Chinese daggers - more colourful as christmas trees

[Gonzoadler]

The cloisonné or cell enamel is an old chinese technique and you can find that on much older pieces. So this is no real criterion. The silver mountings have a similar "handwriting" like them from the showed pieces in my opinion. So I would say it is the same "factory" which made them. The carving of the stones seems to be better, but some of the stones on the vases are much bigger and easier to carve. Of course some carvings are simply better, but not all. The vases and teapots are very different in their configuration, too. And I found some ornate chinese silverworks with enamel and filigree. Of course it is a thing of believe how old they are. Personally I think most of this pieces are made between 1880 and the 1930s. After the Japanese invasion the circumstances in China don´t let me believe, that they still made such pieces.

Regards

[Kubur]

Dear All,

Just to add some fuel to the engine (not on the fire).
As it was said by Jim and Mahratt, these daggers are not very old and mostly decorative.
Saying that, I also agree with Gonzoadler, these daggers are not crap, they aren't all the same, some of them are very well made and probably early 20th c. let's say 1920ties...
The recent ones are for tourists, but for the very well made ones and the oldest ones, I believe that they were diplomatic gifts.
As it was said by Philip they are not ritual, despite some Buddhist elements.
It will be nice to add to the discussion the swords, that you can find in the book sword and sabers. The book is full of mistakes and it's not a reference, but these swords appear in other books, such as Robert Hales. Again RH is not an academic reference, but the man spent his life collecting and we can give him some credits about the quality of these objects.
In short, these daggers and swords are not ethnographic but they are pieces of art to me.

Kubur

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Dear All,

Just to add some fuel to the engine (not on the fire).
As it was said by Jim and Mahratt, these daggers are not very old and mostly decorative.
Saying that, I also agree with Gonzoadler, these daggers are not crap, they aren't all the same, some of them are very well made and probably early 20th c. let's say 1920ties...
The recent ones are for tourists, but for the very well made ones and the oldest ones, I believe that they were diplomatic gifts.
As it was said by Philip they are not ritual, despite some Buddhist elements.
It will be nice to add to the discussion the swords, that you can find in the book sword and sabers. The book is full of mistakes and it's not a reference, but these swords appear in other books, such as Robert Hales. Again RH is not an academic reference, but the man spent his life collecting and we can give him some credits about the quality of these objects.
In short, these daggers and swords are not ethnographic but they are pieces of art to me.

Kubur

Kubur,
Thanks so much for the photo from Robert Hales. Now, when we place the photo next to it, all the differences in the decoration techniques are visible.

And by the way, I can't remember this shape of knives in China And you?

[Rick]

I have noticed that all the examples are decorated with an off-white jade; I've heard this color referred to as Mutton Fat. Is there something special about this color for it to be seen so often as a decorative element?

[Gonzoadler]

@Mahratt
Filigree, jade cabouchons, turquoise, corals, similar hanger with the same small silver ring...
Sorry, I can't see big differences. And why some differences are allowed if we compare tea pots?
And why it has to be a common dagger type of the past?
Are there no new forms at the end of the 19th. century in other cultures?

[David]

So i'm trying to understand just what opinion you are most offended by here. Is it the insistence that your daggers are more likely early 20th century than late 19th century or is it the idea that these were most probably made for export to Western collectors?
This is not exactly the same style as your daggers, but here is an image from Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weaponry (frankly i don't know much about this source) that makes mention of Chinese cloisonné daggers and makes the claim that they were created for sale to the West.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by David

here is an image from Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weaponry (frankly i don't know much about this source) that makes mention of Chinese cloisonné daggers and makes the claim that they were created for sale to the West.

The style of the motifs themselves, the color scheme, and the workmanship of the cloisonnée are indeed consistent with that medium as seen on any number of curio articles produced in China during the period cited. I've lost count of all the ashtrays I've seen at estate sales with exactly the same patterns, the underside below the foot-rim done up with the plain lumpy turquoise enamel seen on other articles from the twilight of the Qing and early Republic.

The usefulness of these daggers as letter openers and little else is something I can back up with observation -- in my career in restoration I have encountered a few with detached blades, revealing a matchstick-sized tang held in the metal or jade hilt with a bit of resin adhesive. Exactly like the vast majority of (much pricier) jade and crystal hilted Mughal daggers that collectors seem to go gaga over -- blingy but feckless.

[Gonzoadler]

Originally Posted by David

So i'm trying to understand just what opinion you are most offended by here. Is it the insistence that your daggers are more likely early 20th century than late 19th century or is it the idea that these were most probably made for export to Western collectors?
This is not exactly the same style as your daggers, but here is an image from Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weaponry (frankly i don't know much about this source) that makes mention of Chinese cloisonné daggers and makes the claim that they were created for sale to the West.

I think that these daggers are probably made for the western market is a consence here. Maybe some of them are official presents, but that is speculative.

And I don't debate because of one or two decades. The actual theme of the discussion is: Are these daggers new souvenirs (maybe 70s) or are they old (early 20th, maybe late 19th century). I think my daggers are old.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by mahratt

And by the way, I can't remember this shape of knives in China And you?

Hello, Mahratt!

