Chinese daggers - more colourful as christmas trees

[Kubur]

Dear All,

Just to add some fuel to the engine (not on the fire).
As it was said by Jim and Mahratt, these daggers are not very old and mostly decorative.
Saying that, I also agree with Gonzoadler, these daggers are not crap, they aren't all the same, some of them are very well made and probably early 20th c. let's say 1920ties...
The recent ones are for tourists, but for the very well made ones and the oldest ones, I believe that they were diplomatic gifts.
As it was said by Philip they are not ritual, despite some Buddhist elements.
It will be nice to add to the discussion the swords, that you can find in the book sword and sabers. The book is full of mistakes and it's not a reference, but these swords appear in other books, such as Robert Hales. Again RH is not an academic reference, but the man spent his life collecting and we can give him some credits about the quality of these objects.
In short, these daggers and swords are not ethnographic but they are pieces of art to me.

Kubur

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Dear All,

Just to add some fuel to the engine (not on the fire).
As it was said by Jim and Mahratt, these daggers are not very old and mostly decorative.
Saying that, I also agree with Gonzoadler, these daggers are not crap, they aren't all the same, some of them are very well made and probably early 20th c. let's say 1920ties...
The recent ones are for tourists, but for the very well made ones and the oldest ones, I believe that they were diplomatic gifts.
As it was said by Philip they are not ritual, despite some Buddhist elements.
It will be nice to add to the discussion the swords, that you can find in the book sword and sabers. The book is full of mistakes and it's not a reference, but these swords appear in other books, such as Robert Hales. Again RH is not an academic reference, but the man spent his life collecting and we can give him some credits about the quality of these objects.
In short, these daggers and swords are not ethnographic but they are pieces of art to me.

Kubur

Kubur,
Thanks so much for the photo from Robert Hales. Now, when we place the photo next to it, all the differences in the decoration techniques are visible.

And by the way, I can't remember this shape of knives in China And you?

[Rick]

I have noticed that all the examples are decorated with an off-white jade; I've heard this color referred to as Mutton Fat. Is there something special about this color for it to be seen so often as a decorative element?

[Gonzoadler]

@Mahratt
Filigree, jade cabouchons, turquoise, corals, similar hanger with the same small silver ring...
Sorry, I can't see big differences. And why some differences are allowed if we compare tea pots?
And why it has to be a common dagger type of the past?
Are there no new forms at the end of the 19th. century in other cultures?

[David]

So i'm trying to understand just what opinion you are most offended by here. Is it the insistence that your daggers are more likely early 20th century than late 19th century or is it the idea that these were most probably made for export to Western collectors?
This is not exactly the same style as your daggers, but here is an image from Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weaponry (frankly i don't know much about this source) that makes mention of Chinese cloisonné daggers and makes the claim that they were created for sale to the West.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by David

here is an image from Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weaponry (frankly i don't know much about this source) that makes mention of Chinese cloisonné daggers and makes the claim that they were created for sale to the West.

The style of the motifs themselves, the color scheme, and the workmanship of the cloisonnée are indeed consistent with that medium as seen on any number of curio articles produced in China during the period cited. I've lost count of all the ashtrays I've seen at estate sales with exactly the same patterns, the underside below the foot-rim done up with the plain lumpy turquoise enamel seen on other articles from the twilight of the Qing and early Republic.

The usefulness of these daggers as letter openers and little else is something I can back up with observation -- in my career in restoration I have encountered a few with detached blades, revealing a matchstick-sized tang held in the metal or jade hilt with a bit of resin adhesive. Exactly like the vast majority of (much pricier) jade and crystal hilted Mughal daggers that collectors seem to go gaga over -- blingy but feckless.

[Gonzoadler]

Originally Posted by David

So i'm trying to understand just what opinion you are most offended by here. Is it the insistence that your daggers are more likely early 20th century than late 19th century or is it the idea that these were most probably made for export to Western collectors?
This is not exactly the same style as your daggers, but here is an image from Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weaponry (frankly i don't know much about this source) that makes mention of Chinese cloisonné daggers and makes the claim that they were created for sale to the West.

I think that these daggers are probably made for the western market is a consence here. Maybe some of them are official presents, but that is speculative.

