14th September 2006, 01:21 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England, Northumberland
Posts: 85
|
You dont see these!!!! A flamboyant
And last but not least from todays auction, a South Indian Flambyant sword. I will be happy to be corrected but will let the photos tell it all. This I think is my new love and surprisingly light.
Any idea on age 17thC seems a possability? And whats the lump for on the back of the blade? Cheers Andy |
14th September 2006, 02:32 AM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA Georgia
Posts: 1,599
|
Hey Andy! Take a look here. Look familiar?
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3165 Mine is one of my loves also. |
14th September 2006, 08:54 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England, Northumberland
Posts: 85
|
Hi Bill
I see what you mean, very nice and very similar in style but detail is certainly different. I would guess the handle on mine is a Victorian replacement and would have been closer to yours. I only get the name from Rawsons reference and the other writers that copy his deffinitions. In "The Indian Sword" there are photos of two similar, one with this odd stud on the back of the blade but still no reference as to why? Cheers Andy |
14th September 2006, 02:27 PM | #4 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,203
|
Thanks Andy.
We don't see these very often and this blade certainly appears to have some age. Too bad the original handle is long gone, but a beautiful example of a Nair sword nonetheless. Congratulations on finding this old gem. Ian. |
15th September 2006, 02:53 AM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA Georgia
Posts: 1,599
|
Neat! Andy. Congrats on an interesting sword.
|
15th September 2006, 03:00 AM | #6 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Andy,
Very, very nice and very, very interesting sword. Terrific addition to any collection. Congratulations! |
15th September 2006, 06:34 PM | #7 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England, Northumberland
Posts: 85
|
Sword sights
Do we know if these were actually fighting weapons or ceremonial? Balance is great and weight surprisingly light but very robust, so I would go for the fighting option. I had an idea on the stud on the back of the blade, in that if you were using it for sacrifise, it would be the perfect possition to strike the victim from; judged from a downward swing from above. Is it therefore a form of sight for a sword!!
I'm currently deciding how to totally re-gig the collection to give this pride of place. |
16th September 2006, 09:35 PM | #8 |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,221
|
I would agree that this is a fighting piece. This is supported in Elgood's book.
|
17th September 2006, 03:31 PM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England, Northumberland
Posts: 85
|
Stud is a stand
Just had a strike of insight on the stud which nobody wants to pass opinion on (Not even Rawson, who does mention it).
It might be there just to let the sword stand upright on the back of its blade. The photo seems to give it the right appearance/angle for that use. Cheers Andy |
17th September 2006, 03:37 PM | #10 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,203
|
Andy:
That makes a lot of sense. BTW, has anyone ever seen a scabbard for one of these swords? I have not. Maybe they usually sat out on a table or altar, and lying on the spine was there natural storage posture. Ian. |
17th September 2006, 04:37 PM | #11 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA Georgia
Posts: 1,599
|
Quote:
This is news, good news, to me also. I don't have the stud on the back of mine, but they sure look right standing on their spines. BTW great picture Andy! Bill |
|
|
|