Shashka??? Or what ????

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Helleri,
Please see my post #6: it is the same sword, and the leather does not obstruct the view. The "box" is there.

I agree: it is very much Shashka-like, but it is not Caucasian.
It is kind of "homage" to shashka, but with a few local twists.

I do not share Mariusgmioc's opinion in post #11 that it was not sold for a good reason.
IMHO, it is a tremendously interesting and authentic sword in its own right, and I would love to have it in my collection. Regretfully, too expensive for me right now.
My guess is that people were repulsed by its non-standard appearance, but it is a plus in my estimation. To each his own.

You might have realised by now that I have a rather rigid approach and I don't like it as it doesn't fit precisely into the archetypal Shashka cathegory. However, I assume there might be collectors at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum, seeking rare and exotic examples.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

However, I assume there might be collectors at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum, seeking rare and exotic examples.

Well noted, indeed there is a vast spectrum of collectors, scholars and enthusiasts who might focus on a particular form, field, or any number of specialized topics in arms. When I first began (many, many moons ago) I was determined to collect British cavalry swords, and each progressive pattern. Once that had been accomplished, it became variants, various makers of set patterns etc.
Eventually I discovered the greatest thrill and most intriguing were the anomalies, and the research and detective work of trying to determine their placement and history.

With these ethnographic weapons, the anomalies are by far the most exciting as discovering the clues and influences which led to their distinctive variation often leads us to fascinating insights in the history surrounding them.
While many are pleased with assembling certain forms, and following the set style and pattern of each......there are those adventurous sorts who venture far outside the box, and bring together the weapon itself and the history around it. I count myself in that group, but without the others in their subsequent groups, it is pretty much an insurmountable task as we all compliment each other in our respective approaches.

Iain, who notes his studies in the field of North African swords, emphasis on takouba, is most modest in the achievements he has made. He has accepted that rigid classification as with some forms is unrealistic, but has accomplished very workable methods of cataloguing the wide range of these weapons. Briggs (1965) made a valiant effort at classifying these swords regionally, however while a benchmark in degree, most of the typology has proven largely inaccurate.

It is amazing how the discussion of a weapon can bring about such interaction and philosophical perspective on the many facets of arms study, and well illustrates how important these studies really are.

[ariel]

Highly recommend to find topics by CharlesS: he made his life passion to collect unusual weapons, transitions from one well-defined pattern to another.
His examples are mind-blowing! It is like observing Darwinian evolution at high speed.

The stuff I learned from his examples, - about evolution of particular weapons as well as about general approach to the history of weapons, - taught me more about collecting than many books.

Our hobby is orders of magnitude more complex and exciting than even Stone's Glossary:-)

One definitely needs to know the basics, but it is the occasional unique examples that illuminate the field like a sudden lightning. The learning never stops.