Persian date opinion sought on khanjar

[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

[ward]

Closeup makes a big difference it reads 1265 = 1848
Big classical revival in Persia art at that time especally
in weapons making and also more Euro influence. You can see this on scrolls at top of hilt and also poses of people. Wouldnt find this much in earlier period like Zand

[ALEX]

Yes, that closeup changes everything:-) It does look like 1265. Strange the digits are not aligned with 6 being "dropped". How common or uncommon this would be? Usually they're depicted in-line.
Good point Ward, 1848 does match the style.

[rand]

Ward and Alex,

Thank you for your opinions, the possibility of the six in the date is what triggered my search for opinions and could make the date read 1260 (1842).
The digit you are viewing as a circle, hence the number five, is very probably a repeated flower used in the floral decoration. It seems the mid 19th century date more likely for this dagger than the late 18th century date, but like to keep an open mind as only standing up to the test of time do we then perceive things to be accepted as fact.

Am curious what your opinion of the diamond shape just to the left of the two is. Are those not normally a zero.

Appreciate your opinions,

rand

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by rand

...Am curious what your opinion of the diamond shape just to the left of the two is. Are those not normally a zero.

Rand, the diamond shape is left to the "one". and I am almost certain it is a shape, not a number. What Ward stated, i.e. 1265 is good, and perhaps the best estimate. Strange the numbers do not appear in-line, but may be it was the artist's way to "spice-up" the scene... and it does look good indeed!