is it possible for blood/flesh to remain on a blade for over a century....

chevalier · 18th July 2008, 02:18 AM

...and still be recognizable as such?

im thinking about bidding on a moro kris that looks rusty but that supposedly isnt, and its claimed that the rusty stains are actually human blood/flesh, the blade dates from the late 19th/early 20th century and is supposedly still sharp.

im not sure why someone would outright lie like that when theres every chance that the deception will be discovered by the buyer so im left with the possibility that this sword was actually used in battle.

im just wondering weather the seller's claim of the reddish and yellowish stains on the blade being blood/flesh and not rust should be taken seriously..........

ward · 18th July 2008, 02:25 AM

That is a famous line. It is pretty doubtful that is the case

Atlantia · 18th July 2008, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevalier

...and still be recognizable as such?

im thinking about bidding on a moro kris that looks rusty but that supposedly isnt, and its claimed that the rusty stains are actually human blood/flesh, the blade dates from the late 19th/early 20th century and is supposedly still sharp.

im not sure why someone would outright lie like that when theres every chance that the deception will be discovered by the buyer so im left with the possibility that this sword was actually used in battle.

im just wondering weather the seller's claim of the reddish and yellowish stains on the blade being blood/flesh and not rust should be taken seriously..........

LOL, its not a 'nail from the true cross' is it?

The blood would corrode the ferrous metal, the oxidisation would push the 'blood' up from the surface as it became 'crusty', eventually it would flake off or just be indistinguishable from any other corroded stain or oxidisation.
I cant see it being recognisable after any amount of time, and anyway the blood would look black/dark brown anyway after a while.
Unless it was sealed in some oxygen free enviroment? ;-)

Sounds like a 'yarn' to me mate.

Rick · 18th July 2008, 03:25 AM

" Look out Charlie !! "

Do a search .

Mark · 18th July 2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

" Look out Charlie !! "

Do a search .

::snort!::

I got the same claim about one of the first dha I bought - that it had blood on it from the last Siamese-Burmese war (which was in 1767). Looking at the blade, its just a deep, irregular pit.

I would say that the stain (i.e., oxidation) left by blood can remain on the blade for a long time, but I agree that the blood itself would likely flake/rub off during the course of a century. If the balde were sealed (wax, varnish, oil, whatever), such that the blood didn't contact the blade, I suppose with care it could still be there, but IMO blood is too reactive to remain on exposed steel for that long.

PS: Supreme Kampilans Rule!!!!

VANDOO · 18th July 2008, 06:39 PM

BLOOD DOES HAVE A FAIRLY SHORT SHELF LIFE AS IT WILL ROT, DRY AND DEGRADE AS ALL THINGS FLESH DO. WITH TODAYS FORSENSIC SCIENCE IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE IF A RUSTY, CRUSTY AREA IS BLOOD AND PERHAPS IF IT IS ANIMAL OR HUMAN BUT I INAGINE THERE WOULD BE A TIME LIMIT BEFORE IT WAS TOO FAR DEGRADED TO TEST. SOME OLD RUST PATTERNS ON BLADES MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY BLOOD IN THE PAST AND AN EXPERT MIGHT BE ABLE TO TELL BY THE PATTERN OR SOMETHING BUT USUALLY IT IS JUST A STORY OR GUESS AS TO WHAT CAUSED THE STAINS OR RUST.

IN THE LATE 1970'S I BOUGHT A YATAGAN IN HOUSTON TEXAS, IT HAD A LOT OF THICK BLACK STICKY SUBSTANCE IN THE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE BLADE. I WASHED IT OFF AND IT PROVED TO BE BLOOD , I DON'T KNOW THE TYPE AND DID NOT REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY, BUT SOMETIMES I STILL WONDER ABOUT IT.

mross · 18th July 2008, 08:20 PM

One other thing to consider. From what I have read of the Moro, no Moro would allow his sword to remain blood encrusted and thus rust. It would have been attended to at his earliest convenience. Buy the sword not the tale.

Nonoy Tan · 25th July 2008, 01:26 PM

Jim, the information you provided is interesting.

Indeed, advances in science has the power to bring forth new information (never thought possible to obtain) and destroys old paradigms and limitations.

