Persian date opinion sought on khanjar

[rand]

Hi Gene,

My preliminary feeling is that the mustache is a style of the time, but more information could change that opinion. Certainly is a posibility of a desgn wanted by the artist. If a wide mustache was in style only during the 19th century, it would add more credence to the nuumber six being used in the date.

rand

[ward]

Talking about Zand dynasty Fath Ali Shah was worse read up on him al ittle courtiers were afraid to go near him he had a habit of knocking their teeth out with his hiheel shoe if he was in a bad mood then they were supposed to thank him afterward.
Beautiful piece but looks later than Zand to me more like Qajar lot of European influence in the motifs.

[rand]

Originally Posted by ward

Talking about Zand dynasty Fath Ali Shah was worse read up on him al ittle courtiers were afraid to go near him he had a habit of knocking their teeth out with his hiheel shoe if he was in a bad mood then they were supposed to thank him afterward.
Beautiful piece but looks later than Zand to me more like Qajar lot of European influence in the motifs.

Am in agreement with you about the dagger looking later than Zand Dynasty and that the European influence appears more of a 19th C. Qajar style, thats why am asking for opinions of what the date is on the handle.

At the same time am will to accept the date 1200 if that is what it is.

Thanks,
rand

[ALEX]

Rand,
I could be wrong, but I read 1120. I do not think the last right digit is zero, as it has a decorative dot in the center, just like other decorative circles, and appears slightly off center to be part of the date.
"120" is positioned in the center of the panel.
The theme (and dagger's condition) are not typical for mid Safavid period dagger (1708) though

[Gavin Nugent]

I don't have anything to offer up here other than I am looking for mr moustache in what volumes I have access to but I would like to say this is most interesting posting with one of the highest quality arms I have seen in a very long time. Thanks for posting.

Gav

[rand]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Rand,
I could be wrong, but I read 1120. I do not think the last right digit is zero, as it has a decorative dot in the center, just like other decorative circles, and appears slightly off center to be part of the date.
"120" is positioned in the center of the panel.
The theme (and dagger's condition) are not typical for mid Safavid period dagger (1708) though

Thank you for your opinion Alex,

I also agree with you that this dagger would not be correctly placed in 1708, the style of Persian art then just did not reflect the European influence as it did during the Qajar rule. Also agree that the flower/dot is a decorative motif and not a number. The shape under that flower/dot is what is in question, so the first two numbers would read 1-2-then zeros via absence of a number, or a six or a one.

rand

[ALEX]

As omitting a leading/first digit is common, and it's always the first digit, and always "1". Now, the rest three digits are in the center of a shape: "1", "2", and... "0", which also can be 5, as Arabic circle is "5" (the dot is "0"). It's hard to tell whether the dot or circle is depicted. I actually think it's a circle, hence 125, but it does not make much difference , and I think that the shape under that circle is decoration, not a digit. Hope I make any sense, Rand:-)
Here is another example: at the very bottom, where the gold is washed away, the date reads 113, i.e. 1113 = 1701 (just one year short of 17th Century:-)

[rand]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for that explanation and the follow-up photo. When you say a number off center will not be part of a date, is that all the time?

Have added new close-up, hope it helps make easeir to see. It appears to be a diamond shape, then a one, then a two...... Am starting to agree that the reverse "C" shape to the two's right under the circular flower is part of the decoration and not a number.

rand