Interesting Lew
 

Interesting Lew,

Everyone's opinions are welcome and I am more than happy to have mine or anyones elses opinions substantiated or dismissed with absolute knowledge to help the learning process.

From all that has been presented thus far, this would mean that 9.9 out of every 10 Kindjals with silver fittings of any discription presented on this forum over the years, and all links provided by all that have made postings, are indeed, NOT the real Macoy even if some say it is...I do not understand how sloppy for one can make it real but not the other....so confused :confused: :eek:
All information that has been put forward as to what identifies both a real and a not real Kindjal really actually puts all positings in the "not a real Kindjal" column???
I can only offer up what I see first hand and describe it best I can with images 100 times larger than the item really is. I too offer up links from the same people that are presented to me and....well like you say, opinions????

Gav

[QUOTE=freebooter]Interesting Lew,

Everyone's opinions are welcome and I am more than happy to have mine or anyones elses opinions substantiated or dismissed with absolute knowledge to help the learning process.

From all that has been presented thus far, this would mean that 9.9 out of every 10 Kindjals with silver fittings of any discription presented on this forum over the years, and all links provided by all that have made postings, are indeed, NOT the real Macoy even if some say it is...I do not understand how sloppy for one can make it real but not the other....so confused :confused: :eek:
All information that has been put forward as to what identifies both a real and a not real Kindjal really actually puts all positings in the "not a real Kindjal" column???


Gav

Your logic is flawed to say the least you asked the specialists on this forum to give you there thoughts on your kindjal and they did.
Regards

Lew

IMHO, wouldn't that have been the wisest attitude ? :o


.

Flawed logic??
 

Hi Lew, flawed logic........ with regards to silver fitted kindjals...

Without circling all visual references supplied in this forum over the years, I do wish to know from yourself and these specialists and any others who have knowledge in this forum on these weapons. Take these following comments on board with out taking any visual references of my Kindjal into perspective, just leave it out of any thought process.
Why does lets say, unfinished rivets, sloppy lines for starters make one kindjal a true piece and another not?? Does this flaw in accuracy point to the differences between a collector and a researcher. I don't claim to be a professional researcher but I think these valid visual references do point to something that needs to be researched for the betterment of all concerned in learning the truth behind these weapons, after all this is a resource/research site is it not, not just a show and tell???

regards

Gav

Gav

It's a real kindjal but collectively we do not feel that it's from the 19th century. Just like in my jambiya thread the newer piece is a real jamibiya that an adult male Yemenite would wear it's just not from the 19th century as I have shown in my photos what to look out for when one is looking for an older piece the quality of the older pieces speak for themselves ;) Maybe one day you can join us at our annual show at Timonium and you can bring your kindjal so you can compare it in person with some others that our advanced collectors have and then we will see. Until then this thread should be put on hold.


Regards

Lew

this is a little off topic but what exactly are the "spiky protrusions" on the hilt for? i have a kindjal from daghestan that unfortunatly turned out to be a dull wallhanger and those spiky things make the knife harder to handle.

Timonium
 

Roger, well spoken Lew. I would love a shopping spree in America. If I plan a trip into the US with it I better get police permits in order so I can return with it in my possesion as the federal import laws here restrict double edged weapons under 40cms in length. It will be on my list of things to acheive in the next few years. I look forward to meeting you all then.

Gav

I have followed this thread with interest and as my knowledge of Kindjals is very limited, I will not comment on the age authenticity of Gav's piece. However, I do feel there has been a number of comments regarding the accessment of the Kindjal that are relavent to a number of threads.

In a learning environment it is far better that negative and positive comments ...are backed up with evidence. This 'enriches' the debate and adds to our 'collective' knowledge. It would be extremely useful in all threads that short comments such as .....this is likely mid 20th century ....is expanded into the reasons why.
I have great respect for a number of Formites and 'bow' to their undoubted knowledge, but we/they are only human and mistakes can happen, especially when you have only a description and pictures to 'go on'.
Also, as collectors we have to accept that we can be 'fooled' in believing we have something that is totally authentic, to discover that others disagree. Unfortunately, this sometimes can be 'taken personally', afterall not only the piece has become questionable but also the collector's belief and knowledge.

