Chinese daggers - more colourful as christmas trees

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Gonzoadler

No, not really
I can only read speculations and no real knowledge. I can also begin to speculate, but I prefer to use some facts and not only accusations against auction houses: Between 1898 and 1914 Kiautschou Bay was a German leased territory in China. Many officials and soldiers brought their souvenirs to the German Empire after they came back home. In other countries with chinese colonies it was did in the same way.
These pieces were often stereotypically Chinese decorated, because this was what the European market wanted. Exotic decorations were "in fashion". Also the colonists often had much more money than the local Chinese people and were able to buy such things for higher prices in higher quantities.
As examples I added pictures of some teapots, vases and daggers which were such antique souvenirs in my opinion. They are all made of good quality and would be far to expensive for a modern souvenir. Also many of this pieces have authentic signs of age.
I think my thesis is much more realistic than the others here. If somebody can show me facts, not speculations, that can refute my words in a proper way, please do that.
If I search for "chinese silver daggers" on liveaustioneers, I can find a lot of touristic pieces. But also there are some much older pieces of good quality, which are recognizable because of the much higher price results.

Regards

pictures:

I find this response somewhat disappointing in suggesting that those of who have added entries here have based our comments on speculations and NO REAL KNOWLEDGE. While personally I have only just over fifty years of study and collecting, and Oriental items are admittedly not my central field, I have engaged in research often on these topics many times through the years.

To suggest that Philip and Mahratt are without 'real knowledge' is laughable as both are published authors who have written on these subjects, and frankly Philip is probably one one the most often cited authorities in these fields.

The comments toward auction houses are not based on 'speculation' but on instances we have all experienced, and where these cases were thoroughly investigated and typically resolved and often widely noted within the arms community.

Most speculation, particularly in this discussion for example, is based on experience and knowledge, which of course typically renders it considerably reliable in lieu of irrefutable provenance or proof on topics or items. As always, and as any responsible author will submit, all material is always subject to rebuttal as more evidence is discovered and presented.

I dont believe anyone here was trying to 'refute' your observations and views, but expressing thier own based on personal experience and knowledge. Such input is considered viable material in discourse here and intended as shared opinion for evaluation. Obviously any observation made where sound proof or evidence is not presently or readily available will generally defer accordingly to compelling and well supported material .

I look forward to your addition of same on this topic regarding these dagger based on other than observations based on auction commentary or 'speculations' on age and authenticity based on assumptions thereof.

[Gonzoadler]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I find this response somewhat disappointing in suggesting that those of who have added entries here have based our comments on speculations and NO REAL KNOWLEDGE. While personally I have only just over fifty years of study and collecting, and Oriental items are admittedly not my central field, I have engaged in research often on these topics many times through the years.

To suggest that Philip and Mahratt are without 'real knowledge' is laughable as both are published authors who have written on these subjects, and frankly Philip is probably one one the most often cited authorities in these fields.

The comments toward auction houses are not based on 'speculation' but on instances we have all experienced, and where these cases were thoroughly investigated and typically resolved and often widely noted within the arms community.

Most speculation, particularly in this discussion for example, is based on experience and knowledge, which of course typically renders it considerably reliable in lieu of irrefutable provenance or proof on topics or items. As always, and as any responsible author will submit, all material is always subject to rebuttal as more evidence is discovered and presented.

I dont believe anyone here was trying to 'refute' your observations and views, but expressing thier own based on personal experience and knowledge. Such input is considered viable material in discourse here and intended as shared opinion for evaluation. Obviously any observation made where sound proof or evidence is not presently or readily available will generally defer accordingly to compelling and well supported material .

I look forward to your addition of same on this topic regarding these dagger based on other than observations based on auction commentary or 'speculations' on age and authenticity based on assumptions thereof.

At first: I didn´t meant your answer with my post. You don´t have my opinion, but you argued differentiated.
And to the other points: If sb. is an expert he should argue like an expert. That means that he should underpin his opinion comprehensible. Simple meanings and not verifiable statements are not comprehensible. I made comparisons with other Chinese silver pieces and I can find identical or similar elements in many cases. There are a lot more pieces in the internet. And all this silver pieces are dated to the end of Qing dynasty by more or less famous auction houses. Because of that I think this daggers have the same age. Maybe a bit later than Qing, but not so much. That could be wrong, but persons with another opinion can only convince me with comprehensible statements and facts. I can´t read that until now.

