![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,242
|
![]()
The threads I linked asked the same question regarding size. Longest ones posted were in the 90+ cm so your example 100+ seems the longest yet. Turkish ribbon also points to older manufacture. Any date on the blade?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,258
|
![]()
Great swords, wonderful pictures and I really like the long katar or is that a pata ?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||||
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
Here are three discriptions of these long gauntlet katar swords by three different dealers. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
I have posted your T handled yatagan here and another long one. The bottom one is 35 inches or 89cm total length, blade length is 29 inches or 74 cm. The middle one according to your measurements has a 28" (71cm) long blade and the top one of yours has a 29" (74cm) blade that is 1.3cm thick at the base. Last edited by estcrh; 8th February 2016 at 11:13 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,242
|
![]()
Thank you.
This thread was also linked Any larger yataghan? That thread showed 3 long yataghan - 71cm blade - 92cm overall - 73cm blade The last one you posted looks like an old one with the twist core and gold inlay cartouche. Oldest date I came across on mine was 1826 I believe. I can't make out anything in your cartouche. Emanuel |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]()
Overall length 92 cm.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]()
73 CM BLADE.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
Your 1826 yataghan sports a "usual" blade.
What is interesting about Zeibek yataghans is their length, almost complete lack of decoration and the form and proportions of the blade. They do not have this elegant double-curve and the widening of the blade in the distal third, but are rather simply curved down, of relatively uniform width, often have a T-section and look relatively skinny vs. their exaggerated length. Also, similar to Bulgarian Karakulaks they have an integral bolster.Also, the triangular plates by the handle are very simple, unlike almost any other example. This makes me believe that by and large Zeibeks did not use mass-produced blades from the Balkans and other large centers, but have created their own separate pattern of the entire weapon that was produced locally from the beginning to the end. And you are right: the length must have made Zeibek yataghan clumsier than the classic one for a non-mounted warrior. Did they use them on horseback? Like Caucasian shashkas? :-) Very interesting...... Thanks for starting this discussion. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|