What can you tell me about this sword?

ariel · 16th September 2019, 12:06 AM

All of us here are called to express their opinion based on photographic images. This is a big limitation, no doubt.
And you are correct: the urge to defend their choice is inherent in human psychology. That’s why many people stick to their abusive or drug-addicted spouses.

Ren Ren · 16th September 2019, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

All of us here are called to express their opinion based on photographic images. This is a big limitation, no doubt.
And you are correct: the urge to defend their choice is inherent in human psychology. That’s why many people stick to their abusive or drug-addicted spouses.

Oh yeah! I met collectors for whom their items were closer and more expensive than children and spouses. This has a lot in common with drug addiction

Drabant1701 · 16th September 2019, 08:48 AM

Greetings Eric,
I am no expert in russian swords so I can not tell you if its real or a reproduction. I do hovever think that the provenance of the sword might help in determining if it its the real deal. There is a big difference between finding it in in the attic of someone who was an officer in the imperial russian army and buying it on E-bay from India.

I must say if its a reproduction it looks very authentic. I have however seen a large italian auction house sell several reproduction shashka (described as second half of the 20th century) that looked pretty old and authentic to my untrained eye

erikmarko · 16th September 2019, 09:09 AM

Hi Drabant, the sword was bought at some small flea market on the west coast of Canada. We do have a quite a few Russian immigrants. The interesting thing about the sword is that the entire blade was covered in thick gunky substances I guess to protect it from rusting. So we did not really knew what the blade looked like all we saw was the hilt that got our attention. I'm thinking that if the sword was fake and someone wanted it to look old they would not cover it in the gunky stuff to protect it from rusting.

ariel · 16th September 2019, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drabant1701

Greetings Eric,
I am no expert in russian swords so I can not tell you if its real or a reproduction. I do hovever think that the provenance of the sword might help in determining if it its the real deal. There is a big difference between finding it in in the attic of someone who was an officer in the imperial russian army and buying it on E-bay from India.

I must say if its a reproduction it looks very authentic. I have however seen a large italian auction house sell several reproduction shashka (described as second half of the 20th century) that looked pretty old and authentic to my untrained eye

Getting provenance data from a seller may be intriguing: any self-respecting dealer in forgeries has at least 3 versions ready. At least two will include personal friendship with Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great.

By the way, my son just came back from Georgia ( he climbed Mount Kazbek) and sent me pics of unending street stalls in Tbilisi with dozens of kindjals and shashkas for sale.

mariusgmioc · 16th September 2019, 03:28 PM

Genuine, traditional Katanas are made as we speak, and they are neither fakes, nor reproductions. Moreover, most of them cost more than 90% of the antique katanas on the market.

High quality Omani Khanjars are made as we speak and sold in the souk of Muscat. And they are neither fake, nor reproductions.

Stuning Indonesian krisses are made as we speak and many of them are much more expensive that the vast majority of antique kerises, and they are neither fake, nor reproductions.

So let us set things straight:
if a blade is of modern manufacture, that doesn't make it neither fake, nor a reproduction!

A "fake" is something made with the intention to deceive, and isn't necessarily of modern manufacture.

There are many "fake" 16th century katanas made by more or less obscure swordsmiths but signed with famous names of the period. However, such a sword is considered a "fake" ONLY if it is sold as a genuine masterpiece of the famous swordsmith. If the very same sword is sold openly as "gimei" (with fake signatue), it can fetch good money and would not be considered "fake" (but just the signature).

One can sell a magnificent 19th century rapier without being considered a fake, but a piece of the "historicism". Yet, if the same rapier is sold as a genuine 16th century piece, instantly it becomes a fake.

Now with regards to reproductions, the term may be equally ambiguous but I consider a reproduction, an object which looks like the original but cannot function (or will function improperly) like the original.

So you can have a Chinese made katana, of stainless steel with no cutting edge, that looks great to be hanged on the wall but cannot cut a sheet of paper. That would be a reproduction.

But if you have a razor sharp Chinese katana, made of high quality steel that can cut like an 16th century original (albeit they quite often cut much better), then I wouldn't call it a reproduction.

Just a few thoughts...

Will M · 16th September 2019, 03:54 PM

What use is a 16th century signature on a modern made sword? Reproduced proof markings also are fake as the weapon was never officially proofed. Whether old repros/fakes or modern these items are made to deceive. Recent European made Napoleonic swords are much more accurate to originals, why? It takes only some exposure to weather then a clean to give them "aged patina".
My point is the only reason many of these copies, repros, fakes sell is because they market to fraudulent sellers. Mixing of authentic and fakes for sale is to give authenticity to the fake.
That's my two cents, authentic or fake.

ariel · 16th September 2019, 04:09 PM

Marius,
To summarize your perfectly accurate post, there is a sharp line between "fake" and " reproduction": intent to deceive.
From there on, dividing lines become more and more blurry: "reproduction" vs. " composite", " composite" vs. " restored" etc.
The majority of genuinely old Indian sword are "composite", as convincingly demonstrated by Elgood: blade and handle do not coincide. That does not disqualify them from being genuine if the "marriage" occured during working life of the sword. The same is true about scabbards: original ones rarely survive 200-300 years, and may be of a third or tenth generation. But what about recently replaced Indian handle? Is it legitimate composition ( this is exactly what the old owners did!) or something more sinister? "Restored" depends on the degree of restoration: excavated swords require active involvement to prevent disintegration. But I have seen allegedly genuine excavated swords "preserved" with tannate, but with perfectly sharp complex edges, obviously untouched by rusting.

