Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES
Gav
What part of "We" do you not understand?
Lew
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES
Gav
We being the other formites who posted their comments and did not think your kindjal was circa 1860.
Lew
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark
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.
|
regards
Gav