the Royal Warrant for Military items to Queen Victoria, Edward VIII etc aqnd they certainly 'manufactured' uniforms and regalia and by a slight of hand also used this on sword blades rather than By Appointment which was in essence  the truth.
> Now to one other alternative. Hawkes may well have put together swords from bought in parts. 
> While Mole supplied blades and parts to Pillin, Thurkle and Starkey, there is no mention in his Private Customer (as opposed to Government) Ledgers of him supplying Hawkes with parts or even complete swords.
> I would say that, on reflection, your Levee sword could be from any of these makers. However, the Wilkinson etching Master plates have only TWO etches for Hawkes, normal and levee size which they used for Hawkes's orders.
> 
> 
> 
> if you compare these with yours it might take you a little further but I doubt it.  Your etching is different I seem to remember and Wilkinsons would use only their Master Plates.
> If I could see a photo of the Proof area and the name then i might be able to identify the etch.
> ...


Thanks Robert,

......mmmmm.....so as Hawkes manufactured suits...they put 'manufacturer to the King/Queen' on their swords !!!!! (Would that comply with trade practice legislation today ????) :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

I have attached photos again of both sides of the ricasso and they dont match your master plates for a Hawkes & Co. (of 1 Savile Row) levee sword...but...mine is marked 'Hawkes & Co, Piccadilly London' (a 1853-1890 address) ...... shouldn't a George V P1897 sword like mine display the 1 Saville Row address ?..........

Just looked up my 'London A-Z' and Google...and 'No. 1 Savile Row' is in Mayfair and not definitely not Piccadilly (though pretty close!) ....

Now as Wilkinsons had a Master Plate for Hawkes & Co. retailed Levee swords for the Savile Row address... I guess we can rule out once and for all it originating from Wilkinsons....  

It was probably manufactured by some other maker who couldn't be bothered to create a new master plate for the etching with the new Saville Row address on !!!! 

The 'Made in England' etch is not unique to any makers is it ? 

Well .... after all this we have discovered that maybe my little P1897 is unique in its own special way..... in that it has the wrong address on it !!!!  :Big Grin: 

Cheers
Peter

----------


## Robert Wilkinson-Latham

Just a quick note on Hawkes sword. Your sword has Hawkes Piccadilly on and so do a number of swords of similar period. (see below)

http://www.oldswords.com/database/viewItem.php?id=47486

Earlier swords have Hawkes 14 Piccadilly and I don't believe upon their move to 1 Saville Row, they immediately put the new address on swords as they were very well known as *Hawkes of Piccadilly* so why which change. I think the change happened sometime in the early 1900's, around 1905 era.

Hawke's old shop at 14 Piccadilly was  at the top end of Piccadilly a short distance from Savile Row.

PS Not to be confused with Hawkes & Son of Piccadilly who were musical instrument makers - later Boosey and Hawkes

----------


## Peter Walker

> Just a quick note on Hawkes sword. Your sword has Hawkes Piccadilly on and so do a number of swords of similar period. (see below)
> 
> http://www.oldswords.com/database/viewItem.php?id=47486
> 
> Earlier swords have Hawkes 14 Piccadilly and I don't believe upon their move to 1 Saville Row, they immediately put the new address on swords as they were very well known as *Hawkes of Piccadilly* so why which change. I think the change happened sometime in the early 1900's, around 1905 era.
> 
> Hawke's old shop at 14 Piccadilly was  at the top end of Piccadilly a short distance from Savile Row.
> 
> PS Not to be confused with Hawkes & Son of Piccadilly who were musical instrument makers - later Boosey and Hawkes


Robert,

Last night I was labouriously scrolling through every example of E Thurkle's swords on 'Old Swords' trying to check something.. but.. I didn't do the same for Hawkes !!....drats !.... my sword isn't so unique ! :Embarrassment:  

As my sword has a George V cypher, Hawkes must have still be putting 'Piccadilly' on the swords well past the 1905 you mentioned ...up until 1910 at least ......(i'm pretty sure it is all original ie not rehilted)  

As you noted there are quite a few Hawkes swords from 1890's through to the early 1900's with the old Piccadilly or even 14 Piccadilly Street address........tut tut ! ..As you say 'Hawkes of Piccadilly' was probably so well known in military circles.....why be in a hurry to change... 'if it aint broke why fix it'.....

