Shamshir, ID and translation please
 

Completely outside my sphere of collecting.
I am going to guess that this is a Persian ( lion on blade ) watered blade, shamshir.
I have just mildly cleaned one section of the blade to show the lion and the pattern.

I would appreciate any information from the experts.

Thanks
Roy

It looks like private purchase British Mameluke sword. Handle looks like bone.
Indian army military?

See http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-p...lah/?locale=en (The article is expertly written by Oliver Pinchot)...for a sold item of a year ago and note the Persian Lion below~

See also http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/shamshir/

While it is difficult to say from the photos, I got the impression the blade is wootz, thus most certainly Persian.
:shrug:

The hilt looks like Mameluke indeed.

It is certainly a Persian shamshir.
The blade is inscribed in the upper cartouche, ABBAS SHAH BANDE-YE VILAYET, which was the title adopted by Shah Abbas I (r. 1588-1629) and used by shahs of Iran thereafter. The lower cartouche, depicting a lion, also bears the name ASSAD. This is a transitional signature discussed in my article, which Ibrahim kindly cited. The wootz pattern is evident in the photos.

The guard is original. Though corroded, fine chiseling is evident.
The grips are ivory, in Mamluk style, but may be Persian work as well.
On cursory examination, it probably dates to the second half of the 18th or beginning of the 19th century.

Wow Oliver,
great description! Agree with you and Marius about wootz, clearly visible. Agree also that the handle scales are from ivory as well that the guard would look beautiful after a very careful cleaning. It's a very nice sword which need a good and careful restoration.

Regards,
Detlef

Not so sure about the rather fresh looking file marks on the handle. I think it has been through repair restoration and replacement.

Thanks for the information everyone. As I said, not my sphere of collecting so all of this is very helpfull.

I had not thought that the grips are ivory as I could not see any obvious schreger lines. One of the new photos, of the end of the pommel does look more like ivory now I have looked more closely.

Tim, I cannot account for the file marks, but if you look at the new photos, I do not think anything about the hilt could be called "fresh" I don't think the grips have been off for a while. If it has been restored and replaced it looks as though it was a good while ago.

Thanks again
Roy

Hello Roy,

the blade looks pattern-welded to me, not wootz.

Anyway, it is quality work AFAIK...

Regards,
Kai

Its a very nice old Persian blade mounted in English hilt to my eyes. I can't point out anything else which has not already been mentioned.

Richard Delar might chime in here as there is a well written discourse on The English Mameluke Cavalry Officers sword.

Gavin

Not only is it wootz, but the last photo above clearly suggests a ladder pattern.

Better pics Roy, clearly original.

The very last picture in the Royston's array shows small pieces of handle material inserted by the crossguard and the pommel seems to show discolorations (?) at the inner parts. I cannot be certain whether it is the minor remnant of the inner part of the cattle bone or true ivory: only Royston can tell.
If it is a Mameluke style ( which it is) it cannot date to 18th century. Those appeared only in the 19th, more around the middle of it.
It lacks the precision of British General grade Mamelukes, thus I would suspect native Indian manufacture.

The rough finish bothered me too.

Why is the grip more corroded than the blade? It is usually the other way round.

I know this is not related but why cant I post or respond to posts in the "swap" forum?

Tim,

I think the blade was just cleaned. There is rust under and around the langets. .

I do not think this Mameluke was "re-assembled": IMHO it is 100% genuine. Old, mildly repaired, but genuine.

Hello Oliver,

You have way more experience with these pieces but please have a look at this pic again (I tried to enhance the contrast):
1. I do see the ladder-like manipulation - from the limited area shown it doesn't seem to be very regular though.
2. I still see a pattern-welded blade here, not wootz.


Roy, could you post some more close-ups and possibly a somewhat larger stretch of the blade if a repeated ladder-like pattern can be seen?

Regards,
Kai

Ariel,

Many early Ottoman, Persian and Indian blades have been mounted in the Mameluke "English" dress.
As Delar notes, In 1822, Official sanction was given for the sword type to be included in the dress regulations for the British army....prior to this he notes, that from 1805-1822 there is evidence of use in the elite units of the army. By 1810, the sword type had established itself.
Of note, Swords for Sea service show two Ottoman and one Persian swords presented to Officers...this and what Delar notes about the sacking of various arsenals, it is easy to see the transition of the sword type from regulation hilt styles with earlier non EU blades to the form as it is known today.

Gavin

That's exactly what I had in mind: the "British" handle without the D-guard and with a smaller round pommel became popular toward the mid-19 century. That was a classic Europeanized Mameluke sword. Also, there is a matter of semantics: what do we mean "Mameluke"? Wellington carried what he and others called a "Mameluke" from his service in India, but that was a very Indianized sword, with all-metal brass (?) handle, D- guard and Tulwar-like langets.

The one under discussion is a somewhat crudish copy of the classic British one, 1831 pattern, but without sculpted British cross guard, with Oriental decorations on the strap, Oriental blade, crude lion mark. All together , these features suggest to me a non-Iranian attempt to produce a British type of a Mameluke sword. These were made in India both pre and post Sepoy mutiny, likely mostly for British officers. That's why I vote for its Indian origin and 19 century.

Hello Kai,

One essential thing to remember is that the photo shows a greatly enlarged patterning.

It is undoubtedly Persian wootz, albeit I am not so sure abbout the Kirk Narduban feature as there is not enough of the blade in the photo to see any repeating pattern, and the enlarged photo can be misleading.

Not necessarily Persian: Indian masters were making similar ( and better) patterns since 17th century. Mughals brought Persian sword makers to their court early on, and they taught the locals.

Not being the best photographer in the world, these are the best that I can manage since I broke my wide angle lens recently.
You can see the blade gets darker where I have not done any cleaning.
Hope they are of some help
regards
Roy

I wouldn't clean it, just oil.

May I ask why? Also when you don't want to polish and etch the blade and prefer a blade with old patina is the careful cleaning Royston has given the blade (so far I can see) will bring out only the beauty from this blade and will prevent corrosion. :shrug:

Regards,
Detlef