Are these genuine?

Hello!

I am curious, are these genuine? And if so how old are they likely to be?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224560959836 ... nl%3Dmkcid

Richard

My best guess is that they are genuine but as far as when they were made I couldn’t say.

Spencer

Genuine Hiatt.  The British made appeared for the first time after WW1.  I would guess that they were made between the wars.
Joe

Fantastic. Not sure if they will stick around but I would surely like to get my hands on those so I have a Hiatt pair as well as my R.C.S pair.

Is that price too steep?

silentbd wrote: ↑

Aug 23, 2021

Is that price too steep?

Yes , but if you are happy to own them at that price, then it is worth it.

Thanks. They dropped the price by £15 for me.

silentbd wrote: ↑

Aug 24, 2021

Thanks. They dropped the price by £15 for me.

That's a win. 

Is there a particular model for these ones? I hear people talking about model 104 but I am not sure if these I bought is a model 104 or some other model. I would love to refer to them as accurately as I can for people.

Here is a copy of the Hiatt 1907 pages, I have just edited the darbies so it's easier to read. As I can see no other information that would suggest your cuff is none other than a 104 model.  Having said that, nearly all brands of  darby 'snap' fixed or non adjustable handcuffs are referred to as 104 ( meaning that they are not, figure eight design or adjustable.) 

Interesting so they are 104. That is good to know. Do you know what the "Best" referred to? Was it a reference to them being their crowning achievement in the line of handcuff design or something?

'BEST' 

This picture below is from a early 20th century Hiatt catalog.
There are four Darby models listed.  Hiatt called a standard Darby a "Snap Handcuff".

The cheapest Number 55 cuff was "Soft", meaning that the steel was not hardened in the manufacturing process.
The next level the Number 56 cuff was "Hard", meaning that the steel was hardened. The "HARD" mark is pretty common.
The top level for the standard Darby was the 104, which was called the "Best London Snap Handcuffs, Hard".  They have the BEST and the HARD markings.
The 101 model was the lighter weight Superintendents' Handcuff.  Marked both BEST and HARD.

I am not sure of what made the BEST, the best, but I think it is a better finish, buffing and/or plating.  But over the years some of the better finishes are not so great anymore.
Joe

I plan on using The Pink Stuff as I did on my R.C.S 1956 ones to clean them up a bit and remove some of the bits of rust. I'm not going to go insane with it and try and remove all blemishes or anything, but I do like cuffs in my collection to be pretty rust free and nice.

So my cuffs I shall be receiving are 104, that is good to know. Is there a model number for the British military R.C.S. 1956 I posted a pic of the other day? They seem very 104-like but I am wondering if they have a specific model number or something?

The model 101 has a finer, lighter frame but has two extra chain links. The cuff has a higher price than the 104 BEST, because of the addition of the links and forge welding ?

SBD, I have checked my files and sent you the information. 

Thanks

Ian McColl wrote: ↑

Aug 24, 2021

Here is a copy of the Hiatt 1907 pages, I have just edited the darbies so it's easier to read. As I can see no other information that would suggest your cuff is none other than a 104 model.  Having said that, nearly all brands of  darby 'snap' fixed or non adjustable handcuffs are referred to as 104 ( meaning that they are not, figure eight design or adjustable.) 

Page 27 section 3 . I'm actually shocked Mr. McColl ! 
Being a Good Ole Boy from Texas ! 

TejanoLibre wrote: ↑

Aug 25, 2021

Ian McColl wrote: ↑

Aug 24, 2021

Here is a copy of the Hiatt 1907 pages, I have just edited the darbies so it's easier to read. As I can see no other information that would suggest your cuff is none other than a 104 model.  Having said that, nearly all brands of  darby 'snap' fixed or non adjustable handcuffs are referred to as 104 ( meaning that they are not, figure eight design or adjustable.) 

Page 27 section 3 . I'm actually shocked Mr. McColl ! 
Being a Good Ole Boy from Texas ! 

I am confused

silentbd wrote: ↑

Aug 24, 2021

I plan on using The Pink Stuff as I did on my R.C.S 1956 ones to clean them up a bit and remove some of the bits of rust. I'm not going to go insane with it and try and remove all blemishes or anything, but I do like cuffs in my collection to be pretty rust free and nice.

So my cuffs I shall be receiving are 104, that is good to know. Is there a model number for the British military R.C.S. 1956 I posted a pic of the other day? They seem very 104-like but I am wondering if they have a specific model number or something?

Hi SbD,

I shall watch with interest your YouTube presentation.

cuffgirl195 wrote: ↑

Aug 25, 2021

silentbd wrote: ↑

Aug 24, 2021

I plan on using The Pink Stuff as I did on my R.C.S 1956 ones to clean them up a bit and remove some of the bits of rust. I'm not going to go insane with it and try and remove all blemishes or anything, but I do like cuffs in my collection to be pretty rust free and nice.

So my cuffs I shall be receiving are 104, that is good to know. Is there a model number for the British military R.C.S. 1956 I posted a pic of the other day? They seem very 104-like but I am wondering if they have a specific model number or something?

Hi SbD,

I shall watch with interest your YouTube presentation.

Click to expand...

Thanks :D You now have a sneak preview of my new purchase haha. I should receive them either tomorrow, Friday or Saturday I would imagine. Not sure when I will get a video out but I shall indeed be doing a video

Here are my pictures, taken after very basic cleaning (spraying gunk out pretty much it), lubricating and renaissance waxing:



These have a slightly larger wrist size capacity than my R.C.S which is nice. Though I have no idea if HIATT BEST came in other sizes.

Video:



I have put between 1920 - 1938. If anyone can narrow that down any further please let me know :)

They are virtually identical to my military pair dated 1954, apart from the military marks of course.

cuffgirl195 wrote: ↑

Aug 27, 2021

They are virtually identical to my military pair dated 1954, apart from the military marks of course.

Very nice indeed. Coxy has a pair of military which seem really chunky. Might be me seeing things but his look decidely more chunky in the lock barrel. I would love to get a pair like that as a step up on my military cuffs.