Old flint striker

[Canute Rex]

Thought folks might want to see an original. A friend of mine who is a collector of small artifacts just gave this to me. As far as I can tell from doing some quick research, this is a 17th-18th century style striker, perhaps-more-likely English, at least in influence.



Two things interest me about this. One is the parsimonious use of steel. When we make repro metal objects today it seems the tendency is to use too much material. They were stingy. The other thing is that you can see how it is dished out from long use, probably by a right handed person.

I know you're not supposed to do this, but I couldn't resist - I struck a few sparks off of it. It didn't shower them out like a modern steel, but then it is old, worn, oxidized, and probably was casehardened.

[KNeilson]

Interesting, I have a book "GLI ACCIARINI" thats been a great reference for these. I will have a look at it. Looking close, I see a few lines that are just a little too parallel to be random scratches. Maybe the roots of file teeth? re-purposed for this use. jtol....        Kerry

[Artificer]

NICE piece!  Thanks for sharing.
Gus

[LRB]

  Is it possibly a broken end of a larger striker?

[jrb]

What suggests that it's 17-18th century British?

[Canute Rex]

jrb: I looked up some pictures online of various archeological finds.

There were some trends. Scandinavian ones (that I saw) tended to have two tails and a straight center section, but the tails were bent in close to the center. French ones tended to be C shaped or a full oval with a smooth transition between the tails and the striking surface. The English ones had two common patterns. One was to have a rectangular mass as a striking surface with a distinct stepped transition to the tails. The other was the so-called "monkey tail" pattern, with one tail and a striking surface. Sometimes the striking area was rectangular, as with the two tail English ones. Others just transitioned gradually, like mine.

I could be completely off base. It could come from Eastern Europe or the Balkans. I'd be perfectly happy to be corrected.

The date range comes from the size. It seemed to me that strikers got larger as they progressed towards the middle of the 19th century. Maybe steel got that much cheaper.

Kerry: Good eye! I looked closer with a magnifying glass and there are, in fact, parallel lines on either side. There are five distinct lines either filed or chiseled into the side you can see in the photo, from a quarter to a half an inch up from the "elbow." However, there are no lines above or below those five. Maybe just a little decoration. There are remnants of the same kind of markings on the other side.

LRB: I wouldn't be surprised. Blacksmiths have a hard time pitching out steel now (you should see my scrap buckets) - they never did back then.

Check out Viking and Middle Eastern flint strikers if you want to see some fine decoration.

[Artificer]

OK, dumb question, but I just have to ask.  Is this small for the period or is it "in the common size?"  I'm wondering if it is small for a woman to use and start her cooking and other fires with? 
Gus

[Canute Rex]

Artificer, I really don't know. There were a range of sizes in every time period, so it seems. The older the smaller, in general. The size probably varied according to the wealth of the purchaser, the purpose (in the home or on the march), and the popular style in the place where it was made. I don't think it was gender specific.

Some of the Scandinavian ones seemed to be items for display, so size would have been a measure of prestige.

Whenever I get a chance to look at an 18th century artifact I generally notice how skimpy it is. Thin brass, thin leather, thin steel, tiny buckles, nails, and rivets - they cut enough corners to make a roundabout. We tend to forget how precious materials were back then.

[KNeilson]

In my little book there are a couple that appear very similar. It identifies them as European, 17-18 cent. My thoughts on the markings are based on ones Ive made from old files, as they appear very similar.  The lines could also have been added to increase grip between forefinger and thumb so you wouldnt cut yourself on the flint....   all imoho of course...  I`ll try to get some pics.      Kerry

[Artificer]

Artificer, I really don't know. There were a range of sizes in every time period, so it seems. The older the smaller, in general. The size probably varied according to the wealth of the purchaser, the purpose (in the home or on the march), and the popular style in the place where it was made. I don't think it was gender specific.

Some of the Scandinavian ones seemed to be items for display, so size would have been a measure of prestige.

Whenever I get a chance to look at an 18th century artifact I generally notice how skimpy it is. Thin brass, thin leather, thin steel, tiny buckles, nails, and rivets - they cut enough corners to make a roundabout. We tend to forget how precious materials were back then.

Thank you for the added information.   You make a good point that it was this size and just big enough that it would not cost more than necessary.  I can see how it would be easier for a woman to use in that size, but that may be an unintended benefit of making it smaller to save money.

You make a good point on how they cut corners in the 18th century by our standards today.  Original British 18th century sword and bayonet scabbards have thinner leather and thinner brass on the mounts than what we often use today.  Some of the items almost seem fragile, but probably a more accurate description was they were made "just hefty enough" to do the job and save money on materials. 
Gus

[Clark Badgett]

I also see the tang end of an old file. They tended not to waist if they help it.