Shamshir, ID and translation please

[kai]

Hello Roy,

the blade looks pattern-welded to me, not wootz.

Anyway, it is quality work AFAIK...

Regards,
Kai

[Gavin Nugent]

Its a very nice old Persian blade mounted in English hilt to my eyes. I can't point out anything else which has not already been mentioned.

Richard Delar might chime in here as there is a well written discourse on The English Mameluke Cavalry Officers sword.

Gavin

[Oliver Pinchot]

Not only is it wootz, but the last photo above clearly suggests a ladder pattern.

[Tim Simmons]

Better pics Roy, clearly original.

[ariel]

The very last picture in the Royston's array shows small pieces of handle material inserted by the crossguard and the pommel seems to show discolorations (?) at the inner parts. I cannot be certain whether it is the minor remnant of the inner part of the cattle bone or true ivory: only Royston can tell.
If it is a Mameluke style ( which it is) it cannot date to 18th century. Those appeared only in the 19th, more around the middle of it.
It lacks the precision of British General grade Mamelukes, thus I would suspect native Indian manufacture.

[Tim Simmons]

The rough finish bothered me too.

[Tim Simmons]

Why is the grip more corroded than the blade? It is usually the other way round.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by ariel

The very last picture in the Royston's array shows small pieces of handle material inserted by the crossguard and the pommel seems to show discolorations (?) at the inner parts. I cannot be certain whether it is the minor remnant of the inner part of the cattle bone or true ivory: only Royston can tell.
If it is a Mameluke style ( which it is) it cannot date to 18th century. Those appeared only in the 19th, more around the middle of it.
It lacks the precision of British General grade Mamelukes, thus I would suspect native Indian manufacture.

Ariel,

Many early Ottoman, Persian and Indian blades have been mounted in the Mameluke "English" dress.
As Delar notes, In 1822, Official sanction was given for the sword type to be included in the dress regulations for the British army....prior to this he notes, that from 1805-1822 there is evidence of use in the elite units of the army. By 1810, the sword type had established itself.
Of note, Swords for Sea service show two Ottoman and one Persian swords presented to Officers...this and what Delar notes about the sacking of various arsenals, it is easy to see the transition of the sword type from regulation hilt styles with earlier non EU blades to the form as it is known today.

Gavin

[ariel]

That's exactly what I had in mind: the "British" handle without the D-guard and with a smaller round pommel became popular toward the mid-19 century. That was a classic Europeanized Mameluke sword. Also, there is a matter of semantics: what do we mean "Mameluke"? Wellington carried what he and others called a "Mameluke" from his service in India, but that was a very Indianized sword, with all-metal brass (?) handle, D- guard and Tulwar-like langets.

The one under discussion is a somewhat crudish copy of the classic British one, 1831 pattern, but without sculpted British cross guard, with Oriental decorations on the strap, Oriental blade, crude lion mark. All together , these features suggest to me a non-Iranian attempt to produce a British type of a Mameluke sword. These were made in India both pre and post Sepoy mutiny, likely mostly for British officers. That's why I vote for its Indian origin and 19 century.

[kai]

Hello Oliver,

Not only is it wootz, but the last photo above clearly suggests a ladder pattern.

You have way more experience with these pieces but please have a look at this pic again (I tried to enhance the contrast):
1. I do see the ladder-like manipulation - from the limited area shown it doesn't seem to be very regular though.
2. I still see a pattern-welded blade here, not wootz.


Roy, could you post some more close-ups and possibly a somewhat larger stretch of the blade if a repeated ladder-like pattern can be seen?

Regards,
Kai

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Oliver,


You have way more experience with these pieces but please have a look at this pic again (I tried to enhance the contrast):
1. I do see the ladder-like manipulation - from the limited area shown it doesn't seem to be very regular though.
2. I still see a pattern-welded blade here, not wootz.


Roy, could you post some more close-ups and possibly a somewhat larger stretch of the blade if a repeated ladder-like pattern can be seen?

Regards,
Kai

Hello Kai,

One essential thing to remember is that the photo shows a greatly enlarged patterning.

It is undoubtedly Persian wootz, albeit I am not so sure abbout the Kirk Narduban feature as there is not enough of the blade in the photo to see any repeating pattern, and the enlarged photo can be misleading.

[ariel]

Not necessarily Persian: Indian masters were making similar ( and better) patterns since 17th century. Mughals brought Persian sword makers to their court early on, and they taught the locals.