My primary reason for collecting is to preserve objects for future generations. This is why I try to as much as possible do minimal "treatment" (if any at all) of these weapons. My thinking is that I might destroy any important materials on the specimen, which can be important in the future. I prefer to preserve the object with everything on it, while balancing this with the goal of arresting any destructive element (e.g. rust). I personally dislike weapons that have obviously been heavily polished and cleaned. I feel that such processes destroy something about the object for future use, and primarily serves the interest and aesthetic/display objectives of its present owner. It is interesting that one can be provided a clue (though unverified) as to the owner's priorities and objectives for collecing, by observing how they keep their collection. IMHO only.

Jim McDougall · 25th July 2008, 11:54 PM

Thank you so much for acknowledging my post Nonoy Tan, it is very much appreciated. I enjoyed doing the research and relocating old notes and was hoping that the information might be interesting to someone since the topic is quite intriguing.

All very best regards,
Jim

18th July 2008, 02:18 AM	#1
chevalier Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 119	is it possible for blood/flesh to remain on a blade for over a century.... ...and still be recognizable as such? im thinking about bidding on a moro kris that looks rusty but that supposedly isnt, and its claimed that the rusty stains are actually human blood/flesh, the blade dates from the late 19th/early 20th century and is supposedly still sharp. im not sure why someone would outright lie like that when theres every chance that the deception will be discovered by the buyer so im left with the possibility that this sword was actually used in battle. im just wondering weather the seller's claim of the reddish and yellowish stains on the blade being blood/flesh and not rust should be taken seriously..........

18th July 2008, 02:25 AM	#2
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	That is a famous line. It is pretty doubtful that is the case

18th July 2008, 03:25 AM	#4
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	" Look out Charlie !! " Do a search .

18th July 2008, 06:39 PM	#6
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	BLOOD DOES HAVE A FAIRLY SHORT SHELF LIFE AS IT WILL ROT, DRY AND DEGRADE AS ALL THINGS FLESH DO. WITH TODAYS FORSENSIC SCIENCE IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE IF A RUSTY, CRUSTY AREA IS BLOOD AND PERHAPS IF IT IS ANIMAL OR HUMAN BUT I INAGINE THERE WOULD BE A TIME LIMIT BEFORE IT WAS TOO FAR DEGRADED TO TEST. SOME OLD RUST PATTERNS ON BLADES MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY BLOOD IN THE PAST AND AN EXPERT MIGHT BE ABLE TO TELL BY THE PATTERN OR SOMETHING BUT USUALLY IT IS JUST A STORY OR GUESS AS TO WHAT CAUSED THE STAINS OR RUST. IN THE LATE 1970'S I BOUGHT A YATAGAN IN HOUSTON TEXAS, IT HAD A LOT OF THICK BLACK STICKY SUBSTANCE IN THE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE BLADE. I WASHED IT OFF AND IT PROVED TO BE BLOOD , I DON'T KNOW THE TYPE AND DID NOT REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY, BUT SOMETIMES I STILL WONDER ABOUT IT.

18th July 2008, 08:20 PM	#7
mross Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 478	One other thing to consider. From what I have read of the Moro, no Moro would allow his sword to remain blood encrusted and thus rust. It would have been attended to at his earliest convenience. Buy the sword not the tale.

25th July 2008, 01:26 PM	#8
Nonoy Tan Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 293	Jim, the information you provided is interesting. Indeed, advances in science has the power to bring forth new information (never thought possible to obtain) and destroys old paradigms and limitations. My primary reason for collecting is to preserve objects for future generations. This is why I try to as much as possible do minimal "treatment" (if any at all) of these weapons. My thinking is that I might destroy any important materials on the specimen, which can be important in the future. I prefer to preserve the object with everything on it, while balancing this with the goal of arresting any destructive element (e.g. rust). I personally dislike weapons that have obviously been heavily polished and cleaned. I feel that such processes destroy something about the object for future use, and primarily serves the interest and aesthetic/display objectives of its present owner. It is interesting that one can be provided a clue (though unverified) as to the owner's priorities and objectives for collecing, by observing how they keep their collection. IMHO only.

25th July 2008, 11:54 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	Thank you so much for acknowledging my post Nonoy Tan, it is very much appreciated. I enjoyed doing the research and relocating old notes and was hoping that the information might be interesting to someone since the topic is quite intriguing. All very best regards, Jim