Gieves & Hawkes are still there at No. 1 and for the 'trivia buffs' Wikipedia states that in 1969 at Gieves & Hawkes neighbours (No. 3 Savile Row):-

"The Beatles' final, live performance was on the roof, on 30 January 1969. That "Rooftop Concert" concludes the documentary film Let It Be."

I remember that when I was a child... I think they caused traffic havoc in central London that day .... I can just imagine a more senior tailor at Gieves & Hawkes grabbing a Wilkinson P1897 ex stock and running upstairs to slice the power to the PA system and silence the infernal racket !!!!!  :Big Grin: 

Cheers & thanks for the info..

Peter Walker

PS I promise to look up 'Old Swords' and try to find an answer to my query before my next post !!

----------


## Peter Walker

> Just a quick note on Hawkes sword. Your sword has Hawkes Piccadilly on and so do a number of swords of similar period. (see below)
> 
> http://www.oldswords.com/database/viewItem.php?id=47486
> 
> Earlier swords have Hawkes 14 Piccadilly and I don't believe upon their move to 1 Saville Row, they immediately put the new address on swords as they were very well known as *Hawkes of Piccadilly* so why which change. I think the change happened sometime in the early 1900's, around 1905 era.
> 
> Hawke's old shop at 14 Piccadilly was  at the top end of Piccadilly a short distance from Savile Row.
> 
> PS Not to be confused with Hawkes & Son of Piccadilly who were musical instrument makers - later Boosey and Hawkes


Robert,

Last night I was labouriously scrolling through every example of E Thurkle's swords on 'Old Swords' trying to check something.. but.. I didn't do the same for Hawkes !!....drats !.... my sword isn't so unique ! :Embarrassment:  

As my sword has a George V cypher, Hawkes must have still be putting 'Piccadilly' on the swords well past the 1905 you mentioned ...up until 1910 at least ......(i'm pretty sure it is all original ie not rehilted)  

As you noted there are quite a few Hawkes swords from 1890's through to the early 1900's with the old Piccadilly or even 14 Piccadilly Street address........tut tut ! ..As you say 'Hawkes of Piccadilly' was probably so well known in military circles.....why be in a hurry to change... 'if it aint broke why fix it'.....

Gieves & Hawkes are still there at No. 1 and for the 'trivia buffs' Wikipedia states that in 1969 at Gieves & Hawkes neighbours (No. 3 Savile Row):-

"The Beatles' final, live performance was on the roof, on 30 January 1969. That "Rooftop Concert" concludes the documentary film Let It Be."

I remember that when I was a child... I think they caused traffic havoc in central London that day .... I can just imagine a more senior tailor at Gieves & Hawkes grabbing a Wilkinson P1897 ex stock and running upstairs to slice the power to the PA system and silence the infernal racket !!!!!  :Big Grin: 

Cheers & thanks for the info..

Peter Walker

PS I promise to look up 'Old Swords' and try to find an answer to my query before my next post !!

----------


## Robert Wilkinson-Latham

No problem, keep the questions coming. I have enjoyed our exchange re the Hawkes Sword - all adds to our understanding
regards
Robert

----------


## james.elstob

Hi all, 

Just to add a little to this old thread, I have just acquired a poor beat up 1897p levee marked Hawkes & Co (serial #6957) with exactly the same blade etching as yours Peter.  

It's identical and has the same quality of work. It's got to be by the same maker although I can't add any info as to who that might be.  There is no evidence that it is a wilkinson. 





I have compiled a spreadsheet of all the Hawkes listed on Old Swords (only ones with the 4 digit serial numbers) as well as any other found searching online.

I was looking for a pattern of which address etching was used, against which serial numbers to try to find whether there was a rough correlation and there is... of a sorts!

Firstly I understand that they began trading as Hawkes & Co around 1853. 