As a footnote, AFAIK auction house's descriptions of items are not necessarilly totally correct, the 'small print' always carries a disclaimer protecting them from repocussions. Unless an Auction house will totally guarantee an object's description, to the extent of offering a refund (if found to be incorrect) and some sort of compensation to cover your expenses etc I would take their accessment with a 'pinch of salt'.

Very famous Auction house's have sold items, that their experts have deemed 'totally authentic', but later have been discovered to be fake :eek: It happens. Therefore, I personally would not accept the Auction House's description as evidence of its authenticity or age.

All the best

David

Wise words David
 

Thanks for popping by David.

True words spoken David, everything in this world has a cost and it is buyer beware, there are however dealers who may not know the whole truth behind an item they have for sale but do stand by their reputation and receive returned goods and offer refunds. I too wouldn't hold any thing said about an item from an auction house as gospel, hence the tenaciousness to draw more information from those who expressed some knowledge in the area. I always trust my own judgement when handling an item and to a degree specialist auctioneers who are honest with their degree of knowledge in certain areas.

It is a shame that so many threads do appear with nothing more than a single link and no more than a quick paragraph that really doesn't have any impact on the thought process. A while later these links are no longer available to view and the whole essence and learning process is lost forever, if in fact there is any learning process at all at times.
A shame that people who claim to be so knowledgable and advanced collectors can really offer up so little substantial information and shy away when the going gets tough and answers are questioned and more detail requested, very ponderous. I personally want my boundries pushed, I don't want to sit insulated and stale, I crave facts.

There are points I have bought up in this thread that I feel would be benificial to all interested in these weapons but those "in the know" don't seem to think so???

Blade profile and shape for one, I did ask about the blades with a recurved double edged tip compared the images shown here, What about the untra violet light to read faint or rubbed inscriptions, the use of coral and the hand of Fatima symbolism on these weapons, I will when given the time add this to Jim's thread on symbolism as I don't think it has been covered off. Also there is the mention of red coral for good luck, the use of material to cover the wooden sheath and hilt inserts, the varying styles of hilt profiles found on these peices, even verses of the Koran that may be found on these pieces.

Obviously these points of interest are of no concern to a few here but these points above and others throughout the postings are many points worth discussing and writing about here, after all that is what this site is about.

regards

Gav

PS. Lew, on a number of occasions recently you have used the word "we" as in the tense of taking ownership of a group, are you are representing a group of people who I do not know of, I am just a little lost with "we", that's all.

Though not always necessary in an informal forum such as this, it is always important to be able to lay out facts/evidence in support of any claim. Sometimes the one-line conclusory answer suffices, other times a more detailed basis is needed or requested. The absense of one, or insistance upon one, should not (IMO) reflect negatively on either the opiner.

There have been a number of factual observations made about this piece which have been indicated as showing it to be either recent or antique, but what I think is lacking a bit is the significance of these observations in the context. There are inprecise, you might say sloppy, aspects to the engraving. What does this mean for a kindjal? As someone pointed out, sloppy does not universally equate either with "recent" or "fake." But does it for kindjal? The niello has certain wear patterns - what does this tell us, other than that it is worn? What do the particulars of the blade geometry tell us? Should a 19th C kindjal have well-made, or unfinished rivits? Is there some sine qua non for an 18th C, or 18th C, or 20th C kindjal?

For example, in my own experience, a poorly made blade, even in fancy fittings, says nothing about the age or genuineness of a dha, as it is not uncommon for a genuinely "old" dha to have a rather poorly made blade. The same goes for the craftsmanship of the fittings. They can be a clue, but you have to look beyond to the whole package & context to see whether a poorly made blade of this particular style, with this particular type of fitting, from this region is consistent with the purported age, or not.

