[RobT]

kahnjar 1,
When I said that, “I don’t think this knife was made for or worn with any serious belief that it would have to be used in combat”, I was referring specifically to Jim McDougall’s example because of its lack of quillons (or quillion like projections if you will), not koummya in general. I maintain that any other examples without these projections were more for “show” than “go”. All of the koummya in my possession have these projections and I also maintain that the overwhelming majority of koummya shown on this forum have the necessary projections. I invite all interested forum members to search through past posts to confirm or refute this.

Marc M,
I find that those koummya I consider strictly tourist, feature low quality workmanship in both blade and dress. I think those ensembles with better to high quality dress and adequate quality blades are probably made for local sale to men who need on occasion to wear this culturally appropriate accessory but are rather sure they are not going to need to use it. Furthermore, I think that the manufacture of these formal attire koummya began in the 20th century and the dress of these items lack certain characteristics commonly found on 19th century ensembles. This is not to say that a more well to do man might not be willing to pay for a top quality blade to go with the fancy dress. Blades made in Europe would be a perfect fit for that market.

Pertinax,
For me, the answer to the question you pose lies in distinguishing between an item made for a tourist and an item bought by a tourist. Consider this example: A native New Yorker goes into a store and buys a pair of Levis for daily wear and a tourist from Paris goes into the same store and buys another pair of Levis as a souvenir. The Levis bought by the Parisian aren’t tourist Levis, they are just Levis that happened to have been bought by a tourist. Likewise, good quality, traditionally made koummya sold in a bazaar remain just that, whether they are bought by locals as part of their formal attire or bought by tourists as souvenirs. The merchant will sell his wares to anyone willing to pay.

werecow,
I think that kronckew’s point is well taken (pun shamelessly intended) but I also believe that the carrying of a sword cane speaks directly to the wearer’s expectation to have to actually fight with it. Nineteenth century sword canes are not infrequently seen at antique shows and in antique malls where they are often displayed unsheathed. Oftentimes, the cane shaft shows significant damage but the very slender blades, while in some cases rusty or stained, aren’t bent or kinked (at least as far as I can recall). I think this lack of damage indicates that they were seldom used. There are three factors that support this. First, anyone carrying a sword cane was likely well off because a poor person carrying one risked being stopped by the police who would confiscate the weapon (at the very least). In the 19th century, stop and search was entirely accepted and who was and who was not subjected to the procedure was largely dictated by economic status and race. Rich people, being of “the better sort” would be given a free pass. Thus, the gentleman armed with a sword cane would have an incredibly longer reach than would any lower class assailant armed with a non projectile concealable weapon. Secondly, 19th century society was strictly segregated by class and race. Other than those employed as support staff, poor people didn’t frequent the venues of the rich. Any poor person seen “hanging around out of place” could expect police scrutiny and, woe betide any such individual caught with a firearm. Thus street criminals, whose ranks consisted entirely of poor people, preyed on other poor people and did so in poor areas not frequented by the rich. Lastly, in the unlikely event an upperclass individual carrying a sword cane were to be attacked by a poor person, not only would the assailant be facing an opponent better armed than he, the commotion and delay caused by the intended victim’s resistance would increase the likelihood of apprehension. Given these last circumstances, unsheathing the sword cane would probably be enough to put the would be attacker to flight. Especially when you consider how life threatening a deep puncture wound would be to a poor person in the 19th century. I think sword canes were largely a matter of swagger and, if a well off person was in an area where he thought he was likely to be attacked, he had a revolver in his pocket.

Sincerely,
RobT