I found 4 significantly different versions of wording used for their address in the blade etchings:-

1. Hawkes & Co London Manufacturers to the Queen. 

2. Hawkes & Co Piccadilly London 

3. To the Queen Hawkes & Co 14 Piccadilly London.

4. Hawkes & Co 1 Saville Row W. 

Peter,  yours and mine are examples of what I have termed version 2.

In respect of versions 1 and 2 these are pretty consistent and there is apparently no overlap possibly suggesting the same maker but a change of etching pattern?  

However for number 3, although these all look to be of similar type and quality there are variations and this category may therefore represent several different makers. For instance sometimes "to the queen" is omitted and on one occasion the number 14 is omitted.

I realise that trying to attribute makers to the style of etching is dubious at best so please note that this is just based on my layman's observation.  There could in fact be many suppliers all using indistinguishable versions of the same etchings. 

So the correlation to the Hawkes serial numbers is as follows 

1182 - 2279 = All version 1 (6 examples) 
2349 - 5024 = All version 2 (10) 
5025 - 7646 = mix of 2 and 3 (16)
8573             = version 4 (plus 4 other George V examples of version 4 for which I could not see the serial number) 

Three of the version 1's had other dating evidence etched on the blade none later than 1885.   One of the version 2's (6235) was dated commemorating an A.D. 1900 promotion to Sargeant. 

Whilst I found no other examples marked "Made in England" I found 2 example 4691 & 5024 similarly marked but using the wording "London Made" both with Victoria's cypher so pre 1901 and using version 2 for the address. 

6000 was the last Victoria example found. 

6421 was the first Edward vii example found. 7340 was the last. 

7646 represents the only George V example found before the change to the 1 Saville row address (it had a version 2 blade etching - possibly a new hilt on an old blade perhaps? I couldn't see what cypher was on the blade )

ERii examples were found using a very slightly different layout but still the 1 Saville Row address as could be expected since they remain there to date. 

So in conclusion 

Just "London" came first.  
Next came "Piccadilly London"  but without reference to  Number 14.
Then came sporadic mix of 2 different styles suggesting that blades from at least from 2 different sources were used at the same time. 
Then came 1 Saville row from shortly after 1910. 

I've spent so long collating this today that I think I may have lost sight of whether it makes sense or if it would prove to be of any use to anyone. 

One thing I did not notice was if there were any examples which had wilkinson etched anywhere on the blade.  I certainly didn't pick up on it if they were there. 

That is all

----------


## John Hart

Hi James,

A very useful bit of research - good work so far!

I don't have any Hawkes swords in the current collection, but have looked back on ones that I've previously owned.  Here are the results for what they're worth:

#4360 - P1895 Infantry Officer (leather covered for foreign service): "To the Queen - Hawkes & Co Piccadilly London"

#4895 - P1821 Heavy Cavalry Officer: "To the Queen - Hawkes & Co Piccadilly London" (also marked "London Made" on back edge)

#5787 - P1828 Scottish Field Officer: "To the Queen - Hawkes & Co Piccadilly London" (this one definitely dated to post-1887)

#4154 - P1892 Infantry Officer: "To the Queen - Hawkes & Co Piccadilly London"

#4721 - 2nd Life Guards Officer State Sword: "To the Queen - Hawkes & Co Piccadilly London"

#3604 - 1854 Infantry Officer: "To the Queen - Hawkes & Co Piccadilly London"

Hope that helps!

John

----------


## Will Mathieson

I have # 5024, 1897p R.E. sword. E.C. Midwinter who was at Battle of Omdurman and later ran the Sudan Railway until 1926. Not service sharpened. In fact photos I have do not show him wearing a sword during Princess Beatrice visit. From the ricasso the blade tapers within 3 inches to about half the thickness. Metal scabbard is leather lined.
To The Queen Hawkes & Co. Piccadilly London, London Made. Made 1897 with VR guard.
Photo appears blue but just the lighting is responsible.

----------


## Javier Ramos

I have a Hawkes 1896 piquee weight with Edward VII cypher numbered in the 6000. Picadilly I think (in deep storage).

