Anglo-Indian Knives

kronckew · 27th January 2018, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

...

Personally, I like simple fighting weapons, ...

“Better” just has different meaning for different people.

Me. My main criteria is would I have taken this into battle. Is it suitable for it's intended purpose. And do i like it.

Pretty, Old, Rare are secondary to 'Could i bet my life on it'. I do have a general preference for naval connections, but that's not too important to functionality. Even rusty is OK if it's functional under the old warhorses age mottled skin. Being a bit unusual helps too.

In the worlds of WW2's Mad Jack Churchill "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed". (I'll leave off the longbow tho.)

A. G. Maisey · 27th January 2018, 07:48 PM

Precisely Ariel.

As I said:- my question was directed at the way in which two people thought.

In the absence of a qualifier, the word "better" is all inclusive.

So why was the #6 knife "better"?

mariusgmioc · 27th January 2018, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So why was the #6 knife "better"?

Because of the eye of the beholder!

Ian · 27th January 2018, 10:05 PM

Alan,

I fear you are starting to get circular answers.

Let me move sideways a little and comment further on the original examples that I posted. I agree with those who say the three on the right lack some refinements, especially in relation to their blades and sheaths. But the hilts are a bit more interesting and, I think, well made (even allowing for the screw nut on the end). The late 19th/early 20th C--the late Victorian/Edwardian era in Britain--coincided with the Art Nouveau period in fine art and the decorative arts, a period where there was considerable experimentation with different materials in art and architecture.

The hilts of the knives I showed have geometric mosaic designs of mother of pearl interspersed with jet (I am quite certain the black material is jet). Jet was a semi-precious gem during the Victorian era and Queen Victoria had several items of jewelry, including beads, made of jet to match her black mourning attire following the death of her husband Albert.

MOP and jet were not commonly seen in Indian art, let alone on knives, up to that time. Perhaps the appearance of these materials on Indian knives intended for British/European consumption had something to do with the Art Nouveau influence. The fitting of MOP and jet on the handles of these knives shows some skill IMHO, and the slim handles and flowing lines of the curved blade also seem to fit the artistic period.

To follow a little of Alan's theme, just because a knife is designed for a foreign market and made in large quantities does not mean it is without merit. I like these knives for the story they tell about the period they were made. I also like them because they have a touch of European refinement in an Asian setting, Anglo-Indian as I mentioned at the top of this thread--a cross-cultural item that benefits from both its heritages.

To bring this back to Alan's question of what is valued in a knife, I would add the expression of the culture(s) from which it comes and the period it was made. For me, this transcends the materials used and the quality of the workmanship, although both of those undoubtedly contribute to the overall quality of the piece.

I'm abstaining from ranking dissimilar items as better or worse.

Ian.

A. G. Maisey · 28th January 2018, 09:27 PM

Yes Ian, the discussion is getting circular. It has gone right away from my original intent when I first asked my questions.

In fact, the two gentlemen whom I addressed have both answered me well, in their own fashion, and I now believe I understand how they were thinking when they declared that the post # 6 dagger was "better" than all the others.

Their "better" meant according to their own personal preferences.

It was not an analytical, reasoned, objective opinion, it was an emotional, subjective opinion based their own personal preferences.

That was really all I wanted to understand.

I did not set out to start a discussion on how knives are, or should be, assessed or appraised.

I only set out to understand how two experienced collectors thought, and those two gentlemen have given me more or less what I wanted.

A. G. Maisey · 29th January 2018, 02:35 AM

Ariel, I was going to let a remark of yours slide, but I've had three emails this morning that have urged me to respond your slightly slanted comment.

Your comment was this:-

I am not into Kris ( sorry), simply because they were not so much weapons as accoutrements. But I understand people who collect them for their artistic and mystical value.

I do sometimes wish that the people who send me these emails would simply join the Forum and make their own comments instead of sending emails to me --- and possibly other Forum members as well --- but they are not members, and I guess they have their own reasons for that.

In any case, very briefly and to the point, yes, I agree, the keris can be regarded as an accoutrement, but only when it is used as an accoutrement.

The keris is primarily a weapon that does have various natures dependent upon the use to which it is put, and the way in which it is understood. It has many aspects, one of which is as an item of dress, or accoutrement.

