Wootz Katar

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Although I prefer to etching in such a wootz

Properly done, the Katar will look the same or even better!

And it will be much easier to etch as it doesn't have koftgari areas that need special attention.

[Battara]

I also believe that this would be considered a hunting katar. They usually have chiseled animal and hunting designs like this.

Please show pictures of the end results of the etching. Almost looks like crystalline wootz.

[ariel]

I would like to ask Jens whether katars with hunting scenes were strictly hunting.

[Bob A]

I'm struck by the contrast between the two sets of photos. While obviously the same katar, the Oriental Arms photos give an impression of considerable flatness in the figures on the blade, while emphasising the grain of the wootz. The photos by the OP show more curvilinear sculpting, and eliminate the grain in the steel.

Pictures don't lie, but certainly are unable to completely elicit Truth.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Bob A

I'm struck by the contrast between the two sets of photos. While obviously the same katar, the Oriental Arms photos give an impression of considerable flatness in the figures on the blade, while emphasising the grain of the wootz. The photos by the OP show more curvilinear sculpting, and eliminate the grain in the steel.

Pictures don't lie, but certainly are unable to completely elicit Truth.

It all depends on perspective and on how is the light from the light sources.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Bob A

I'm struck by the contrast between the two sets of photos. While obviously the same katar, the Oriental Arms photos give an impression of considerable flatness in the figures on the blade, while emphasising the grain of the wootz. The photos by the OP show more curvilinear sculpting, and eliminate the grain in the steel.

Pictures don't lie, but certainly are unable to completely elicit Truth.

It is extremely difficult to capure the wootz paterning in photos, because of the glare you get from the metal surface. And even more so when there are just faint remains of watering surrounded by shiny metal.

I assume Artzi gave much more attention and spent much more time searching for the right light and angles to capture exactly that faint trace of watering.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Bob A

I'm struck by the contrast between the two sets of photos. While obviously the same katar, the Oriental Arms photos give an impression of considerable flatness in the figures on the blade, while emphasising the grain of the wootz. The photos by the OP show more curvilinear sculpting, and eliminate the grain in the steel.

Pictures don't lie, but certainly are unable to completely elicit Truth.

Unless this katar was purchased directly from Artzi it could have been worked on, polished etc in some way, the two images do look to show a different surface appearance.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Unless this katar was purchased directly from Artzi it could have been worked on, polished etc in some way, the two images do look to show a different surface appearance.

Yes, katar was not purchased directly from Artzi.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Unless this katar was purchased directly from Artzi it could have been worked on, polished etc in some way, the two images do look to show a different surface appearance.

Posibly you are right, but I am more inclined to think it's just the play of reflections and shadows.



PS: After carefully examining both photos in detail, I am pretty sure there was absolutely no other polishing done (well maybe some very mild cleaning). Artzi's photo generally is very flat, showing no relief because of the angle and the absence of shadows.

However, if we examine all the scratches, oxidation and traces of pitting (on the edges, on the high relief figures as well as on the chiseled down base metal), we can clearly see them present in both photos in the same configuration. Any polishing would have, if not completely removed, certainly reduced those traces of oxidation and pitting.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I am more inclined to think it's just the play of reflections and shadows.

You are probably right.

I like these hunting scenes, they give some interesting details. Below is one from the Met Museum collection.

[David]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Unless this katar was purchased directly from Artzi it could have been worked on, polished etc in some way, the two images do look to show a different surface appearance.

Please accept the opinion of a professional photographer. The only difference between these two images (beyond positioning and background) is the lighting.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you David, I had hoped that you could comment on the pictures, as I am only an amateur.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Battara

I also believe that this would be considered a hunting katar. They usually have chiseled animal and hunting designs like this.

Please show pictures of the end results of the etching. Almost looks like crystalline wootz.

I honestly have serious doubts about the "hunting katars." The katar is a quite effective close quarter combat weapon and other than applying the "coup de grace" to the already dying game, I think it is totally unsuitable for hunting.

Yes, many katars are decorated with hunting scenes, and most probably they were part of the hunting gear of the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were primarily used for hunting.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I honestly have serious doubts about the "hunting katars." The katar is a quite effective close quarter combat weapon and other than applying the "coup de grace" to the already dying game, I think it is totally unsuitable for hunting.

Yes, many katars are decorated with hunting scenes, and most probably they were part of the hunting gear of the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were primarily used for hunting.

I think you should read the article about Katar.