Silver mounted badek for coments

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mark

I think that the two terms are synonymous, being simply the names for this kind of knife in the respective languages

I am afraid i didn't make myself understood. What i meant to ask you was whether you maintain your previous sugestion quoted in post #15, concerning the possible provenance of this piece.

Originally Posted by Mark

The designs look Burmese to me (see example below). Maybe it is from southern Burma. They are used in both Burma and Thailand, undoubtedly due to the Malaysian influence (not the other way around).

The "meed pra dae" thing was only me trying to get smart.

Fernando

[Gonzalo G]

A. G. Maisey, thank you for your perspective, you sent me into a better search. I was looking in my old metalworking books, and I found a very clear reference to the point by Herbert Maryon, who, by the way, is very inn the trade, and also wrote abook which is a BIBLE among silversmiths of the classical school. In this book, titled Metal Work and Enamelling, in the chapter XIII, second paragraph, he says: "Strictly speaking, repoussé is that part of the work which is donde from the reverse side of the metal -the bossing up the lines or patterns from the back; chasing is the part which is done from the front. But in modern times the term repousé has been extended to cover all work in relief, wether donde from the back or the front." (Dover, Fifth Revised Edition, 1971, page 113). Please take notice that Mayron was an englishmen who recived the designation of Technical Attaché in the Research Laboratory of the British Museum, and had this position between 1945 and 1963.

So, at least in England, the term "repousé" was used in it´s classical meaning (which is the same that I use), as the work made from the back exclusively. I was not wrong, after all.

Fernando, please excuse the disgression, but we were clarifying the nature of the work done to your beautiful piece.
All my best

Gonzalo

[David]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

A. G. Maisey, thank you for your perspective, you sent me into a better search. I was looking in my old metalworking books, and I found a very clear reference to the point by Herbert Maryon, who, by the way, is very inn the trade, and also wrote abook which is a BIBLE among silversmiths of the classical school. In this book, titled Metal Work and Enamelling, in the chapter XIII, second paragraph, he says: "Strictly speaking, repoussé is that part of the work which is donde from the reverse side of the metal -the bossing up the lines or patterns from the back; chasing is the part which is done from the front. But in modern times the term repousé has been extended to cover all work in relief, wether donde from the back or the front." (Dover, Fifth Revised Edition, 1971, page 113). Please take notice that Mayron was an englishmen who recived the designation of Technical Attaché in the Research Laboratory of the British Museum, and had this position between 1945 and 1963.

So, at least in England, the term "repousé" was used in it´s classical meaning (which is the same that I use), as the work made from the back exclusively. I was not wrong, after all.

Fernando, please excuse the disgression, but we were clarifying the nature of the work done to your beautiful piece.
All my best

Gonzalo

Sorry, i actually read this just a little bit differently. Clearly the source you site states: "But in modern times the term repousé has been extended to cover all work in relief, wether donde from the back or the front". Seeing that he wrote this at least 40 years ago and that definition was in common usage then it would seem that for at least a half century and perhaps more reprousse has referred to work done from either the front or back of the metal. That's the thing about languages. Meanings change over time. If we cling to the "classical" meanings of words we might end up having a hard time understanding each other.

[Gonzalo G]

It is not so, David, as A. G. Maisey clearly stated in a previous post that the meaning is actual, as the Oxford source points in this direction. I would better say that there is a "popular" use of the word, versus a more technical one. Besides, I don´t know how old is the souce Tim mentions. It could be as old as mine. I did not obviously used the term "classical" in the sense of anachronic, but "proper". By the way, I just checked The American College Dictionary: "Repoussé 1. (of a design) raised in relief by hammering on the reverse side 2. Oramented or made in this kind of raised work." Of course, it is an actual dictionary, and this meaning of the word is supported also by an authority in metalworking which I already quoted . But if you have some better understanding of silversmithing, or a better source to contribute with, please do it, as we need to go beyond personal interpretations.

[David]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

It is not so, David, as A. G. Maisey clearly stated in a previous post that the meaning is actual, as the Oxford source points in this direction. I would better say that there is a "popular" use of the word, versus a more technical one. Besides, I don´t know how old is the souce Tim mentions. It could be as old as mine. I did not obviously used the term "classical" in the sense of anachronic, but "proper". By the way, I just checked The American College Dictionary: "Repoussé 1. (of a design) raised in relief by hammering on the reverse side 2. Oramented or made in this kind of raised work." Of course, it is an actual dictionary, and this meaning of the word is supported also by an authority in metalworking which I already quoted . But if you have some better understanding of silversmithing, or a better source to contribute with, please do it, as we need to go beyond personal interpretations.

Gonzalo, i think that you missed the point of my post. Afterall, who am i to argue with Oxford, the American College dictionary and Wikipedia.

I was merely pointing out that the source you used, Herbert Maryon, an Englishman apparently of some repute, does not seen to support your conclusion at least not in the quoted passage. This is not to say that your conclusion is wrong, i just didn't understand why you were using his quote to try to support it.
Personally i am willing to go with what ever definition gets me properly understood as that is always the bottom line.

[A. G. Maisey]

Agreed 100% David.

The function of words is to move an idea from one person to another person.

Most reasonable people will adjust their language so that they are understood by the person with whom they are currently in discussion. As an example, it would be a waste of time for somebody who is bilingual to use , say, Italian, in a discussion with a native English speaker. Similarly it is a waste of time to speak to a boundary rider from Bourke in the same language that one uses to speak to the chairman of the board, again, one does not use exactly the same form of language to speak to the chairman of the board, as one would use with one's 14 year old son.

Reasonable people usually adjust their language so that they can be understood.

We know the various ways in which to refer to this type of work.

I would suggest that it now perfectly reasonable to use any of the terms.

However, in the case of the badik scabbard, if we use "repousse" perhaps we might need to qualify that word by the addition of "anterior" , or "obverse", or some other term denoting that the work was done from the front, as distinct from the back. This would then mean that we could describe repousse done from the back of the material as "posterior" repousse.

It doesn't really matter what terms are used to describe this work, provided that a clear understanding of meaning is achieved.

[Gonzalo G]

David, I dind´t want to offend, or otherwise to post off-topic. My interpretation of what Mayron wanted to say with "strictly speaking" (strictu sensu) decided me to use that quote, but I agree with A. G. Maisey in the above comment, as the use of the other meaning implies more than two senses for this word (which is not desirable), and there is the need to specify. All this began because I wanted to say that the silversmithing work was not made from inside or backside of the scabbard, but from the front. All this subjects related to the work made in the swords are a motive of passion for me and I like to discuss them in deep, though this is not anything personal or a motive of anger. This information is also useful for me to make my silversmithing and bladesmithing work. Thank you.

[David]

Completely understood Gonzalo, no offense taken.