And I don't debate because of one or two decades. The actual theme of the discussion is: Are these daggers new souvenirs (maybe 70s) or are they old (early 20th, maybe late 19th century). I think my daggers are old.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Gonzoadler

I think that these daggers are probably made for the western market is a consence here. Maybe some of them are official presents, but that is speculative.

And I don't debate because of one or two decades. The actual theme of the discussion is: Are these daggers new souvenirs (maybe 70s) or are they old (early 20th, maybe late 19th century). I think my daggers are old.

Are you okay if your daggers are 1950s souvenirs? I think this is the most accurate date for them.
But you can believe they were made in the late 19th century. If you like it better

[Philip]

Originally Posted by mahratt

And by the way, I can't remember this shape of knives in China And you?

Hello, Mahratt!

Let's say that the overall shape of these knives can be described as "Chinese-ish" . Or as I like to say, "close but no cigar". Let's see:

1. The blade shape resembles the exaggerated version of the tip of many Chinese sabers of the late Imperial period. At first hurried glance I wondered if these might be recycled tips of broken or discarded sabers (in an earlier post I mentioned seeing these silver decorative weapons with re-used (generally shortened) Chinese or Japanese blades. But the curve on these is too abrupt to have come offan actual saber. Furthermore the fuller seems to end before the guard, whereas a saber tip would have the channel continuing further back along its original length.

2. The flattened discoid guard does have stylistic antecedents in the tsuba-like guards typical of Chinese (and also most Korean and Vietnamese) sabers, and even some double edged swords.

3. Downward-curving grips are also a feature of Chinese saber hilts, coming into vogue from the late 18th cent. onwards but traceable to a few depictions in Ming/Qing transition period art, some surviving examples, and even to the handles of bronze Ordos-basin finds from the classical bronze age.

But looked at in toto, these knives are best regarded as a fanciful interpretation of these early forms, plus decorative motifs from Inner Asia, to create such a delightful mishmosh. Sort of what Madama Butterfly and Turandot are to Kabuki and Peking opera, respectively.

[mahratt]

[QUOTE=Philip]Hello, Mahratt!

But looked at in toto, these knives are best regarded as a fanciful interpretation of these early forms, plus decorative motifs from Inner Asia, to create such a delightful mishmosh. Sort of what Madama Butterfly and

Bravo. Very precise wording.

[asomotif]

Originally Posted by Philip

.....

But looked at in toto, these knives are best regarded as a fanciful interpretation of these early forms, plus decorative motifs from Inner Asia, to create such a delightful mishmosh. Sort of what Madama Butterfly and Turandot are to Kabuki and Peking opera, respectively.

Nice comparison. But I do like Puccini. Comparing him with these chistmasy chinese bling daggers / letter openers does not do him justice...

[ariel]

Gentlemen,
There is no doubt that these daggers were made as souvenirs for the Westerners sometimes in the the 20th ( 21st?) century. We just cannot be sure when exactly: Chinese manufacturers saw commercial success of the model and adhered to it. We may only guess their age by their physical condition. Personally, I would not want them in my collection. But by the same token, I would not want in my collection any Chinese weapon: not my area of interest and not my taste. Some people collect ridiculous things like postal stamps:-)
Collecting is a very personal experience just like art in general and music in particular. Having sat through a Kabuki performance, I definitely prefer Madama Butterfly. On top of that, all of us have our personal Walls of Shame with things bought on a spur of the moment and being more or less fake-y.
With all that, this Forum is a sounding board. All of us have a right and an obligation to offer an honest opinion about an object presented here for general discussion. Philip's remarks fall right into that category and based on his vast knowledge of the subject are immensely valuable. The majority of participants also adhered to that mode of discussion.

But I do not think that supercilious, sarcastic and personal remarks should have a place here, especially from those of us not knowing much (or anything) about Chinese history, art, weapons, decoration, techniques etc.

Guy Francis Laking was known for his custom of never denigrating the owner and always saying a good thing or two about any object brought to him for authentication. Let's adhere to that gentlemanly principle. Let's concentrate on the "problem", not on the "drama".

My 5 cents.

[fernando]

Actually, after Ian's advice, i hardly saw a window to insist in beating a dead horse or, as we say in my neck of the woods, in raining on the wet .