----------


## Mark Lee

I have an 1821 Artillery Officer style sword in that the blade is the 1845 pattern, slight curvature, 32 3/4" blade, but it isn't marked to a particular service, i.e. no artillery markings.  1821 style 3 bar hilt that is browned or possibly patina, but I think it is browned.  The ricasso is marked:
HAWKES & CO
LONDON
MANUFACTURERS
TO THE QUEEN

The proof slug says PROVED on top, but there is only a slight dot in the center and a larger one at the bottom.  I suppose that there was a more elaborate figure in the center that was worn down over time, but if so, I can only speculate.  There are numbers on the spine, but I have difficulty reading some.  They appear to have been overstamped.  As best I can tell, it is 1132.

----------


## Will Mathieson

Resurrect an old thread again my recent St John Taylor sword is etched with Hawkes and has the Wilkinson proof disc. The sword dates to 1865 and numbered with a three digit number 875. Presented by the 1st Lifeguards fits since the HHC purchased from Hawkes.

----------


## Christopher Jonasson

This Edward IIV Artillery officers sword has no maker markings at all.. So what is it ? (1901-1910 is all I know)
It also has a "COP" mark >>--------> near the foible but my phone wouldn´t cooperate with that shot
No numbers on the spine
Crown over proved..


[/attach]

----------


## Ben Bevan

If my memory serves me from other old posts it’s the ‘Trade’ disc for Wilkinson.

----------


## David R

The hex slug is generally accepted as better than standard quality...

----------


## Ben Bevan

David, I disagree, what is your evidence for that statement? The vast majority of the best makers marks are circular, eg. Mole, Pillin, Thurkle, Wilkinson, Gaunt, Reeves, etc, etc.

----------


## Will Mathieson

As far as I can tell Wilkinsons changed their round disc to a hexagon disc during Edward 7th period. I have the Robert Wilkinson set of books and it does not mention better quality relating to the shape of proved discs.
It would be interesting to find Wilkinson swords with the earliest dates for the hexagon proof.

----------


## Christopher Jonasson

Could the miniture initials on the fortes underside near the guard have any meaning datewise ? someone that worked on the blade ?
E.K. as far as I can make out

----------


## Will Mathieson

Looks like ER and would be a blade maker at Wilkinsons. Past older posts mention a list of Wilkinson employee names, one should match up.

----------


## james.elstob

> The hex slug is generally accepted as better than standard quality...


The following is from the wilkinson sword characteristics sticky thread (page 6) though I'm not sure whether Robert's post referred to trade blades, private purchase blades or both.  In any event I have a hex proof slug from 1892. Correction: no, I don't. After checking the sword I was thinking about it does not have a hexagonal proof slug.




> I have a note of my late Father that states that the hexagonal proof disk was used from 1905 for 'Best' swords only.
> 
> (It may have been used earlier but I will check this out)

----------


## David R

> David, I disagree, what is your evidence for that statement? The vast majority of the best makers marks are circular, eg. Mole, Pillin, Thurkle, Wilkinson, Gaunt, Reeves, etc, etc.


 Originally Posted by Robert Wilkinson-Latham  View Post
I have a note of my late Father that states that the hexagonal proof disk was used from 1905 for 'Best' swords only.

(It may have been used earlier but I will check this out)

Good enough for you?

----------


## Will Mathieson

From the swords I've seen, all Wilkinson officer swords are "best swords". Sergt. swords and trade blades having different discs or none.  I wonder if the hexagon shaped disc was introduced with the 1892p blade? I did not know the hexagon discs were as early as 1892.  Of course "best sword" was used in Wilkinsons marketing to officers. It seems for earlier swords such as my 1865 cavalry sword, Wilkinson used their own proved disc with HW on a Hawkes sword though I have not seen others this early to verify this as being a constant.

----------


## Matt Easton

The hexagonal slug was only used by Wilkinson on their extra quality (more detailed etching and tougher proof test) blades after about 1900 (or perhaps 1905, as Robert said). Other Wilkinson blades continued to have the normal round slug. The crown slug instead of HW indicates Wilkinson manufacturing for a trade reseller.

----------


## David R

I have one of these Hex's, arrived in a shabby condition, but even so no sign of etching.

----------

