Ian,
The two Russian forumites ( if they exist at all) suggesting that there are some circumstantial hair-splitting inconsistencies may not be entirely blamed. They may be just exhibiting a somewhat paranoidal attitude to dating and authenticating of any objects.
I visit ( passively) Russian old weapons Fora, and in 95%of cases anything shown there immediately defined as fake on the basis of imaginary minor inconsistencies and personal peculiarities. And, what is indeed sad, they have a reason to be paranoid: contemporary Russian antiquarian business is permeated with obviously crude fakes, almost on the order of magnitude with India ( even taking into account the 10-fold difference in populations). Several identical shiny shashkas are put on the same auction one after another, each as a “unique example”, Chinese “katanas” as Koto, munition quality tulwars as belonging to one shah or another, composite pieces as 15th century etc. Add to it self-proclaimed “experts”, who will add a certificate of authenticity for anything the seller wants, frequent incompetence of the museum experts etc, etc.
In that climate it must be awfully hard to recognize even a real gem. I don't blame them, I sympathize with them, but take everything they say with not just a grain, but with a pound of salt.
|