What can you tell me about this sword?

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?

ariel · 17th September 2019, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

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?

We have.
Go to post #1, there is an address, left column, 2nd pic from the top.

The view is not great, but this is the whole caboodle.

ariel · 17th September 2019, 03:00 AM

Eric,
I understand you are upset. But nobody criticizes you personally: it is about the sword.
All of us sooner or later find ourselves in your shoes. Collectors much more knowledgeable than all of us combined and surrounded by expensive advisers bought antique pieces for millions of dollars .. that later on were shown to be expensive forgeries worth less than their boxes.
Your shashka may end up being authentic: we just see pics, no more.

The only thing I am personally saying is that I do not like it and wouldn’t buy it.
You may follow my ( and other) hunches or may ignore them.
It just not good getting impolite.

erikmarko · 17th September 2019, 03:42 AM

Hey Guys, I'm not upset at you at all and all of you have a right to your opinion. I just would like those of you who are 100% convinced that it's a fake to point out why they are so sure that it's fake. When a Russian Collector says that he thinks it's 90% authentic I respect that because you need to touch it and see it in person to be sure, that's all. This thing whether it's real or not cost me nothing because someone bought it for me. I don't have any intention to sell it and it looks great hanging over my fireplace. If in fact it is authentic it would be cool and I thought that I would find a professional collectors on this forum that would be able to tell me that.

Here is a full pic of the shashka if you guys are not sick of looking at it yet...

Rick · 17th September 2019, 05:23 AM

We don't have a full picture uploaded to the database; only a link from what I can see.

Links have a way of disappearing.

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.

erikmarko · 17th September 2019, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

Thank you Sir, very well said.

I was expecting this kind of discussion from the start.

Ren Ren · 17th September 2019, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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 ?

Quite right, this is the monogram of Emperor Nicholas II.
In the Russian Empire, there were rather complicated rules for using the sign of the ruling monarch. In order to publicly wear this sign, it was necessary to have the permission of the Emperor himself and to comply with many requirements. But army and navy officers sometimes ordered signs to jewelers and wore them outside of official service. Especially far from both Imperial capitals

17th September 2019, 03:42 AM	#8
erikmarko Member Join Date: Sep 2019 Posts: 14	Hey Guys, I'm not upset at you at all and all of you have a right to your opinion. I just would like those of you who are 100% convinced that it's a fake to point out why they are so sure that it's fake. When a Russian Collector says that he thinks it's 90% authentic I respect that because you need to touch it and see it in person to be sure, that's all. This thing whether it's real or not cost me nothing because someone bought it for me. I don't have any intention to sell it and it looks great hanging over my fireplace. If in fact it is authentic it would be cool and I thought that I would find a professional collectors on this forum that would be able to tell me that. Here is a full pic of the shashka if you guys are not sick of looking at it yet... Attached Images

16th September 2019, 03:28 PM	#2
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	#3
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	#4
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	#5
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, 03:00 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Eric, I understand you are upset. But nobody criticizes you personally: it is about the sword. All of us sooner or later find ourselves in your shoes. Collectors much more knowledgeable than all of us combined and surrounded by expensive advisers bought antique pieces for millions of dollars .. that later on were shown to be expensive forgeries worth less than their boxes. Your shashka may end up being authentic: we just see pics, no more. The only thing I am personally saying is that I do not like it and wouldn’t buy it. You may follow my ( and other) hunches or may ignore them. It just not good getting impolite.

17th September 2019, 05:23 AM	#9
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	We don't have a full picture uploaded to the database; only a link from what I can see. Links have a way of disappearing.

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.