help on a strange sword , translation on arab inscription ...

Iain · 13th December 2013, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BerberDagger

Hi, I disagree ... the style is spanish XV Century not chinese , the blade is damascus ... maybe a composite sword but chinese is very hard !!!

can i have link of the similar chinese sword you mean please ? I never seen a similar chinese sword...

thank you a lot

To further add to what David said, I'd be curious what you believe your sword to be?

It is always difficult to convince someone who has a piece in hand if their own opinion is already fixed.

I agree with what the other posters in this thread have said that there is not an Arab description.

This is not, in my opinion, an object of antiquity and could well be a Chinese product as suggested by other posters.

The other possibility is that this is a European reproduction, however would not likely make it particularly old either, at the oldest perhaps a late 19th century decorative item.

RSWORD · 13th December 2013, 11:44 AM

Thank you for posting a closer picture of the blade however from the picture provided I can see no evidence that this is a Damascus blade. I do see some surface scratches but can't see any evidence of a pattern. Also, there seems to be a couple of spots along the edge where the blade has folded up, presumably when the edge has struck something. The way it is folded up would suggest that this blade is not tempered with a hard edge. It would suggest that the steel is rather soft. A hard edge would chip away, not fold over. Also, the unevenness of the ridge line suggests a poorly made blade. I think at best here you have a 19th century piece made for hanging on the wall.

BerberDagger · 13th December 2013, 11:54 AM

thanks at all fo opinion ... I would made a precisation:
I known this sword is not period , I ve a large collection of genuine viking and medieval swords olso with museum provenence so i m not a stupid collector ! I dont search people who tell me that this sword is antique!!!

only i would find a catalogue description for it .... i dont see chinese manner in pommel and guard more european victorian but i m open to change idea if all the ideas of collectors suggest chinese offer me images and documentation abaut...

thank you

Iain · 13th December 2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BerberDagger

thanks at all fo opinion ... I would made a precisation:
I known this sword is not period , I ve a large collection of genuine viking and medieval swords olso with museum provenence so i m not a stupid collector ! I dont search people who tell me that this sword is antique!!!

I don't anyone had suggested you were somehow a "stupid collector".

Quote:

only i would find a catalogue description for it .... i dont see chinese manner in pommel and guard more european victorian but i m open to change idea if all the ideas of collectors suggest chinese offer me images and documentation abaut...

thank you

My opinion would be a Victorian period decorative piece.

Jim McDougall · 13th December 2013, 05:38 PM

I very much agree with most all of the excellent observations that have been posted here. Berber, I believe it has long been established that you are a well seasoned collector with considerable experience so completely unnecessary to assert that in response to the opinions you have solicited.

As has been well pointed out, this example seems clearly to be an 'interpretive' production which does seem to hold composite influences.
It is important to note that medieval swords typically have iron/steel hilts, not brass (and this as already observed, has rather crudely executed casting).
I would concur with the latter 19th, early 20th period suggestions, but feel this more likely to be a theatrical item. With these the brass is not only easier to produce stylized hilts, but they lend well to appearance in accord with the often romanticized glint of early swords in the literature.

I think observations are well placed and the resemblances to Chinese and Spanish swords, though subtle, do reflect the desire to bring in exotic and chivalric elements to carry out the obviously intended appearance.

In my view, most Victorian period pieces intended for decorating parlors and smoking rooms etc. were actually remarkably authentic reproductions, far from these theatrical props. I would note also that while to many, such theatrical items of the 19th century and other periods have gained considerable traction as collectibles, much in the manner of Masonic arms and regalia which now have their own unique place in collecting.

David · 13th December 2013, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BerberDagger

thanks at all fo opinion ... I would made a precisation:
I known this sword is not period , I ve a large collection of genuine viking and medieval swords olso with museum provenence so i m not a stupid collector ! I dont search people who tell me that this sword is antique!!!

only i would find a catalogue description for it .... i dont see chinese manner in pommel and guard more european victorian but i m open to change idea if all the ideas of collectors suggest chinese offer me images and documentation abaut...

thank you

I don't think there is any reason to get defensive and certainly no one is suggesting that you are stupid. We are all insisting that the blade is NOT damascus because NONE of us can see ANY evidence of it in your photographs. This has become a sticking point in this thread because you make the claim for damascus in your opening post and then later support that claim with what you refer to as an "expert" opinion that it is indeed damascus. "the blade is damascus steel and probably 18th century" So again i would ask WHY you believe this is so?
Regarding a "catalogue description", personally i cannot see the point beyond "European style wall hanger". Technically i would suggest that this is not truly an ethnographic weapon. It makes gestures towards historical swords, but is probably not an exact repro of any particular known historical weapon. My thoughts on the possibility that this is a Chinese repro are based upon the motif in the pommel and nothing more. It looks vaguely Asian, though i doubt it is any kind of writing. Though it could well have been incorporated into this pommel by a European maker to give this sword an exotic hint of "orientalism".

13th December 2013, 11:44 AM	#2
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,089	Thank you for posting a closer picture of the blade however from the picture provided I can see no evidence that this is a Damascus blade. I do see some surface scratches but can't see any evidence of a pattern. Also, there seems to be a couple of spots along the edge where the blade has folded up, presumably when the edge has struck something. The way it is folded up would suggest that this blade is not tempered with a hard edge. It would suggest that the steel is rather soft. A hard edge would chip away, not fold over. Also, the unevenness of the ridge line suggests a poorly made blade. I think at best here you have a 19th century piece made for hanging on the wall.

13th December 2013, 11:54 AM	#3
BerberDagger Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 247	thanks at all fo opinion ... I would made a precisation: I known this sword is not period , I ve a large collection of genuine viking and medieval swords olso with museum provenence so i m not a stupid collector ! I dont search people who tell me that this sword is antique!!! only i would find a catalogue description for it .... i dont see chinese manner in pommel and guard more european victorian but i m open to change idea if all the ideas of collectors suggest chinese offer me images and documentation abaut... thank you

13th December 2013, 05:38 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,531	I very much agree with most all of the excellent observations that have been posted here. Berber, I believe it has long been established that you are a well seasoned collector with considerable experience so completely unnecessary to assert that in response to the opinions you have solicited. As has been well pointed out, this example seems clearly to be an 'interpretive' production which does seem to hold composite influences. It is important to note that medieval swords typically have iron/steel hilts, not brass (and this as already observed, has rather crudely executed casting). I would concur with the latter 19th, early 20th period suggestions, but feel this more likely to be a theatrical item. With these the brass is not only easier to produce stylized hilts, but they lend well to appearance in accord with the often romanticized glint of early swords in the literature. I think observations are well placed and the resemblances to Chinese and Spanish swords, though subtle, do reflect the desire to bring in exotic and chivalric elements to carry out the obviously intended appearance. In my view, most Victorian period pieces intended for decorating parlors and smoking rooms etc. were actually remarkably authentic reproductions, far from these theatrical props. I would note also that while to many, such theatrical items of the 19th century and other periods have gained considerable traction as collectibles, much in the manner of Masonic arms and regalia which now have their own unique place in collecting.