There is ample evidence in the literature that demonstrates the weapon function of the keris, and this weapon function has persisted from at least the 10th century through into the 20th century.

Is it still a weapon in the 21st. century?

I know of no instances since the turn of this century that would provide evidence of its use as a weapon in the 21st. century, but I know of several instances during the final 20 years of the 20th. century where the keris was used as a weapon, and many instances of its use as a weapon during earlier years of the 20th. century.

Yes, it is an accoutrement, when it is used as an accoutrement --- but that does not exclude it from being other things as well.

Kubur · 29th January 2018, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In fact, the two gentlemen whom I addressed have both answered me well, in their own fashion, and I now believe I understand how they were thinking when they declared that the post # 6 dagger was "better" than all the others.

Their "better" meant according to their own personal preferences.

It was not an analytical, reasoned, objective opinion, it was an emotional, subjective opinion based their own personal preferences.

According to your own judgmental opinion only!

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I only set out to understand how two experienced collectors thought, and those two gentlemen have given me more or less what I wanted.

I gave less because I knew where we were going... nowhere...
I also think that this post is going to an end unless we come back to the anglo-indian knives...
Its the main problem of this forum, some members are placing themselves above the others. I hope that my post wont be censured there no reason to do it!

By the way, an old rusty Viking sword will always be more valuable than a very nice Indian sword.
Why? Because it's all about quantity and rarety, its the rules of the market.
More its difficult to find, more the price will be high.
So yes old is better because more expensive, more valuable, all the dealers on the forum know that well. Beauty is opinion. Better is not, its a value of something compared to something else.
Now of course you can discuss the value or the criteria of this "better", but I won't, I'm not interested in this debate. It's the reason why my posts are normaly short.

A. G. Maisey · 29th January 2018, 07:35 AM

Thank you so much for your additional input Kubur.

I do seem to sense a slight touch of aggression in your most recent post, something I find difficult to understand. If you feel that I have slighted you in some way, I most sincerely apologise for whatever I may have written that has caused this offense.

I asked a couple of questions, I got adequate answers, both from you and from Detlef.

I felt that I understood how you both decided that the post #6 knife was better than all the others, and you have confirmed my original impression.

It is as I have kept on saying:-

I was interested in the way that two experienced collectors thought; how they decided that one thing was better than another, I was never interested in the knives shown, only in the thought patterns.

Thank you so much for providing me with a more inclusive understanding of the way in which you think. I appreciate your input greatly.

I never at any time had any intention of initiating a discussion on how knives or anything else are appraised or should be appraised, and if you care to review my posts you will find that I have already said this, probably more than once.

As for your rather strange ideas that there is a debate going on here, I'm afraid I cannot detect any debate, and I for one am most certainly not debating, I'm not even discussing, all I've been doing is asking questions, with the objective of understanding how people whom I identify as "pure collectors" think.

You see, it is important to me to understand these thought patterns. Even though I have been dealing for about 50 years, and dealing internationally since 1978, I am still sometimes surprised, by the way in which some collectors think. I took what I saw as a golden opportunity to further my understanding by asking you and Detlef a couple of simple, straight-forward questions.

There is no judgement going on here. None at all. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and I respect yours.

27th January 2018, 10:05 PM	#4
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Alan, I fear you are starting to get circular answers. Let me move sideways a little and comment further on the original examples that I posted. I agree with those who say the three on the right lack some refinements, especially in relation to their blades and sheaths. But the hilts are a bit more interesting and, I think, well made (even allowing for the screw nut on the end). The late 19th/early 20th C--the late Victorian/Edwardian era in Britain--coincided with the Art Nouveau period in fine art and the decorative arts, a period where there was considerable experimentation with different materials in art and architecture. The hilts of the knives I showed have geometric mosaic designs of mother of pearl interspersed with jet (I am quite certain the black material is jet). Jet was a semi-precious gem during the Victorian era and Queen Victoria had several items of jewelry, including beads, made of jet to match her black mourning attire following the death of her husband Albert. MOP and jet were not commonly seen in Indian art, let alone on knives, up to that time. Perhaps the appearance of these materials on Indian knives intended for British/European consumption had something to do with the Art Nouveau influence. The fitting of MOP and jet on the handles of these knives shows some skill IMHO, and the slim handles and flowing lines of the curved blade also seem to fit the artistic period. To follow a little of Alan's theme, just because a knife is designed for a foreign market and made in large quantities does not mean it is without merit. I like these knives for the story they tell about the period they were made. I also like them because they have a touch of European refinement in an Asian setting, Anglo-Indian as I mentioned at the top of this thread--a cross-cultural item that benefits from both its heritages. To bring this back to Alan's question of what is valued in a knife, I would add the expression of the culture(s) from which it comes and the period it was made. For me, this transcends the materials used and the quality of the workmanship, although both of those undoubtedly contribute to the overall quality of the piece. I'm abstaining from ranking dissimilar items as better or worse. Ian. Last edited by Ian; 27th January 2018 at 10:16 PM.