Important to remember that many old museum paintings and frescoes were "restored" ( Sistine Chapel!), that perfectly white ancient Greek marble statues were originally garishly painted, and that some were reassembled and re-glued.

IMHO, at the end of the day, the intent to deceive is what counts.

Rick · 16th September 2019, 09:32 PM

I would like to add that in this entire discussion we have not seen a single picture of this sword in its entirety.
Why is that?

mross · 17th September 2019, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Genuine, traditional Katanas are made as we speak, and they are neither fakes, nor reproductions. Moreover, most of them cost more than 90% of the antique katanas on the market.

High quality Omani Khanjars are made as we speak and sold in the souk of Muscat. And they are neither fake, nor reproductions.

Stuning Indonesian krisses are made as we speak and many of them are much more expensive that the vast majority of antique kerises, and they are neither fake, nor reproductions.

So let us set things straight:
if a blade is of modern manufacture, that doesn't make it neither fake, nor a reproduction!

A "fake" is something made with the intention to deceive, and isn't necessarily of modern manufacture.

There are many "fake" 16th century katanas made by more or less obscure swordsmiths but signed with famous names of the period. However, such a sword is considered a "fake" ONLY if it is sold as a genuine masterpiece of the famous swordsmith. If the very same sword is sold openly as "gimei" (with fake signatue), it can fetch good money and would not be considered "fake" (but just the signature).

One can sell a magnificent 19th century rapier without being considered a fake, but a piece of the "historicism". Yet, if the same rapier is sold as a genuine 16th century piece, instantly it becomes a fake.

Now with regards to reproductions, the term may be equally ambiguous but I consider a reproduction, an object which looks like the original but cannot function (or will function improperly) like the original.

So you can have a Chinese made katana, of stainless steel with no cutting edge, that looks great to be hanged on the wall but cannot cut a sheet of paper. That would be a reproduction.

But if you have a razor sharp Chinese katana, made of high quality steel that can cut like an 16th century original (albeit they quite often cut much better), then I wouldn't call it a reproduction.

Just a few thoughts...

The only thing I disagree with is your last line about the katana. If it is not made by a certified Japanese trained smith then it is a reproduction. Granted there are quite a few smith who made excellent katana, Atar, Big Ear, too name a few, but they are considered Japanese Style. The Nihonto world is very picky on this point.

Jim McDougall · 17th September 2019, 08:35 PM

This discussion has been a most interesting editorialized perspective on the conundrums of collectible weapons, 'fake' or reproduction vs. traditionally made modern example etc. Such terms are often misused and fail to observe the actual character or circumstance of an item in altogether too many cases.

Regardless, I would say this shashka is a very attractive example, and well represents the character of examples of these well known in Caucasian regions. The blade seems pretty sound, and likely of the quality of the many trade blades found typically in the many versions of shashka in these regions.
Such a blade refitted to a traditional 'style' hilt does not seem unreasonable as these are traditional weapons still held in esteem by people there.

In looking at the motif in the hilt, if not mistaken there seem to be numbers or Roman numerals like II. Asking the experts.....could this be a hallmark or reference to Nicholas II ?

As to the cosmological symbols on the blade, it must be remembered that these type markings were often added to the blade by workers who of course had wide degree of skill set. These markings I have seen ranged from very well executed to almost cartoonish, and as such it is of course tempting to regard them as 'spurious'.

Whatever the case, I think it is a very attractive example, and well done, regardless of its possibly recomposed nature. Even if somewhat reproduced or with restored or composite components, it still reflects the traditional standards and style of the shashka as a form.

16th September 2019, 08:48 AM	#3
Drabant1701 Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Sweden Posts: 181	Greetings Eric, I am no expert in russian swords so I can not tell you if its real or a reproduction. I do hovever think that the provenance of the sword might help in determining if it its the real deal. There is a big difference between finding it in in the attic of someone who was an officer in the imperial russian army and buying it on E-bay from India. I must say if its a reproduction it looks very authentic. I have however seen a large italian auction house sell several reproduction shashka (described as second half of the 20th century) that looked pretty old and authentic to my untrained eye Last edited by Drabant1701; 16th September 2019 at 09:03 AM.

16th September 2019, 12:06 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	All of us here are called to express their opinion based on photographic images. This is a big limitation, no doubt. And you are correct: the urge to defend their choice is inherent in human psychology. That’s why many people stick to their abusive or drug-addicted spouses.