PS. Lew, on a number of occasions recently you have used the word "we" as in the tense of taking ownership of a group, are you are representing a group of people who I do not know of, I am just a little lost with "we", that's all.[/QUOTE]


Gav

I do not understand why you are asking this question :confused: Why would you ever bring this up in the discussion it has nothing to do with your kindjal unless you get off by trying to purposely ruffle someones feathers?

Lew

I'll explain
 

Gav

I do not understand why you are asking this question :confused: Why would you ever bring this up in the discussion it has nothing to do with your kindjal unless you get off by trying to purposely ruffle someones feathers?

Lew[/QUOTE]

I would have explained here Lew but you rude PM, it covered off enough about "we" and your use of the word. It was an inocent question that could have been answered simply specifically or other ways.



These questions above I feel are the real issue, lets explore them and others, I know I will post informative content as it comes to hand and I hope others will also take an interest in explaining these things.

regards

Gav

Moderators, for the betterment of all, some are taking things far too personally, maybe some comments should be struck from the postings, maybe the post should be closed and the pursuit for knowledge be shut down :shrug:

Gav

What part of "We" do you not understand? We being the other formites who posted their comments and did not think your kindjal was circa 1860. Btw I do not claim ownership of any group on this forum as you insinuated below :confused:

PS. Lew, on a number of occasions recently you have used the word "we" as in the tense of taking ownership of a group, are you are representing a group of people who I do not know of, I am just a little lost with "we", that's all.


Your question is presumptive to begin with and is antagonist at the least. Maybe you need to be more careful when you post your questions as to not to step on other formites toes.
Lew

English
 

Against my better judgement Lew, I will share what I know of the English language as your intentions of not entering into this posting anymore has fallen by the wayside a number of threads ago.
When the word "we" is used the way you describe Lew, it does in fact take ownership of others, it should in fact read "I". It is much like so many who say "how are we today", in this case it should be how are "you" or "how are you all today", when asked that question in such context I couldn't reply for another, especially one who indicates that I should comment on how they are. Would my reply be "WE are well today", I think not, my reply would be "I am well thank you, how are you". I was only confused as to who "we" was, now that you mention who "we" are, I now know you are the spokesman of others who choose not to enter further into an educational fact finding mission about Kindjals with silver fittings.


As you indicated in the abrasive, abusive and threatening PM, you did indicate that you exchange mail with others internally which is what the study is all about, as this is a discussion forum wouldn't that knowledge and comments, study and research be better bought to light objectively in the pages of the forums, for the most here it is blah blah blah and nothing to verify comments. I'd believe it is a Chinese Jian if one can indicate why and because and with a good many unrefuted points of reference.
I think you are missing the whole point, subjectively I would place this piece at 1880-1920 and of a very high standard, All I have heard thus far is that it is rubbish, a fake, poor quality and many other misleading comments from those who claim to be in the know and when I disprove these comments subjectively and with further imagery, still nothing further to enhance the learning process is made any clearer why the new evidence should or shouldn't be taken on board, how is anyone going to learn further if it is all hush hush behind the scenes if it is there at all???

I think Mark's comments below do indicate further as to what I offered across and as to what can be learnt here.


regards

Gav

Gav

I do not need a lesson in the english language :mad: I am quite sure that everybody but you understood what I had meant by We. You have posted comments such as the silence is deafening comment which to some was a deliberate sarcastic and somewhat snide remark. My PM was not threatening to say the least I was just stating how I felt and it being a Private Message something we(yes I am speaking for the majority) here at the forum do not share or discuss on the public threads and that is why they are called Private.

I think you are missing the whole point, subjectively I would place this piece at 1880-1920 and of a very high standard, All I have heard thus far is that it is rubbish, a fake, poor quality and many other misleading comments from those who claim to be in the know and when I disprove these comments subjectively and with further imagery

Gav

Your imagery proves nothing anyone with a moderate level of skill and the right tools can produce the same work on your kindjal.


Lew

We are not amused.
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb.../82421-004.jpg
(the royal 'we').

we suggest this thread has gone as far as it needs to.
we are nicer people than where this is heading.

Please take it off-board if you want to continue this, gentlemen.

I might also suggest you explore the "ignore" function of the forum's software.

Thread closed.