Regards

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Gonzoadler

At first: I didn´t meant your answer with my post. You don´t have my opinion, but you argued differentiated.
And to the other points: If sb. is an expert he should argue like an expert. That means that he should underpin his opinion comprehensible. Simple meanings and not verifiable statements are not comprehensible. I made comparisons with other Chinese silver pieces and I can find identical or similar elements in many cases. There are a lot more pieces in the internet. And all this silver pieces are dated to the end of Qing dynasty by more or less famous auction houses. Because of that I think this daggers have the same age. Maybe a bit later than Qing, but not so much. That could be wrong, but persons with another opinion can only convince me with comprehensible statements and facts. I can´t read that until now.

Regards

Thank you for the well thought out response. I think the term 'expert' is also one a bit overused and often misplaced. Most highly knowledgeable authorities typically consider themselves well informed but always open to new discoveries and ideas and are anxious to keep learning .

Again, I would point out that comments made on auction houses were not meant as 'accusations' but simply pointing out that their descriptions are not always entirely accurate. Probably the most reliable are those which use cited references from well researched books and well established authorities on the examples being described.

I very much like the examples you are posting of these most attractive pieces, and the comparisons of the various elements included in the work are most intriguing. One of the most well known facts about artisans in China, as Philip well noted in his earlier posts, is that they are able to produce most convincing items remarkably faithful to their original and traditional prototypes. These artisans are also highly skilled at artificial aging of items. It is a daunting task to accurately date items of early forms which have been produced as souvenirs as that industry has existed for quite some time. The early examples of late 19th century are 'antiques' in their own right even if not authentic as to the genuine examples often represented.

While the 'Qing' dynasty denominator is somewhat impressive sounding, it is a somewhat vague descriptive term. Virtually most Chinese material culture items seem to be 'Qing' (1644-1911) unless otherwise specified.

Most internet resources concerning antiquities and arms are typically considered 'benchmarks' for further research as far as investigating examples, and obviously making determinations from photos is, using your term, 'speculative'. Accurate determinations beyond that require hands on handling and close examination of the item.

Well noted on the use of 'MADE IN .......' markings on items, which is nothing more than a modern commercial stamp, and has nothing to do with identification of antiquities. The notation of this most obviously modern marking is typically meant in a pejorative sense.

[David]

Gonzoadler, i have no expertise in this field, but i do have a keen sense of observation. In your comparison posts the only technique i really see repeated in the antique vessels is the mounting of the multi-coloured cabochons. Pointing out repetition on certain Asian motifs does not really prove anything. Motifs are bound to be copied onto later items as they are part of the culture in general. But motifs are not the same as technique. The major decorative technique that is used in your knives seems to be filigree work that is filled with coloured enamel. This technique is not used very much in you examples of antique vessels, but it is a major decorative feature on your knives. These swirling designs were no doubt meant to mimic the vegetal designs on the antique vessels that are actually carved into the silver. But despite the amount of work and craft involved in creating these enamel-filled filigree patterns, they are still a big step down from the silver work in these older pieces. Also the mounting of the stones and jade pieces on your knives is greatly inferior to the antique vessels you show.
Regarding "Made in China". AFAIK, in 1891 items from China were simply marks "CHINA". It wasn't until 1919 that "Made in China" became a requirement for imported items. So any item actually marked "Made in China" will be a 20th century item.
Your knives look to me to be made for foreign markets sometime after the 1920s, though more likely after WWII. They are gaudily over-packed with Chinese motifs in an attempt to attract and feed a mostly European audience.

[Gonzoadler]

The cloisonné or cell enamel is an old chinese technique and you can find that on much older pieces. So this is no real criterion. The silver mountings have a similar "handwriting" like them from the showed pieces in my opinion. So I would say it is the same "factory" which made them. The carving of the stones seems to be better, but some of the stones on the vases are much bigger and easier to carve. Of course some carvings are simply better, but not all. The vases and teapots are very different in their configuration, too. And I found some ornate chinese silverworks with enamel and filigree. Of course it is a thing of believe how old they are. Personally I think most of this pieces are made between 1880 and the 1930s. After the Japanese invasion the circumstances in China don´t let me believe, that they still made such pieces.

