mid 19c Tulwar?, please I would like some advice?

katana · 1st August 2006, 03:47 PM

Had this Tulwar for a few months, only recently cleaned it. Could anyone identify the hilt design.
The edge has suffered old damage, one of the nicks has removed a 'lump' of the blade from one side (see pics) suggesting the blade is either laminated, pattern welded or has a hardened edge 'welded' to a softer spine?....I am reluctant to etch the blade and loose the patina. Could anyone tell by the photos?
Any other information or comments, as always, gratefully received

katana · 7th August 2006, 05:53 PM

Has no one any ideas as to its origin, time frame or blade construction? please

Lew · 7th August 2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Has no one any ideas as to its origin, time frame or blade construction? please

Katana

It's an older one in my opinion. The hilt is down turned which you do not often see. Your sword has seen a few battles the nicks are proof of that. I would say your tulwar is Moghul 1790-1820s but it could be a bit later.

Congrats

Lew

katana · 7th August 2006, 06:47 PM

Thanks for the reply Lew..

...thats great news...the other feature of the blade that I forgot to mention is the last third of the blade is edged both sides....would that make a difference to the possible time period?

S.Al-Anizi · 7th August 2006, 07:02 PM

I have nothing to say about this, but I must say that im anxious to see what this turns out to be, surely an interesting piece.

Lew · 7th August 2006, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Thanks for the reply Lew..

...thats great news...the other feature of the blade that I forgot to mention is the last third of the blade is edged both sides....would that make a difference to the possible time period?

Some more pics of the whole blade would help.

Lew

katana · 7th August 2006, 08:36 PM

Thanks for your help Lew....will post further pics tomorrow

Jens Nordlunde · 7th August 2006, 10:37 PM

Now Katana, can you tell me what the clear blue on the top of the disc and on top of the hand guard is?

Tim Simmons · 7th August 2006, 10:42 PM

I am glad you mentioned that first. A latter painted addition perhaps, it certainly is not enamel. I do not know but I would have thought this was from the 19th century, maybe the latter part?

Lew · 7th August 2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Now Katana, can you tell me what the clear blue on the top of the disc and on top of the hand guard is?

Jens

It looks like some type of enamel to me I have seen this type of decoration before but in red not blue.

Lew

Tim Simmons · 7th August 2006, 10:46 PM

Lew, look at the pommel on the knuckle bow. That is silly clumsy for enamel work. I could be wrong.

katana · 7th August 2006, 10:51 PM

I'm not certain whether it is paint or enamel, it seems relatively hard and only covers the recessed 'dots'. It seems the colour seems 'fresh', but whether that is because of the quality of the 'enamel' has not be subdued by age or that it is fairly recently applied paint I cannot be sure. The blade has definate age ...even after ... a fairly rigorous clean.. there is still an old patina remaining.

Tim 'Lew, look at the pommel on the knuckle bow. That is silly clumsy for enamel work. I could be wrong.'

Tim the pommel of the knuckle bow has very little remnants of the blue left, the rest has been worn/chipped away.

Tim Simmons · 7th August 2006, 10:59 PM

I did say I could be wrong but it does look just a little odd .

Lew · 7th August 2006, 11:10 PM

The enamel could could be recent but that is not a big deal it's still a nice old sword

Lew

katana · 7th August 2006, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

The hilt is down turned which you do not often see.

The design of the hilt actually seems to allow more movement from the wrist....not as restrictive as the 'straight' type. Also, with an edge on the 'back' of the blade (the last third approx.) it seems to suggest that this sword was used with a technique or style which relied on quick,accurate strikes with control from the wrist ??????

spiral · 7th August 2006, 11:41 PM

The blue looks like modern enamel paint, not true cooked enamel to me.

But i am just judging on a photo.

Nice shaped handle though!

Spiral

ariel · 7th August 2006, 11:55 PM

I think the blue paint (enamel???) tries to imitate turquoise stones: they were very popular in Central Asia (Bukhara, Khiva etc) and somewhat less in Afghanistan (but a good chunk of them are Uzbeks anyway). I am NOT saying it is Uzbeki; perhaps, the owner wanted something reminding him of his native decoration.
Ah, the convenience of being here! We do not have to succumb to the politically correct "he/she" stuff: all weapon owners were "he"

katana · 8th August 2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

Some more pics of the whole blade would help.

Lew

A picture of the entire sword and a view of the spine (back) just as it abruptly thins to an edge.

Jens Nordlunde · 8th August 2006, 02:21 PM

The blue bugs me a bit, as they did not enamel on iron, on gold, silver and sometimes on copper, but not on iron, unless it had been silvered or gilded first. Besides light blue is a seldom seen colour when it comes to enamel, as it was very difficult to make. Does it look transparent?

It is a nice tulwar with an interesting hilt; notice the way the quillons end. If the blade has a false edge on one third, the false edge would be about thirty cm, which would be quite a lot.

katana · 8th August 2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

The blue bugs me a bit, as they did not enamel on iron,

It is a nice tulwar with an interesting hilt; notice the way the quillons end. If the blade has a false edge on one third, the false edge would be about thirty cm, which would be quite a lot.

I'm beginning to think that the blue is some sort of paint rather than enamel....and that it is not original to the sword. I was thinking of using a pin...heated up and placed on the edge of the 'blue' ....if it burns..it must be paint? If it is paint I feel I should remove it.....should I?
The false edge is 23cms from the tip to where the back tapers and is still relatively sharp...with no evidence of it being sharpened for a very long time.

Jens Nordlunde · 8th August 2006, 03:28 PM

Have a look at the picture. You will see where the enamel is missing; the surface is not smooth, but grooved. The reason for this is to reflect the light through the transparent enamel, to make the colour more brilliant. When this is said, I also have to add that they in Kashmir made a special kind of enamel, which was not necessarily transparent – but this kind they used mostly on copper.

