![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ireland
Posts: 539
|
![]()
Hi All
I just purchased the attached as part of a job lot. Not my area of collecting but we all know how hard it is to stay focused! It is the sharpest knife I have ever acquired with 13 inch blade and 5 inch handle Feels perfect in the hand with perfect balance The blade has some small forging flaws but they do not detract much, it had surface rust but this cleaned up very well. Nicely done hollow ground blade It has an internal tang with nothing showing on but of grip The carving on the handle is very well executed, this leads me to believe it may be something half special. Would anyone have any idea on age or origin. Much appreciated as ever. Ken |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 422
|
![]()
Looks like a late 19th century Nepalese kukri. The decorative carving looks original to the handle. It looks like the handle originally had the common raised ring, but it was removed some time during the working life of this kukri.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ireland
Posts: 539
|
![]()
Hi Timo
I see what you mean by the removal of the raised ring. Late 1800 would be a nice date to give to the khukuri, can you tell me what indicates this ( if you have a chance) Cheers Ken |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 422
|
![]()
Just comparing it with my own khukuris and other ones I've seen. It's most like the ones from the late 1800s. From the overall appearance, I'd say 1860(?) at the earliest, through to 1920s at the latest.
My impression is that the later ones tend to have bigger prongs in the notch/kaudi and are usually not as well made. So I'd guess late 19th century. But it could be a later very-well-made one. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Austin, Texas USA
Posts: 257
|
![]()
Ornamental bands in the chip carving style are frequently seen in better quality older Nepalese kukris:
![]() As with many details, the quality has declined in recent years. Yours certainly seems like an honest example of the earlier work. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|