![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central Valley, California
Posts: 46
|
Should I assume that I'm entirely correct that this is a fake, for exactly the reasons I mentioned?
Are there any other tell-tale signs I should be aware of in the future? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,134
|
Others will weigh in here, but I think you have a late period example, rather than a "fake." They were a high status item and survived as "processional" pieces long after they were "battle field" weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central Valley, California
Posts: 46
|
Late period would be nice, rather than a made-for-ebay special. I'm looking forward to hearing what others have to say about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 38
|
Well, according to Elgood (Rajput arms & armour, vol 1, p475) it could be contradictory: The plain one could be folder, as those with shorter spike and more complex crossbar are clearly marked as nineteent-century .
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|