Darby Expert Needed.

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can give me a little advice regarding what I think may be a pair of Field Darbys. I'm sure the best advice would be to buy a copy of Joe's book British Handcuffs which I fully intend to do but for the moment any help is welcome.
The cuff in question is cuff No. 4

Numbers 1 and 2 are Hiatt. number 3 I believe is Thompson it has ompso writtern diagonally across it in very small lettering.

Cuff No. 4 has no markings other than the number 2. Cuff 5 is a very small pair of Field and Sons with 233 stamped on. They share very similar lines to cuff number 4 but there is also another similarity between cuff 4 and 5 which non of the others seem to have.


The end plug on both cuffs 4 and 5 as well as been pressed in are also pinned into place. None of my other darbys appear to have this. Does anybody have any information on this. Also if Field and Sons were simply Hiatts London agents why do my Hiatts not have this cross pin ? I've never owned a pair of Froggart cuffs or even seen a pair in the flesh but I'd be interested to know if they are pinned in this way. My guess is that they are.I'll also mention that the key diameter is much larger on cuff 4 than any of the others. In fact it's slightly larger than my JG 1942cuffs

Finally in my part of the UK the only cuffs that would ever turn up for sale were Hiatt Darbies. They always had that square short of shape to them like number 1. It wasn't until quite recently that I purchased cuff number 2 which is stamped Hiatt that I realised they also made the more circular cuff. Any ideas as to why the variation in shape. Cuff 2 and 4 are very similar apart from the absence of cross pin and smaller diameter key hole in cuff 2.

Hope I haven't lost you off.

Thanks Mark.

Hi, I have seen several diferent ways the end cap or plug can be held in the end of the darby lock tube. Some European cuff have a keyway of sorts, mainly English are peined and stamped with a shaped punch, and as you describe some are cross pinned. The pins are short pins in blind holes ( not a single hole drilled right through the cuff. Usually three around the top.

My reasoning for this ( based on my experience ) and not factory reason, is that the pressure of the locking spring could push out a loose end cap.
( Over time and while the bow is out of the cuff) Also it could be to resist any attempts to pry the plug out via the shackle opening in the cuff. Though anyone who has tried to remove the end plug will know that it is usually fitted really tight and it's no mean feat.
It could be that they we over engineered just in case.

Ian

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can give me a little advice regarding what I think may be a pair of Field Darbys. I'm sure the best advice would be to buy a copy of Joe's book British Handcuffs which I fully intend to do but for the moment any help is welcome.
The cuff in question is cuff No. 4

Numbers 1 and 2 are Hiatt. number 3 I believe is Thompson it has ompso writtern diagonally across it in very small lettering.

Cuff No. 4 has no markings other than the number 2. Cuff 5 is a very small pair of Field and Sons with 233 stamped on. They share very similar lines to cuff number 4 but there is also another similarity between cuff 4 and 5 which non of the others seem to have.


The end plug on both cuffs 4 and 5 as well as been pressed in are also pinned into place. None of my other darbys appear to have this. Does anybody have any information on this. Also if Field and Sons were simply Hiatts London agents why do my Hiatts not have this cross pin ? I've never owned a pair of Froggart cuffs or even seen a pair in the flesh but I'd be interested to know if they are pinned in this way. My guess is that they are.I'll also mention that the key diameter is much larger on cuff 4 than any of the others. In fact it's slightly larger than my JG 1942cuffs

Finally in my part of the UK the only cuffs that would ever turn up for sale were Hiatt Darbies. They always had that square short of shape to them like number 1. It wasn't until quite recently that I purchased cuff number 2 which is stamped Hiatt that I realised they also made the more circular cuff. Any ideas as to why the variation in shape. Cuff 2 and 4 are very similar apart from the absence of cross pin and smaller diameter key hole in cuff 2.

Hope I haven't lost you off.

Thanks Mark.

Click to expand...

hi Mark

I'm surprised that the cuffs you show are by Field and Sons, since the few handcuffs by Field & sons that I've been able to collect have had a thicker bow than Hiatts. It's not much thicker, but I can see it, or at least I think I can. Maybe I should make some measurements on the ones that I have. The importance is that it may reveal if Field was an independent maker to Hiatt. Are yours stamped "Field and Sons"?

andrew

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can give me a little advice regarding what I think may be a pair of Field Darbys. I'm sure the best advice would be to buy a copy of Joe's book British Handcuffs which I fully intend to do but for the moment any help is welcome.
The cuff in question is cuff No. 4

Numbers 1 and 2 are Hiatt. number 3 I believe is Thompson it has ompso writtern diagonally across it in very small lettering.

