mughal dagger with royal provenance

Battara · 8th June 2005, 10:06 PM

I agree with it being a composite. Although jade is hard, it is brittle too I think. The mix is a little strange.

B.I · 9th June 2005, 12:19 AM

hi,
would jim, jens and battara (or anyone else) like to put a value on this. i'm not looking for a valuation as such, but just curious how you would judge this, going from all your assumptions. i valued it in my head, and still think i was accurate. but, in reality (the place outside my own head) i was completely wrong. the value, in this case, is an attribution to its description, given the supposition of provenance and in this case, i hope the moderators will agree. the piece is sold and now locked away permanantly in a collection, but someone paid the price, according to his faith in its described history. you can only judge what you see and go by your feelings. i felt this was put together, maybe just before entering the first 'known' owner in its recent history. the seller and buyer disagreed. i am not relenting as my feelings havent changed. look forward to a few stabs, no matter how wild.

Jim McDougall · 9th June 2005, 04:41 AM

Hi Brian,
It seems we have all agreed that there is a great deal of speculation concerning this piece and certainly such provenance as associated with it only begs for scrutiny and support. Your astute observations and determined questions are hallmarks of your scholarship and knowledge on these weapons, and it is doubtful that further assessment as far as value would be useful. I have always thought that public discussion on these matters is best avoided here so I would forego estimates of valuation, but would very much be interested in continuing the research and discussion.

I think the observations you guys have made on the hilt materials are most interesting, and since this topic is out of my scope, I continue to focus on the blade and markings. I agree with Jens that this is likely a very early blade, but am still wondering on the marking. CR certainly does seem possible for Charles Rex, but did he use that type marking or title on personal items etc?

All the best,
Jim

B.I · 9th June 2005, 09:37 AM

hi jim,
you are right, of course, in that the price has no bearing on the actual piece. but, i wasnt after a valuation for future reference, but rather a discussion on how you percieve a piece. if you are a collector, and not just a pure academic, then the value will run along side importance. you will price something according to all the boxes the piece ticks. some people will value things higher that others, and the market itself because he sees something there that others dont.
this piece is a great example, in that all those that commented found fault, whether to question the blade, the date, or the composition. no one in their right mind would rely purely on someone elses speculation, and you have to question everything and try to soak in all data (including market value) and then attempt some sort of conclusion. if your own speculation marries up with that of the original description, then you are ahead of the game. if not, then you are left confused when someone comes along that disagrees.
someone did disagree and paid a staggering £96000 for it ($175,250).
this makes you rethink for a moment, then you sit back comfortably and trust your initial thoughts.
the purpose of this post, was not just to list an interesting dagger, but also a statement of how easy it is to just believe what you read and base your own assessment on someone elses.
crazy world, eh!

Jens Nordlunde · 9th June 2005, 01:57 PM

It should be possible to determine if the marking is the marking Charles I used, if it is not exactly the same, it could have been made in India. This kind of markings are very often used by kings and queens, and I see no reason why this mar should not stand for king Charles I. Any other postulates

?

I guess the seller must have been very pleased with the price. My bit would probably have been where the auction house started the bidding

.

Jim McDougall · 10th June 2005, 02:25 AM

Hi Brian,
Thank you so much for the outstanding explanation on that. I suspected this was your course but wanted to be sure, and now that you explain the perspective it makes perfect sense. Nicely done

!!
I cannot even imagine the prices being paid for these weapons these days!!Thats why I'm just a researcher!!

Jens,
I'm with you on the bidding level where my card would have hit the floor.
I think your idea on the marking is on target, and perhaps we need to find other items used by Charles I that might reflect similar markings.

All the best,
Jim

9th June 2005, 01:57 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	It should be possible to determine if the marking is the marking Charles I used, if it is not exactly the same, it could have been made in India. This kind of markings are very often used by kings and queens, and I see no reason why this mar should not stand for king Charles I. Any other postulates? I guess the seller must have been very pleased with the price. My bit would probably have been where the auction house started the bidding.

8th June 2005, 10:06 PM	#1
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,280	I agree with it being a composite. Although jade is hard, it is brittle too I think. The mix is a little strange.

9th June 2005, 12:19 AM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi, would jim, jens and battara (or anyone else) like to put a value on this. i'm not looking for a valuation as such, but just curious how you would judge this, going from all your assumptions. i valued it in my head, and still think i was accurate. but, in reality (the place outside my own head) i was completely wrong. the value, in this case, is an attribution to its description, given the supposition of provenance and in this case, i hope the moderators will agree. the piece is sold and now locked away permanantly in a collection, but someone paid the price, according to his faith in its described history. you can only judge what you see and go by your feelings. i felt this was put together, maybe just before entering the first 'known' owner in its recent history. the seller and buyer disagreed. i am not relenting as my feelings havent changed. look forward to a few stabs, no matter how wild.

9th June 2005, 04:41 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,278	Hi Brian, It seems we have all agreed that there is a great deal of speculation concerning this piece and certainly such provenance as associated with it only begs for scrutiny and support. Your astute observations and determined questions are hallmarks of your scholarship and knowledge on these weapons, and it is doubtful that further assessment as far as value would be useful. I have always thought that public discussion on these matters is best avoided here so I would forego estimates of valuation, but would very much be interested in continuing the research and discussion. I think the observations you guys have made on the hilt materials are most interesting, and since this topic is out of my scope, I continue to focus on the blade and markings. I agree with Jens that this is likely a very early blade, but am still wondering on the marking. CR certainly does seem possible for Charles Rex, but did he use that type marking or title on personal items etc? All the best, Jim

9th June 2005, 09:37 AM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jim, you are right, of course, in that the price has no bearing on the actual piece. but, i wasnt after a valuation for future reference, but rather a discussion on how you percieve a piece. if you are a collector, and not just a pure academic, then the value will run along side importance. you will price something according to all the boxes the piece ticks. some people will value things higher that others, and the market itself because he sees something there that others dont. this piece is a great example, in that all those that commented found fault, whether to question the blade, the date, or the composition. no one in their right mind would rely purely on someone elses speculation, and you have to question everything and try to soak in all data (including market value) and then attempt some sort of conclusion. if your own speculation marries up with that of the original description, then you are ahead of the game. if not, then you are left confused when someone comes along that disagrees. someone did disagree and paid a staggering £96000 for it ($175,250). this makes you rethink for a moment, then you sit back comfortably and trust your initial thoughts. the purpose of this post, was not just to list an interesting dagger, but also a statement of how easy it is to just believe what you read and base your own assessment on someone elses. crazy world, eh!

10th June 2005, 02:25 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,278	Hi Brian, Thank you so much for the outstanding explanation on that. I suspected this was your course but wanted to be sure, and now that you explain the perspective it makes perfect sense. Nicely done !! I cannot even imagine the prices being paid for these weapons these days!!Thats why I'm just a researcher!! Jens, I'm with you on the bidding level where my card would have hit the floor. I think your idea on the marking is on target, and perhaps we need to find other items used by Charles I that might reflect similar markings. All the best, Jim