Regards

[Kubur]

Dear All,

Just to add some fuel to the engine (not on the fire).
As it was said by Jim and Mahratt, these daggers are not very old and mostly decorative.
Saying that, I also agree with Gonzoadler, these daggers are not crap, they aren't all the same, some of them are very well made and probably early 20th c. let's say 1920ties...
The recent ones are for tourists, but for the very well made ones and the oldest ones, I believe that they were diplomatic gifts.
As it was said by Philip they are not ritual, despite some Buddhist elements.
It will be nice to add to the discussion the swords, that you can find in the book sword and sabers. The book is full of mistakes and it's not a reference, but these swords appear in other books, such as Robert Hales. Again RH is not an academic reference, but the man spent his life collecting and we can give him some credits about the quality of these objects.
In short, these daggers and swords are not ethnographic but they are pieces of art to me.

Kubur

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Dear All,

Just to add some fuel to the engine (not on the fire).
As it was said by Jim and Mahratt, these daggers are not very old and mostly decorative.
Saying that, I also agree with Gonzoadler, these daggers are not crap, they aren't all the same, some of them are very well made and probably early 20th c. let's say 1920ties...
The recent ones are for tourists, but for the very well made ones and the oldest ones, I believe that they were diplomatic gifts.
As it was said by Philip they are not ritual, despite some Buddhist elements.
It will be nice to add to the discussion the swords, that you can find in the book sword and sabers. The book is full of mistakes and it's not a reference, but these swords appear in other books, such as Robert Hales. Again RH is not an academic reference, but the man spent his life collecting and we can give him some credits about the quality of these objects.
In short, these daggers and swords are not ethnographic but they are pieces of art to me.

Kubur

Kubur,
Thanks so much for the photo from Robert Hales. Now, when we place the photo next to it, all the differences in the decoration techniques are visible.

And by the way, I can't remember this shape of knives in China And you?

[Rick]

I have noticed that all the examples are decorated with an off-white jade; I've heard this color referred to as Mutton Fat. Is there something special about this color for it to be seen so often as a decorative element?

[Philip]

Originally Posted by mahratt

And by the way, I can't remember this shape of knives in China And you?

Hello, Mahratt!

Let's say that the overall shape of these knives can be described as "Chinese-ish" . Or as I like to say, "close but no cigar". Let's see:

1. The blade shape resembles the exaggerated version of the tip of many Chinese sabers of the late Imperial period. At first hurried glance I wondered if these might be recycled tips of broken or discarded sabers (in an earlier post I mentioned seeing these silver decorative weapons with re-used (generally shortened) Chinese or Japanese blades. But the curve on these is too abrupt to have come offan actual saber. Furthermore the fuller seems to end before the guard, whereas a saber tip would have the channel continuing further back along its original length.

2. The flattened discoid guard does have stylistic antecedents in the tsuba-like guards typical of Chinese (and also most Korean and Vietnamese) sabers, and even some double edged swords.

3. Downward-curving grips are also a feature of Chinese saber hilts, coming into vogue from the late 18th cent. onwards but traceable to a few depictions in Ming/Qing transition period art, some surviving examples, and even to the handles of bronze Ordos-basin finds from the classical bronze age.

But looked at in toto, these knives are best regarded as a fanciful interpretation of these early forms, plus decorative motifs from Inner Asia, to create such a delightful mishmosh. Sort of what Madama Butterfly and Turandot are to Kabuki and Peking opera, respectively.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Gonzoadler

After the Japanese invasion the circumstances in China don´t let me believe, that they still made such pieces.

Regards

The production seemed to have continued, at a respectable quality level, after WW II and even post-Mao. On two trips to China during the 1970s, I was taken to artisanal "factories" where various high-end decorative art objects were crafted, and both daggers and full-length swords of similar type were being made. Once I was shown a jade hilt in process, intended to go on a custom-ordered repro of a gilt Qianlong era dagger. This sort of stuff was at that time offered at retail only in exclusive gift shops in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, which were off limits to the local yokels (who couldn't afford the prices anyway), and which were geared towards overseas visitors, which at that time were mostly embassy folks, businessmen, academics, and high-end tourists.