Let's say that the overall shape of these knives can be described as "Chinese-ish" . Or as I like to say, "close but no cigar". Let's see:

1. The blade shape resembles the exaggerated version of the tip of many Chinese sabers of the late Imperial period. At first hurried glance I wondered if these might be recycled tips of broken or discarded sabers (in an earlier post I mentioned seeing these silver decorative weapons with re-used (generally shortened) Chinese or Japanese blades. But the curve on these is too abrupt to have come offan actual saber. Furthermore the fuller seems to end before the guard, whereas a saber tip would have the channel continuing further back along its original length.

2. The flattened discoid guard does have stylistic antecedents in the tsuba-like guards typical of Chinese (and also most Korean and Vietnamese) sabers, and even some double edged swords.

3. Downward-curving grips are also a feature of Chinese saber hilts, coming into vogue from the late 18th cent. onwards but traceable to a few depictions in Ming/Qing transition period art, some surviving examples, and even to the handles of bronze Ordos-basin finds from the classical bronze age.

But looked at in toto, these knives are best regarded as a fanciful interpretation of these early forms, plus decorative motifs from Inner Asia, to create such a delightful mishmosh. Sort of what Madama Butterfly and Turandot are to Kabuki and Peking opera, respectively.

[mahratt]

[QUOTE=Philip]Hello, Mahratt!

But looked at in toto, these knives are best regarded as a fanciful interpretation of these early forms, plus decorative motifs from Inner Asia, to create such a delightful mishmosh. Sort of what Madama Butterfly and

Bravo. Very precise wording.

[asomotif]

Originally Posted by Philip

.....

But looked at in toto, these knives are best regarded as a fanciful interpretation of these early forms, plus decorative motifs from Inner Asia, to create such a delightful mishmosh. Sort of what Madama Butterfly and Turandot are to Kabuki and Peking opera, respectively.

Nice comparison. But I do like Puccini. Comparing him with these chistmasy chinese bling daggers / letter openers does not do him justice...

[ariel]

Gentlemen,
There is no doubt that these daggers were made as souvenirs for the Westerners sometimes in the the 20th ( 21st?) century. We just cannot be sure when exactly: Chinese manufacturers saw commercial success of the model and adhered to it. We may only guess their age by their physical condition. Personally, I would not want them in my collection. But by the same token, I would not want in my collection any Chinese weapon: not my area of interest and not my taste. Some people collect ridiculous things like postal stamps:-)
Collecting is a very personal experience just like art in general and music in particular. Having sat through a Kabuki performance, I definitely prefer Madama Butterfly. On top of that, all of us have our personal Walls of Shame with things bought on a spur of the moment and being more or less fake-y.
With all that, this Forum is a sounding board. All of us have a right and an obligation to offer an honest opinion about an object presented here for general discussion. Philip's remarks fall right into that category and based on his vast knowledge of the subject are immensely valuable. The majority of participants also adhered to that mode of discussion.

But I do not think that supercilious, sarcastic and personal remarks should have a place here, especially from those of us not knowing much (or anything) about Chinese history, art, weapons, decoration, techniques etc.

Guy Francis Laking was known for his custom of never denigrating the owner and always saying a good thing or two about any object brought to him for authentication. Let's adhere to that gentlemanly principle. Let's concentrate on the "problem", not on the "drama".

My 5 cents.

[fernando]

Actually, after Ian's advice, i hardly saw a window to insist in beating a dead horse or, as we say in my neck of the woods, in raining on the wet .

[motan]

Thank you Ariel for your appeasing comment.
My knowledge on Chinese weapons =0 and therefore, I followed this debate as a spectator. But since this type of arguments are a recurring theme in the forum, the subject is interesting for all.
I do not even think that Gonzoadler originally meant to present these daggers as valuable historical items - see the title - but it just escalated because some remarks were intentionally dismissive.
On the other hand, this forum would not be much fun if we could not joke and argue sometimes. It is not easy for everybody to find the right balance and I have also been on the receiving end of such remarks in the past.

As for the issue of authenticity itself, this is a constant dilemma for most collectors, and especially the those who can not afford high-end items. I personally try to avoid types that were not made for local use at any stage of their life, even if they are well made. For example, I avoid all-metal Syrian daggers with silver koftgari because I have never seen one that has been carried or used.

This issue is even more difficult for the many types of weapons that moved seamlessly from authentic items into the tourist trade, while still also in use by locals, like koummyas, Arabian jambiyas and khanjars, Majdali dagger, shibriyas and I guess, several Indian, South-east Asian and Oceanic weapons too. As Ariel said, it is a matter of personal taste and you can agree or disagree as long as you do it properly

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Gonzoadler

After the Japanese invasion the circumstances in China don´t let me believe, that they still made such pieces.

Regards

The production seemed to have continued, at a respectable quality level, after WW II and even post-Mao. On two trips to China during the 1970s, I was taken to artisanal "factories" where various high-end decorative art objects were crafted, and both daggers and full-length swords of similar type were being made. Once I was shown a jade hilt in process, intended to go on a custom-ordered repro of a gilt Qianlong era dagger. This sort of stuff was at that time offered at retail only in exclusive gift shops in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, which were off limits to the local yokels (who couldn't afford the prices anyway), and which were geared towards overseas visitors, which at that time were mostly embassy folks, businessmen, academics, and high-end tourists.