|
29th December 2015, 09:11 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 584
|
Indian Daggers?
Hi Everyone,
Whilst rooting in my collection I came across these three daggers which I think are 19th C. Dagger No1:- I think that this is Indian with Arab influence, possibly from Bhuj. It is all steel construction with steel scabbard being decorated with koftgari work. Overall length is 12.5 ins with a blade length of 8 ins x 1.375 ins wide. Dagger No2:- I think that this is also Indian of all steel construction having a hilt of pistol or stylised birds head form with a chiselled foliage decoration. The blade is of flamboyant form with a decorated cartouche on each side. The scabbard is of velvet covered wood, the nap having worn off the velvet. Overall length is 18 ins with a blade length of 12.75 ins and width of 1.75 ins. Dagger No3:- I am not sure whether this is Indian or Qajar period Persian. It is of all steel construction with a steel scabbard, the hilt and scabbard being decorated in a similar manner to Dagger No1. Overall length is 15.5 ins with a blade length of 10.25 ins and width of 2 ins. Your comments and confirmation or otherwise of origins and dating would be greatly appreciated. Regards Miguel |
29th December 2015, 09:16 PM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 584
|
Dagger No2:-
|
29th December 2015, 09:19 PM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 584
|
Dagger No3:-
|
29th December 2015, 09:55 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
Hello, Miguel
You're right, no.1 is Indian, rather modern, not much Arab influence, more of a novelty item to resemble Mughal style. The blade is of "tiger-eye" pattern, late 20 C. No.2 is Persian Qajar, decent quality for this type, late 19/early 20C. No. 3 is Persian/Indo-Persian), not as old as 2 but not as "recent" as 1) |
29th December 2015, 10:03 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
I have an uneasy feeling that all of them are either fully modern or assembled from new and somewhat older parts.
BTW, isn't the handle on #2 put backward? The pommel should be on the blade's convex side. Am I wrong? |
29th December 2015, 10:08 PM | #6 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
Ariel, you're right. No 2 has handle other way, but it is Qajar nevertheless, could be for some reason or design it is that way, it looks matching as an item.
|
31st December 2015, 08:11 PM | #7 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 584
|
Quote:
Thank you very much for your comments, I never ceased to be impressed by yours and other members knowledge, I learn something every time. Would you say then that the first piece is meant for tourists or made to deceive? Thank you again and I wish you a Happy New Year. Regards Miguel |
|
2nd January 2016, 08:28 PM | #8 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
Quote:
Yes, this would be proper assessment. First was made for the decorative purposes. even though the blade is damascus, the technique is relatively simple, and it was not meant for use. Happy New Year to you too! |
|
|
|