Cuff No. 4 has no markings other than the number 2. Cuff 5 is a very small pair of Field and Sons with 233 stamped on. They share very similar lines to cuff number 4 but there is also another similarity between cuff 4 and 5 which non of the others seem to have.


The end plug on both cuffs 4 and 5 as well as been pressed in are also pinned into place. None of my other darbys appear to have this. Does anybody have any information on this. Also if Field and Sons were simply Hiatts London agents why do my Hiatts not have this cross pin ? I've never owned a pair of Froggart cuffs or even seen a pair in the flesh but I'd be interested to know if they are pinned in this way. My guess is that they are.I'll also mention that the key diameter is much larger on cuff 4 than any of the others. In fact it's slightly larger than my JG 1942cuffs

Finally in my part of the UK the only cuffs that would ever turn up for sale were Hiatt Darbies. They always had that square short of shape to them like number 1. It wasn't until quite recently that I purchased cuff number 2 which is stamped Hiatt that I realised they also made the more circular cuff. Any ideas as to why the variation in shape. Cuff 2 and 4 are very similar apart from the absence of cross pin and smaller diameter key hole in cuff 2.

Hope I haven't lost you off.

Thanks Mark.

Click to expand...

Mark

The question of pinning is an interesting one that I have given some thought.

If you examine a large number of Hiatt cuffs you will find that most are not pinned, but some are. I have about 50 Hiatt Darby cuffs and 4 or 5 are pinned.

If you examine a large number of Field & Son cuffs you will find that most are pinned, but some are not. I have 6 Field Darbies and exactly 1 is not pinned.

So what is going on? I think the pinning depends upon when the cuff was made. The Hiatt cuffs that are pinned are all relatively old and of high quality. Cuffs from what I would guess would be the last half of 19th century. Cuffs newer than that don't seem to be pinned. But not all old ones are pinned.

Pinning would have taken extra work and I think it may have been reserved for the "top of the line." For example I have two left handed Hiatts. These might be considered "high security cuffs" and both of them are pinned.

So what about Field & Sons? I still think Hiatt made them. For the most part Field & Sons seem to be of high quality and my guess is that they simply specified the pinning "option." My lone example of a Field & Son cuff without the pin looks the newest. The bottom of the lock case is squared off more like 20th century Hiatts.



The top cuff is a Field & Sons, the bottom cuff is a Hiatt

A pinned Hiatt

A Field & Son with no pin


cheers
Joe

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can give me a little advice regarding what I think may be a pair of Field Darbys. I'm sure the best advice would be to buy a copy of Joe's book British Handcuffs which I fully intend to do but for the moment any help is welcome.
The cuff in question is cuff No. 4

Numbers 1 and 2 are Hiatt. number 3 I believe is Thompson it has ompso writtern diagonally across it in very small lettering.

Cuff No. 4 has no markings other than the number 2. Cuff 5 is a very small pair of Field and Sons with 233 stamped on. They share very similar lines to cuff number 4 but there is also another similarity between cuff 4 and 5 which non of the others seem to have.


The end plug on both cuffs 4 and 5 as well as been pressed in are also pinned into place. None of my other darbys appear to have this. Does anybody have any information on this. Also if Field and Sons were simply Hiatts London agents why do my Hiatts not have this cross pin ? I've never owned a pair of Froggart cuffs or even seen a pair in the flesh but I'd be interested to know if they are pinned in this way. My guess is that they are.I'll also mention that the key diameter is much larger on cuff 4 than any of the others. In fact it's slightly larger than my JG 1942cuffs

Finally in my part of the UK the only cuffs that would ever turn up for sale were Hiatt Darbies. They always had that square short of shape to them like number 1. It wasn't until quite recently that I purchased cuff number 2 which is stamped Hiatt that I realised they also made the more circular cuff. Any ideas as to why the variation in shape. Cuff 2 and 4 are very similar apart from the absence of cross pin and smaller diameter key hole in cuff 2.

Hope I haven't lost you off.

Thanks Mark.

Click to expand...

