Anglo-Indian Knives

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your contributions gentlemen.

To clarify a point:- my intent was not and is not to stage any sort of competition, virtual or otherwise, I asked the question because I felt that I needed to understand the reason, or reasons, why two experienced people should select the post #6 knife as "better" than all others.

Why is it "better"?

What makes it "better"?

What does "better" mean?

That it might be considered "better" is an opinion, and in somebody's opinion it might indeed be "better", so just exactly what factors make it "better" for that person.

This is what I really would like to know, or at least, understand.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thank you for your contributions gentlemen.
Why is it "better"?
What makes it "better"?
What does "better" mean?
.

Hi Guys,
My post was related to the original message from Ian
"The second is the knives made in India during the late 19th and early 20th C aimed specifically at European markets and British people"

So when I wrote better, I meant better than the late 19th - 20th c. early touristic products for Europeans.
Better means earlier
Better means for authentic use by local people
As it's an ethnographic forum, my "better" makes sense no??

[Kubur]

Another one
from the Brittish Museum...

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Kubur, this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, the rationale behind the thought process that will rank one thing "better" than another.

So, for you, a knife is "better" if it is older.
A knife is "better" if it is intended for use by people living in the area where it was made.

This then raises another couple of questions.
In respect of the knife in post #6:-

1) what is its approximate age, and how do we know this?

2) you posit that the post #6 knife style was aimed specifically at European and British visitors to the area of production. In the case of some of the knives produced in this style, this idea of production for visitors does seem to be so, but is it true for every knife produced in this style?
If this is so, what evidence do we have that this is true?

[Ian]

Alan:

You raise some fundamental questions about worth. Inevitably, I think, this is largely a subjective assessment, but there are some aspects that are more objective than others. Quality of materials, expertise in construction, association with a prestigious person or important event, religious or symbolic importance, considerable age--all might add to the merit of a piece.

I think what we have in this discussion are more shades of grey. The attribution of one item to the early 19th C and others to later in that century is, IMHO, largely subjective based on assumed material component in the hilt and some decorative work on the scabbard. In my initial response to the knife in post #6 I noted that the hilt looked like jadeite. Others have said agate. Both are hilt materials on Indian knives, so it could be either. However, we see much more jadeite around, and there is a fairly common white form with greenish streaks that closely resembles the knife in question. The hilt material on that knife could also be a replacement as the profile on the hilt seems rather heavy and "bulbous."

As for the scabbard, do we really know that it came with this knife? It is a common custom, especially online lately, to marry unrelated parts in an attempt to make a piece look older/better than it is.

I think it is interesting that the British Museum has seen fit to place a couple of these knives on display of the type posted originally in this thread. Someone with curatorial experience thinks they are worthy of showing off. Which brings us back to what does "better" mean in the context of this discussion.

Ian.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So, for you, a knife is "better" if it is older.
A knife is "better" if it is intended for use by people living in the area where it was made.

Not all the secrets revealed in one day!

I don't think that older is always better
for example, I like knife 12, probably more than 6...
Sometimes, at least for me, aesthetic can prime.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ian, yes, agreed, my questions could be interpreted as worth related, but I have most definitely not related my questions to worth.

My objective is as I have stated:- I am interested in the thought processes that result in ranking something as "better" than something else.

I have no intention at all of getting involved in any discussion or debate about which of the knives in this thread is "better" than any other, I simply want to understand how people can look at a photo of something and determine that it is "better" than something else.


Kubur, as I have stated, I'm not interested in a popularity contest, my questions are simple ones, and all I'm really interested in is the way in which experienced collectors arrive at their opinions.

[Ian]

Sorry Alan, I did not wish to imply "worth" in terms of monetary value, but rather worth in terms of intrinsic merit or "worthiness"--i.e., what is "better" in the eye of the beholder.

[kronckew]

as i have said before, i'm leery of any of these indian arms with hex nut tang terminations. i suspect they are mid 20th century at best, the ones with long ricassos with vrious simple mottos etche in and sold as middy dirks especially. i do have one, think i paid £5 for it at at a car boot sale. (flea market) the older pesh did not have these nasty rat tangs and nuts. i offer two of mne for examples below, one the green/white stone grips, the other very much similar with a proper wood grip. the jade-ish one has a field repaired scabbard, so is not a diagnostic aid, the wood grip one has a nice older scabbard. Also a smaller one with a guard that is more of a paper kinfe as it's too small to get your finger inside the knuckle bow, no scabbard.

I also last show my nutted 'naval dirk POJ (piece of junk) as a caveat. It was sold as a sikh 'kirpan'. Says 'Victory in the etched side panel of the ricasso.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I asked the question because I felt that I needed to understand the reason, or reasons, why two experienced people should select the post #6 knife as "better" than all others.

Hello Alan, like said already in my previous response, the words "better" & "older" I use in comparison to the three pieces at the right from Ian in post #1 with the one in post #6, I've handled some pieces similar to the 3 (let me call them "tourist" dagger) from Ian, they look nice but all is very cheap worked and I doubt that a dagger like this is usable.
The other shown examples seems to be very well worked, no question, the T-spine blades are well worked from the view to look at a usable dagger, a very nice to look at and for sure workable weapon. The handle is an intricate small work of art. But again I think that the dagger in post #6 is older and was for sure intended for use.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Why is it "better"?

Because, and here I speak for my own taste/sensation, it's a used ethnograhic dagger!

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

What makes it "better"?

I am nearly sure that it will have a very well worked (maybe laminated) blade, the signs of use.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

What does "better" mean?

My personal taste, again the curiosity to see and work at the blade, the clearly signs of use.

I hope to have answered your questions in a way you want to know.