|
24th January 2006, 02:55 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
WOOTZ or SHAM?
As we know, Dr. Verhoeven does not consider sham to be true wootz, however many collectors do. And as it's relatively easy to recognize network and ladder types, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between stripy, water and wavy patterns, as all three can be labeled as sham (just look at the multitude of individual opinions from this post:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=38 So here are two blades. Both have longish threads, more evident on Sword_One, with one particular thread looking like a half-circular brush stroke (see second picture). I even thought it was painted when I saw it first time. The second sword has similar, but less wilder threads. Both can be seen as sham, but considering relative high contrast could one see them as wavy/water type? And how do you make an informative "guess" which is which? P.S. Glad to be joining so many dedicated and knowledgeable people at The Forum. This is my first post. Looking forward to learn and to share. Alex |
24th January 2006, 05:29 PM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 133
|
Hi,
Nice blades. A definitive way of characterizing/naming patterns still needs work as it is so objective and different parts of a blade often shows different patterns..some tight and some more wavy. As for Sham...check out my reply on the other link. |
24th January 2006, 07:01 PM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 116
|
hi
the sham pattern can be produced with both hyper and hypo eutectic steel.... ofcourse.... my idea of a sham pattern is where the waterings are very straight... the pattern is controled by how the igot is drawn out.... if you want a very straight pattern... simply use hammers with very flat faces..... it takes longer to make ... now for real interesting waterings.... you forge the blade out with round face hammers.....and do lot's of fullering to draw the ingot out.... ... now the drastic deformation of the surface helps the waterings to become much more chaotic.. its really more about pattern control and forge techniques..... however....i'm not sure about the swoopy patterns.... i've gotten weird pattern when i etched blades that weren't totally degrease.... but that a different matter.. Greg |
24th January 2006, 07:45 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 133
|
Hello,
I guess it all boils down again to how one defines a Sham pattern. |
24th January 2006, 08:14 PM | #5 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,198
|
Welcome
Welcome to the forum, Alex. Hope you enjoy your time here.
As you have already seen, some of our members are very knowledgeable about steel patterns. Ian. |
24th January 2006, 08:50 PM | #6 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
OK,Sham=Something false or empty that is purported to be genuine; a spurious imitation or A decorative cover made to simulate an article of household linen and used over or in place of it: Oh sorry you mean a steel pattern I should be a sham ed Sorry I just couldn't help myself Lew |
|
25th January 2006, 12:37 AM | #7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,083
|
There is a very wide variety of opinions about the classification of wootz, what is wootz, how do you classify, etc. I think it can even be split into technical aspects and collector aspects. Speaking from a collector aspect, Sham wootz is most often associated, again from a collectors perspective, with Turkish or Syrian wootz or shall I say that this pattern of wootz is most often associated with those regions. I believe Sham is another word for Syrian. As Greg points out, the sham pattern is mostly recognized as long flowing lines without circular distortions, partial rungs or full rungs. I am afraid I am away and am unable to post an example to illustrate.
It is hard to tell from your example but it appears that your first example has some dead spots or inactivity in the patterning most probably due to a failure to control the heat during forging. In the sections where the pattern is visible, it seems to not exhibit the typical sham pattern. The second example also does not appear to be an example of sham. A favorite topic of mine so welcome to the forum and keep the wootz posts coming! |
|
|