Unusual Hiatt 104. Perhaps a Salesman's Sample?

This cuff sold on eBay on the same day as the Jim Main auction. It is a very strange Hiatt Darby.



The obvious strange thing is the very large difference in size between the two cuffs. The left cuff is 2 1/4" (57 mm), the right cuff is 2 11/16" (68 mm). These sizes are near the bottom and the top of the normal Darby size range.

The markings are also unusual. The cuffs say "Hiatt Birmm" and have the number 104. The Birmm (Birmingham) mark is not a common mark. The number 104 is the model number. This could be a coincidence, but I don't think so.

The normal quality marks are missing. There is no "warranted wrought", "hard" or "best" marking.

So what is this cuff? I think it may be a salesman's sample. A cuff could have been used to exhibit the range of sizes available. The markings support this. It is the only cuff I have ever seen with the 104 model number.

The cuff is totally impractical for actual use. A wrist that could fit into the small cuff would slip through the larger cuff.

I do have one other explanation for why one might want to have a pair of Darbies with different size cuffs. If the cuff was used in a station house to attach a prisoner's wrist to a fixed object such as a railing, then two sizes might be a good idea. If you had a large prisoner you would use the large cuff for the wrist and the small cuff for the rail. For a small prisoner who could slip his wrist in the large cuff, you would turn the cuff around and use the small cuff for the wrist and the large one for the rail.

Theory three would simply say the cuff was made by mistake on a Monday morning perhaps. But if this is so, what was it used for? Why would anyone have bought it?

I like the salesman's sample theory best; it is more consistent with the unusual markings.

Does anyone have any other theories? Has anyone seen a Darby with the model number before?

Joe

Hi Joe:

Awful as it may be, there might be another explanation for the difference in sizes.

In the 19th century in Great Britain, it was a common practice to restrain mentally ill individuals by shackling them "hand to foot." The most infamous of those institutions was Bedlam, where proper Victorians paid an admission charge to walk through and view those unfortunate individuals as, accorging to one contemporary account, they "writhed about upon the floor."

I am no expert on British cuffs. Yet the absence of standard markings of "Warranted Wrought," "Best" and "Hard" indicates to me what you've got comes from the early 19th century, rather than the latter, when those sorts of markings begin to show up and with great regulatity. By the same token, the presence of the "Birgmm" marking indicates a very early cuff.

As for the 104 stamp. Who knows?

As for the combination fetter and handcuff, here's a link to a post on this forum:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/261154/m ... 137036998/

Franklin

This cuff sold on eBay on the same day as the Jim Main auction. It is a very strange Hiatt Darby.



The obvious strange thing is the very large difference in size between the two cuffs. The left cuff is 2 1/4" (57 mm), the right cuff is 2 11/16" (68 mm). These sizes are near the bottom and the top of the normal Darby size range.

The markings are also unusual. The cuffs say "Hiatt Birmm" and have the number 104. The Birmm (Birmingham) mark is not a common mark. The number 104 is the model number. This could be a coincidence, but I don't think so.

The normal quality marks are missing. There is no "warranted wrought", "hard" or "best" marking.

So what is this cuff? I think it may be a salesman's sample. A cuff could have been used to exhibit the range of sizes available. The markings support this. It is the only cuff I have ever seen with the 104 model number.

The cuff is totally impractical for actual use. A wrist that could fit into the small cuff would slip through the larger cuff.

I do have one other explanation for why one might want to have a pair of Darbies with different size cuffs. If the cuff was used in a station house to attach a prisoner's wrist to a fixed object such as a railing, then two sizes might be a good idea. If you had a large prisoner you would use the large cuff for the wrist and the small cuff for the rail. For a small prisoner who could slip his wrist in the large cuff, you would turn the cuff around and use the small cuff for the wrist and the large one for the rail.

Theory three would simply say the cuff was made by mistake on a Monday morning perhaps. But if this is so, what was it used for? Why would anyone have bought it?

I like the salesman's sample theory best; it is more consistent with the unusual markings.

Does anyone have any other theories? Has anyone seen a Darby with the model number before?

Joe

Click to expand...

Hi Joe,

In the UK, until recently it was not uncommon for prisoners when being transferred from one location to another to be handcuffed to their escort. The prison service for example would often handcuff prisoners who were attending court hearings to prison warders who were acting as escorts. I'm uncertain of the exact date this policy stopped but certainly in the late 1970's to early 1980's a family friend who was a prison warder still used cap locks for this purpose. He also still used a pair of snips / snaps on a daily basis even after they were withdrawn from use. Chubb Detainers were issued and available however "Arthur" continued to use what he preferred. Around the late 80's to early 90's the transporting of prisoners was privatised and these loose practised were done away with.

Pre adjustable cuffs, it would be plausible to assume that such a cuff could have been used when transporting a juvenile or female prisoner even though I've read that the handcuffing of females and children was not allowed I'm certain that during the life span of the darby cuff this would have certainly occurred.

Your salesman's sample is a very valid idea but it fails to show the other incremental sizes available. Would it not have been better to have a large ring with one cuff of each size attached showing the full range of sizes available, a little like a jewellers ring size gauge.

The 104..... who can say for certain? All I can say with certainty is that it is a very interesting piece to have in a collection and the questions it raises are what makes darby cuffs so interesting.

RMP. (Mark)