27th January 2018, 07:48 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Precisely Ariel. As I said:- my question was directed at the way in which two people thought. In the absence of a qualifier, the word "better" is all inclusive. So why was the #6 knife "better"?

28th January 2018, 09:27 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Yes Ian, the discussion is getting circular. It has gone right away from my original intent when I first asked my questions. In fact, the two gentlemen whom I addressed have both answered me well, in their own fashion, and I now believe I understand how they were thinking when they declared that the post # 6 dagger was "better" than all the others. Their "better" meant according to their own personal preferences. It was not an analytical, reasoned, objective opinion, it was an emotional, subjective opinion based their own personal preferences. That was really all I wanted to understand. I did not set out to start a discussion on how knives are, or should be, assessed or appraised. I only set out to understand how two experienced collectors thought, and those two gentlemen have given me more or less what I wanted.

29th January 2018, 02:35 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Ariel, I was going to let a remark of yours slide, but I've had three emails this morning that have urged me to respond your slightly slanted comment. Your comment was this:- I am not into Kris ( sorry), simply because they were not so much weapons as accoutrements. But I understand people who collect them for their artistic and mystical value. I do sometimes wish that the people who send me these emails would simply join the Forum and make their own comments instead of sending emails to me --- and possibly other Forum members as well --- but they are not members, and I guess they have their own reasons for that. In any case, very briefly and to the point, yes, I agree, the keris can be regarded as an accoutrement, but only when it is used as an accoutrement. The keris is primarily a weapon that does have various natures dependent upon the use to which it is put, and the way in which it is understood. It has many aspects, one of which is as an item of dress, or accoutrement. There is ample evidence in the literature that demonstrates the weapon function of the keris, and this weapon function has persisted from at least the 10th century through into the 20th century. Is it still a weapon in the 21st. century? I know of no instances since the turn of this century that would provide evidence of its use as a weapon in the 21st. century, but I know of several instances during the final 20 years of the 20th. century where the keris was used as a weapon, and many instances of its use as a weapon during earlier years of the 20th. century. Yes, it is an accoutrement, when it is used as an accoutrement --- but that does not exclude it from being other things as well.

29th January 2018, 07:35 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Thank you so much for your additional input Kubur. I do seem to sense a slight touch of aggression in your most recent post, something I find difficult to understand. If you feel that I have slighted you in some way, I most sincerely apologise for whatever I may have written that has caused this offense. I asked a couple of questions, I got adequate answers, both from you and from Detlef. I felt that I understood how you both decided that the post #6 knife was better than all the others, and you have confirmed my original impression. It is as I have kept on saying:- I was interested in the way that two experienced collectors thought; how they decided that one thing was better than another, I was never interested in the knives shown, only in the thought patterns. Thank you so much for providing me with a more inclusive understanding of the way in which you think. I appreciate your input greatly. I never at any time had any intention of initiating a discussion on how knives or anything else are appraised or should be appraised, and if you care to review my posts you will find that I have already said this, probably more than once. As for your rather strange ideas that there is a debate going on here, I'm afraid I cannot detect any debate, and I for one am most certainly not debating, I'm not even discussing, all I've been doing is asking questions, with the objective of understanding how people whom I identify as "pure collectors" think. You see, it is important to me to understand these thought patterns. Even though I have been dealing for about 50 years, and dealing internationally since 1978, I am still sometimes surprised, by the way in which some collectors think. I took what I saw as a golden opportunity to further my understanding by asking you and Detlef a couple of simple, straight-forward questions. There is no judgement going on here. None at all. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and I respect yours.