16th September 2019, 09:09 AM	#4
erikmarko Member Join Date: Sep 2019 Posts: 14	Hi Drabant, the sword was bought at some small flea market on the west coast of Canada. We do have a quite a few Russian immigrants. The interesting thing about the sword is that the entire blade was covered in thick gunky substances I guess to protect it from rusting. So we did not really knew what the blade looked like all we saw was the hilt that got our attention. I'm thinking that if the sword was fake and someone wanted it to look old they would not cover it in the gunky stuff to protect it from rusting.

16th September 2019, 03:28 PM	#6
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,906	Genuine, traditional Katanas are made as we speak, and they are neither fakes, nor reproductions. Moreover, most of them cost more than 90% of the antique katanas on the market. High quality Omani Khanjars are made as we speak and sold in the souk of Muscat. And they are neither fake, nor reproductions. Stuning Indonesian krisses are made as we speak and many of them are much more expensive that the vast majority of antique kerises, and they are neither fake, nor reproductions. So let us set things straight: if a blade is of modern manufacture, that doesn't make it neither fake, nor a reproduction! A "fake" is something made with the intention to deceive, and isn't necessarily of modern manufacture. There are many "fake" 16th century katanas made by more or less obscure swordsmiths but signed with famous names of the period. However, such a sword is considered a "fake" ONLY if it is sold as a genuine masterpiece of the famous swordsmith. If the very same sword is sold openly as "gimei" (with fake signatue), it can fetch good money and would not be considered "fake" (but just the signature). One can sell a magnificent 19th century rapier without being considered a fake, but a piece of the "historicism". Yet, if the same rapier is sold as a genuine 16th century piece, instantly it becomes a fake. Now with regards to reproductions, the term may be equally ambiguous but I consider a reproduction, an object which looks like the original but cannot function (or will function improperly) like the original. So you can have a Chinese made katana, of stainless steel with no cutting edge, that looks great to be hanged on the wall but cannot cut a sheet of paper. That would be a reproduction. But if you have a razor sharp Chinese katana, made of high quality steel that can cut like an 16th century original (albeit they quite often cut much better), then I wouldn't call it a reproduction. Just a few thoughts...

16th September 2019, 03:54 PM	#7
Will M Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: In the wee woods north of Napanee Ontario Posts: 394	What use is a 16th century signature on a modern made sword? Reproduced proof markings also are fake as the weapon was never officially proofed. Whether old repros/fakes or modern these items are made to deceive. Recent European made Napoleonic swords are much more accurate to originals, why? It takes only some exposure to weather then a clean to give them "aged patina". My point is the only reason many of these copies, repros, fakes sell is because they market to fraudulent sellers. Mixing of authentic and fakes for sale is to give authenticity to the fake. That's my two cents, authentic or fake.

16th September 2019, 04:09 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Marius, To summarize your perfectly accurate post, there is a sharp line between "fake" and " reproduction": intent to deceive. From there on, dividing lines become more and more blurry: "reproduction" vs. " composite", " composite" vs. " restored" etc. The majority of genuinely old Indian sword are "composite", as convincingly demonstrated by Elgood: blade and handle do not coincide. That does not disqualify them from being genuine if the "marriage" occured during working life of the sword. The same is true about scabbards: original ones rarely survive 200-300 years, and may be of a third or tenth generation. But what about recently replaced Indian handle? Is it legitimate composition ( this is exactly what the old owners did!) or something more sinister? "Restored" depends on the degree of restoration: excavated swords require active involvement to prevent disintegration. But I have seen allegedly genuine excavated swords "preserved" with tannate, but with perfectly sharp complex edges, obviously untouched by rusting. Important to remember that many old museum paintings and frescoes were "restored" ( Sistine Chapel!), that perfectly white ancient Greek marble statues were originally garishly painted, and that some were reassembled and re-glued. IMHO, at the end of the day, the intent to deceive is what counts.

16th September 2019, 09:32 PM	#9
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	I would like to add that in this entire discussion we have not seen a single picture of this sword in its entirety. Why is that?

17th September 2019, 08:35 PM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,190	This discussion has been a most interesting editorialized perspective on the conundrums of collectible weapons, 'fake' or reproduction vs. traditionally made modern example etc. Such terms are often misused and fail to observe the actual character or circumstance of an item in altogether too many cases. Regardless, I would say this shashka is a very attractive example, and well represents the character of examples of these well known in Caucasian regions. The blade seems pretty sound, and likely of the quality of the many trade blades found typically in the many versions of shashka in these regions. Such a blade refitted to a traditional 'style' hilt does not seem unreasonable as these are traditional weapons still held in esteem by people there. In looking at the motif in the hilt, if not mistaken there seem to be numbers or Roman numerals like II. Asking the experts.....could this be a hallmark or reference to Nicholas II ? As to the cosmological symbols on the blade, it must be remembered that these type markings were often added to the blade by workers who of course had wide degree of skill set. These markings I have seen ranged from very well executed to almost cartoonish, and as such it is of course tempting to regard them as 'spurious'. Whatever the case, I think it is a very attractive example, and well done, regardless of its possibly recomposed nature. Even if somewhat reproduced or with restored or composite components, it still reflects the traditional standards and style of the shashka as a form.