[Gonzoadler]

Hello,

@David: Philips answer is the only answer which gives a note that this daggers were made later which isn´t based on speculation. Because of his experience that seems to be possible, of course. But I think I don´t offend him if I say that only one stated personal experience which can´t be checked in detail by other persons is no final evidence. And of course I didn´t stated my opinion at first because I wanted to read the opinion of other members. Later I stated and justified mine because the issue of the thread immediately went from an use discussion to an age discussion.
Now, it really doesn´t seems that one side can be finally convinced by the other without more information. I accept that the age of this daggers is a thing of believe at the moment and other members don´t share my opinion. But nobody has to be felt attacked by me because of that, this is not my intention.

Regards
Robin

[motan]

Thank you Ariel for your appeasing comment.
My knowledge on Chinese weapons =0 and therefore, I followed this debate as a spectator. But since this type of arguments are a recurring theme in the forum, the subject is interesting for all.
I do not even think that Gonzoadler originally meant to present these daggers as valuable historical items - see the title - but it just escalated because some remarks were intentionally dismissive.
On the other hand, this forum would not be much fun if we could not joke and argue sometimes. It is not easy for everybody to find the right balance and I have also been on the receiving end of such remarks in the past.

As for the issue of authenticity itself, this is a constant dilemma for most collectors, and especially the those who can not afford high-end items. I personally try to avoid types that were not made for local use at any stage of their life, even if they are well made. For example, I avoid all-metal Syrian daggers with silver koftgari because I have never seen one that has been carried or used.

This issue is even more difficult for the many types of weapons that moved seamlessly from authentic items into the tourist trade, while still also in use by locals, like koummyas, Arabian jambiyas and khanjars, Majdali dagger, shibriyas and I guess, several Indian, South-east Asian and Oceanic weapons too. As Ariel said, it is a matter of personal taste and you can agree or disagree as long as you do it properly

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by motan

Thank you Ariel for your appeasing comment.
My knowledge on Chinese weapons =0 and therefore, I followed this debate as a spectator. But since this type of arguments are a recurring theme in the forum, the subject is interesting for all.
I do not even think that Gonzoadler originally meant to present these daggers as valuable historical items - see the title - but it just escalated because some remarks were intentionally dismissive.
On the other hand, this forum would not be much fun if we could not joke and argue sometimes. It is not easy for everybody to find the right balance and I have also been on the receiving end of such remarks in the past.

As for the issue of authenticity itself, this is a constant dilemma for most collectors, and especially the those who can not afford high-end items. I personally try to avoid types that were not made for local use at any stage of their life, even if they are well made. For example, I avoid all-metal Syrian daggers with silver koftgari because I have never seen one that has been carried or used.

This issue is even more difficult for the many types of weapons that moved seamlessly from authentic items into the tourist trade, while still also in use by locals, like koummyas, Arabian jambiyas and khanjars, Majdali dagger, shibriyas and I guess, several Indian, South-east Asian and Oceanic weapons too. As Ariel said, it is a matter of personal taste and you can agree or disagree as long as you do it properly

Beautifully said Motan! That well describes the 'dilemmas' concerning these types of items for those of us who tend to have a more eclectic and wider scope of collecting interests. I personally have always been far more interested in the history of arms and armor, and not necessarily in entirely weapons. I have always found 'antiques' in degree interesting as well as they often augment the weapons I study in associated context.

Having noted that, I found these weapons posted by Robin very attractive and especially as 'antiques' in their own right, and very appealing as far as display pieces. Perhaps I just share the sort of 'exotic' tastes that brought these items into popularity in the late 19th into 20th c.

I agree, I believe Robin's original post intended to ask about these in that sense, as seen in the title which rather playful noted them as Christmas baubles. While everyone of course wants to express their personal views, clearly some comments can be a bit oblique and taken derisively in the unintended 'bluntness'.

If I may, I would like to thank the moderators for their patience in getting the unfortunate 'bumps in the road' smoothed out here, as this topic is very interesting to me and I've learned a great deal from the entries. As a participant I admit I personally took some of the comments Robin placed the wrong way, and apologize for the overreaction.

With that, once again, the items Robin shared here are most appealing despite not being 'official' weapons, and I'd actually like having one under my Christmas tree (hint hint .

Thank you guys all very much, interesting topic, examples, and very enlightening discussion.