Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BerberDagger
thanks at all fo opinion ... I would made a precisation:
I known this sword is not period , I ve a large collection of genuine viking and medieval swords olso with museum provenence so i m not a stupid collector ! I dont search people who tell me that this sword is antique!!!
only i would find a catalogue description for it .... i dont see chinese manner in pommel and guard more european victorian but i m open to change idea if all the ideas of collectors suggest chinese offer me images and documentation abaut...
thank you
|
I don't think there is any reason to get defensive and certainly no one is suggesting that you are stupid. We are all insisting that the blade is NOT damascus because NONE of us can see ANY evidence of it in your photographs. This has become a sticking point in this thread because you make the claim for damascus in your opening post and then later support that claim with what you refer to as an "expert" opinion that it is indeed damascus. "the blade is damascus steel and probably 18th century" So again i would ask WHY you believe this is so?
Regarding a "catalogue description", personally i cannot see the point beyond "European style wall hanger". Technically i would suggest that this is not truly an ethnographic weapon. It makes gestures towards historical swords, but is probably not an exact repro of any particular known historical weapon. My thoughts on the possibility that this is a Chinese repro are based upon the motif in the pommel and nothing more. It looks vaguely Asian, though i doubt it is any kind of writing. Though it could well have been incorporated into this pommel by a European maker to give this sword an exotic hint of "orientalism".