I think it is paint, although I can’t be quite sure from the picture. To remove the dots or not is up to you. I would, but I am also sure that other collectors would not.

The false edge does not seem to be especially long. I have tried to measure some of mone blades, and the edge is either shorter or a bit longer.

katana · 9th August 2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

Katana

Your sword has seen a few battles the nicks are proof of that. I would say your tulwar is Moghul 1790-1820s but it could be a bit later.

Congrats

Lew

Lew, thankyou for your help and comments.I have done a little research on Moghul blade making, and found that they had great expertise in blade smithing and that many of their blades were superior to many manufactured at that time. Do you have any ideas as to how I can determine how good this blade is, or the forging techniques used to help discover if this sword is indeed Moghul.
Strangely enougth a documentary on the History Channel (yesterday) was about the Moghuls (an excellent and interesting documentary). During the programme they described and demonstrated the cutting ability of a period sword. It was said that the Moghul blades tended to be thin and very sharp (certainly how I would describe mine) so at least I know that it 'definately not' Moghul.

Jens I am certain you are right, it must be paint......why blue paint..I suppose I'll never know. I think I should remove the 'paint' I very doubt it is original and does nothing to the asthetics or look of the sword. Perhaps Ariel's suggestion is a possibility....who knows.... I'm sure we all have one or two pieces which have had some modification or adornment done during its life which makes no sense or we wish hadn't been done

1st August 2006, 03:47 PM	#1
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	mid 19c Tulwar?, please I would like some advice? Had this Tulwar for a few months, only recently cleaned it. Could anyone identify the hilt design. The edge has suffered old damage, one of the nicks has removed a 'lump' of the blade from one side (see pics) suggesting the blade is either laminated, pattern welded or has a hardened edge 'welded' to a softer spine?....I am reluctant to etch the blade and loose the patina. Could anyone tell by the photos? Any other information or comments, as always, gratefully received Attached Images

8th August 2006, 03:28 PM	#21
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Have a look at the picture. You will see where the enamel is missing; the surface is not smooth, but grooved. The reason for this is to reflect the light through the transparent enamel, to make the colour more brilliant. When this is said, I also have to add that they in Kashmir made a special kind of enamel, which was not necessarily transparent – but this kind they used mostly on copper. I think it is paint, although I can’t be quite sure from the picture. To remove the dots or not is up to you. I would, but I am also sure that other collectors would not. The false edge does not seem to be especially long. I have tried to measure some of mone blades, and the edge is either shorter or a bit longer. Attached Images

7th August 2006, 05:53 PM	#2
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Has no one any ideas as to its origin, time frame or blade construction? please

7th August 2006, 06:47 PM	#4
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Thanks for the reply Lew.. ...thats great news...the other feature of the blade that I forgot to mention is the last third of the blade is edged both sides....would that make a difference to the possible time period?

7th August 2006, 07:02 PM	#5
S.Al-Anizi Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arabia Posts: 278	I have nothing to say about this, but I must say that im anxious to see what this turns out to be, surely an interesting piece.

7th August 2006, 08:36 PM	#7
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Thanks for your help Lew....will post further pics tomorrow

7th August 2006, 10:37 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Now Katana, can you tell me what the clear blue on the top of the disc and on top of the hand guard is?

7th August 2006, 10:42 PM	#9
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	I am glad you mentioned that first. A latter painted addition perhaps, it certainly is not enamel. I do not know but I would have thought this was from the 19th century, maybe the latter part?

7th August 2006, 10:46 PM	#11
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	Lew, look at the pommel on the knuckle bow. That is silly clumsy for enamel work. I could be wrong.

7th August 2006, 10:51 PM	#12
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	I'm not certain whether it is paint or enamel, it seems relatively hard and only covers the recessed 'dots'. It seems the colour seems 'fresh', but whether that is because of the quality of the 'enamel' has not be subdued by age or that it is fairly recently applied paint I cannot be sure. The blade has definate age ...even after ... a fairly rigorous clean.. there is still an old patina remaining. Tim 'Lew, look at the pommel on the knuckle bow. That is silly clumsy for enamel work. I could be wrong.' Tim the pommel of the knuckle bow has very little remnants of the blue left, the rest has been worn/chipped away.

7th August 2006, 10:59 PM	#13
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	I did say I could be wrong but it does look just a little odd .

7th August 2006, 11:10 PM	#14
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	The enamel could could be recent but that is not a big deal it's still a nice old sword Lew

7th August 2006, 11:41 PM	#16
spiral Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,712	The blue looks like modern enamel paint, not true cooked enamel to me. But i am just judging on a photo. Nice shaped handle though! Spiral

7th August 2006, 11:55 PM	#17
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I think the blue paint (enamel???) tries to imitate turquoise stones: they were very popular in Central Asia (Bukhara, Khiva etc) and somewhat less in Afghanistan (but a good chunk of them are Uzbeks anyway). I am NOT saying it is Uzbeki; perhaps, the owner wanted something reminding him of his native decoration. Ah, the convenience of being here! We do not have to succumb to the politically correct "he/she" stuff: all weapon owners were "he"

8th August 2006, 02:21 PM	#19
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	The blue bugs me a bit, as they did not enamel on iron, on gold, silver and sometimes on copper, but not on iron, unless it had been silvered or gilded first. Besides light blue is a seldom seen colour when it comes to enamel, as it was very difficult to make. Does it look transparent? It is a nice tulwar with an interesting hilt; notice the way the quillons end. If the blade has a false edge on one third, the false edge would be about thirty cm, which would be quite a lot.