Thanks guys for your input and thank you Joe for busting my theory. The pic of your Hiatt cuff sunk the little idea I had. I've owned many trucheons and several police hangers ( cutless's) marked with Parker, Parker Field and Sons and Field and I've also owned 2 identical police oil lanterns one marked Hiatt and the other Parker Field and Sons.I don't think that there's much doubt that they were retailer of Police equipment manufactured by others including Hiatt. It is possible however that during the life of the company 1796 to 1883 that they aquired cuffs from more than one manufacture. I still can't get to grips with the variety of shapes which one manufacture can produce which mirror other manufactures and I'll not even mention key shapes. THIS TIME !!!!!

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can give me a little advice regarding what I think may be a pair of Field Darbys. I'm sure the best advice would be to buy a copy of Joe's book British Handcuffs which I fully intend to do but for the moment any help is welcome.
The cuff in question is cuff No. 4

Numbers 1 and 2 are Hiatt. number 3 I believe is Thompson it has ompso writtern diagonally across it in very small lettering.

Cuff No. 4 has no markings other than the number 2. Cuff 5 is a very small pair of Field and Sons with 233 stamped on. They share very similar lines to cuff number 4 but there is also another similarity between cuff 4 and 5 which non of the others seem to have.


The end plug on both cuffs 4 and 5 as well as been pressed in are also pinned into place. None of my other darbys appear to have this. Does anybody have any information on this. Also if Field and Sons were simply Hiatts London agents why do my Hiatts not have this cross pin ? I've never owned a pair of Froggart cuffs or even seen a pair in the flesh but I'd be interested to know if they are pinned in this way. My guess is that they are.I'll also mention that the key diameter is much larger on cuff 4 than any of the others. In fact it's slightly larger than my JG 1942cuffs

Finally in my part of the UK the only cuffs that would ever turn up for sale were Hiatt Darbies. They always had that square short of shape to them like number 1. It wasn't until quite recently that I purchased cuff number 2 which is stamped Hiatt that I realised they also made the more circular cuff. Any ideas as to why the variation in shape. Cuff 2 and 4 are very similar apart from the absence of cross pin and smaller diameter key hole in cuff 2.

Hope I haven't lost you off.

Thanks Mark.

Click to expand...

Mark

Actually I have no problem with the idea that more than one company made cuffs for Field. Some Hiatts may even have been made by others. Birmingham was the center of the industry and I would guess that if one company had a big order they could easily have spread the work around town.

Joe

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can give me a little advice regarding what I think may be a pair of Field Darbys. I'm sure the best advice would be to buy a copy of Joe's book British Handcuffs which I fully intend to do but for the moment any help is welcome.
The cuff in question is cuff No. 4

Numbers 1 and 2 are Hiatt. number 3 I believe is Thompson it has ompso writtern diagonally across it in very small lettering.

Cuff No. 4 has no markings other than the number 2. Cuff 5 is a very small pair of Field and Sons with 233 stamped on. They share very similar lines to cuff number 4 but there is also another similarity between cuff 4 and 5 which non of the others seem to have.


The end plug on both cuffs 4 and 5 as well as been pressed in are also pinned into place. None of my other darbys appear to have this. Does anybody have any information on this. Also if Field and Sons were simply Hiatts London agents why do my Hiatts not have this cross pin ? I've never owned a pair of Froggart cuffs or even seen a pair in the flesh but I'd be interested to know if they are pinned in this way. My guess is that they are.I'll also mention that the key diameter is much larger on cuff 4 than any of the others. In fact it's slightly larger than my JG 1942cuffs

Finally in my part of the UK the only cuffs that would ever turn up for sale were Hiatt Darbies. They always had that square short of shape to them like number 1. It wasn't until quite recently that I purchased cuff number 2 which is stamped Hiatt that I realised they also made the more circular cuff. Any ideas as to why the variation in shape. Cuff 2 and 4 are very similar apart from the absence of cross pin and smaller diameter key hole in cuff 2.

Hope I haven't lost you off.

Thanks Mark.

Click to expand...

Thanks Joe,

I actually received my first pair of pinned Hiatts today. A pair of unplated lightweight darbies purchased on ebay.

Your comments brought to mind a TV series we have in the UK which was presented by the now late Mr Fred Dibnar. One episode featured chain making in Birmingham during the Industrial Revolution. It seemed that the majority of chain makers actually worked from home during this period, having a forge in their back yards and often employing neighbours so that numerous very small businesses started. A demonstration showed how quickly chain links were hand forged from small to very large.

I can certainly imagine a scenario where one business would farm out work to others when order books were full which may go some way to explaining those subtle similarities between brands.

Regards,

Mark.