Persian date opinion sought on khanjar

ward · 2nd October 2008, 07:03 AM

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 · 2nd October 2008, 10:46 AM

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 · 2nd October 2008, 01:19 PM

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 · 3rd October 2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

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!

Dom · 3rd October 2008, 10:03 PM

and me, every time confusing
2 and 3
between writing and printed form

but I'm please to 've found the 2 last digits

à +

Dom

2nd October 2008, 07:03 AM	#1
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	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

2nd October 2008, 10:46 AM	#2
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	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.

2nd October 2008, 01:19 PM	#3
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 539	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

3rd October 2008, 10:03 PM	#5
Dom Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Paris (FR*) Cairo (EG) Posts: 1,142	and me, every time confusing 2 and 3 between writing and printed form but I'm please to 've found the 2 last digits à + Dom