[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

So that was a serious question (or statement?) on photos being required as proof of the weapons appearing in these Durbars, as well noted by Ariel ?
That particular prerequisite seems rather humorous in this context, as I would imagine many archaeological and anthropological papers and texts must be rendered inconsequential as many assertions concerning artifacts do not have photographic proof. There weren't many cameras around before the 1850s (at least as far as I know).

My dear friend, Jim, of course, I understand that in 1850 there were some problems with taking pictures But, we're kind of talking about 1903? I do not get them mixed up?

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

This photo is from a 1903 edition of National Geographic, commemorating the Delhi Durbar held in that year, which celebrated the accession of Edward VII. .

But I do not insist on the pictures. After all, we both know that nobody knows these photos if no one was able to show this photo. For I will have enough historical source of the late 19th - early 20th century, which will be write of such items. Anybody can quote? I am very interested.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In any case, Oliver perfectly responded to this (I believe tongue in cheek?) insistence on photographic proof of weaponry at durbars. This was in my opinion well placed as it illustrated the sort of weaponry, and clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc. were extant in these events.

Can you give more examples (besides photos that kindly showed Oliver), where clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc.? I can show you a few images of Durbar. But there are all dressed real, without exaggeration.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

To speak of these kinds of items dismissively seems unwarranted when being shown in good faith for discussion.
I would share this little note here for consideration:

" ...I was once told that it was said of Laking that he
would always find something kind to say about
a fellow collectors object".
re: Sir Guy Francis Laking (1875-1919) arms collector and historian
-"Arms & Armour Study in Edwardian Britain"
Sid Blair and Michael Lacy (1999)

I guess sort of the mark of a gentleman. I know I choose to try to
follow that lead......but not all collectors do.

I understand that tolerance is fine I love when forum participants see an modern item (such as a souvenir knife) and a few posts flowery praise this item. And to end the discussion, the words that it "is not quite old an item". But I do not understand why can not just say, "Man, this is not the authentic item is. Great if you like him, but this is not the old thing..."

Is telling the truth - this is not the act of a gentleman?


Dear Oliver, you write about an similar item in his book: "Many were produced for the Dehli Durbars". Tell me, please, in which a book on Delhi Durban you get this information?Or is it your personal opinion?