![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
![]()
My first guess was for wootz. Not the best quality pattern, but I think it is wootz... if judging by appearance. The chemanalysis would propably not confirm it:-)
Sham is by definition low contrast, and the contrast is high here, hence I'd not vote for sham. Last edited by ALEX; 9th January 2009 at 06:36 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Paris (FR*) Cairo (EG)
Posts: 1,142
|
![]() Quote:
![]() à + Dom |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,086
|
![]()
In the woostz spectrum, most patterns with a very elongated grain, like this one, I would typically refer to as sham. As Alex states, most sham tends to have low contrast but I have seen over the years some with bolder contrast but all always have the real elongated pattern.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
OK, next step:
This is an old Russian dagger. Would it be Anosov/Chernov's bulat? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|