Chinese daggers - more colourful as christmas trees

[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

[Gonzoadler]

Originally Posted by mahratt

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

I really don´t know why do you think it is necessary to discuss in that presumptuous tone. You are the only one here who didn´t contribute anything constructive until now. Your only goal seems to mock this theme but if I tell you a question you don´t react.
I personally said that this two daggers and all other showed pieces probably were made in a sereotypical style for Eurpoeans. So that is no new determination of Philip.
Also believe is not interesting for me. The theme was a realsistic time space were this or similar daggers were produced. I made comparisons with probably old pieces and kubur showed a book with a sword in similar style, which is dated as an old piece. And Philip told us a story he experienced in the past. I can´t check this story regarding trueness and if the pieces he saw were really or only remotely similar. But in general his story is believable.
You said my comparisons are laughable and let yourself look ridiculous when you told us there are so much differences between the sword in the book and my daggers. Come down from your high horse

Regards

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Gonzoadler

I really don´t know why do you think it is necessary to discuss in that presumptuous tone. You are the only one here who didn´t contribute anything constructive until now. Your only goal seems to mock this theme but if I tell you a question you don´t react.
I personally said that this two daggers and all other showed pieces probably were made in a sereotypical style for Eurpoeans. So that is no new determination of Philip.
Also believe is not interesting for me. The theme was a realsistic time space were this or similar daggers were produced. I made comparisons with probably old pieces and kubur showed a book with a sword in similar style, which is dated as an old piece. And Philip told us a story he experienced in the past. I can´t check this story regarding trueness and if the pieces he saw were really or only remotely similar. But in general his story is believable.
You said my comparisons are laughable and let yourself look ridiculous when you told us there are so much differences between the sword in the book and my daggers. Come down from your high horse

Regards

My friend, if you don't see the difference between the items that you and Kubur put up, I can't help you For me and, apparently, not only for me - this difference is very noticeable. So is the difference between your knives and the jugs you posted in the thread. This is the difference in style, decoration techniques and jewelry work.
Here on the forum all are very polite and tolerant people and therefore cannot tell you directly that your daggers are souvenir nonsense. But I'm used to calling things by their proper names
You have one option to be sure that your daggers are really old and made in the 19th century. You need to find a photo of the late 19th century, which shows a European or a Chinese with a dagger like yours, or a European's room in which such a dagger hangs on the wall. Then everyone will agree that you were right. And I'll be the first to apologize to you.
In the meantime, gain experience, my friend And then you yourself will be able to distinguish souvenirs from real antique daggers.

Best wishes

[Gonzoadler]

Originally Posted by mahratt

My friend, if you don't see the difference between the items that you and Kubur put up, I can't help you For me and, apparently, not only for me - this difference is very noticeable. So is the difference between your knives and the jugs you posted in the thread. This is the difference in style, decoration techniques and jewelry work.
Here on the forum all are very polite and tolerant people and therefore cannot tell you directly that your daggers are souvenir nonsense. But I'm used to calling things by their proper names
You have one option to be sure that your daggers are really old and made in the 19th century. You need to find a photo of the late 19th century, which shows a European or a Chinese with a dagger like yours, or a European's room in which such a dagger hangs on the wall. Then everyone will agree that you were right. And I'll be the first to apologize to you.
In the meantime, gain experience, my friend And then you yourself will be able to distinguish souvenirs from real antique daggers.

Best wishes

That is exactly the answer I expected from you. I think it is not necessary to comment your answers anymore.

[David]

Originally Posted by Gonzoadler

I personally said that this two daggers and all other showed pieces probably were made in a sereotypical style for Eurpoeans. So that is no new determination of Philip.

I'm sorry Robin, but i need to call you out just a little bit here. This is your introductory post to these daggers.
"I learned a lot about some other pieces here and now I have another question to the forum:
I saw other similar daggers at auctions.
For what purpose these daggers where made?
Are they official presents? An expensive decoration?
Maybe lucky charms?
Or officially worn weapons for important persons? (I don't believe that)
Who knows more than me?"
None of your opening post suggests that you believed at first that these were high-end souvenirs made for the European market.
You opened with how you have learned a lot from postings on this forum and then you ask "Who knows more than me?", but apparently you are only interested in listening to what some very knowledgeable people have to say about these pieces if what they say agrees with your preconceived idea that they are 19th century antiques. You even resist a first-hand account of a well-respected researcher here who saw similar items being produced in a Chinese factory in the 1970s,
"I can´t check this story regarding trueness and if the pieces he saw were really or only remotely similar." even if you do concede that "in general his story is believable."
I am truly sorry that no one here is giving you the answers that you want to hear, but i'm afraid that is not the way this works. I would suggest that if you are really not interested in what knowledgable collectors on this forum have to say about your daggers that you simply move on and continue to believe whatever makes you feel best about your purchases.

[Ian]

Guys, the feedback for Gonzoadler has been consistent and well informed. Thanks for all of your comments. Robin is free to accept or reject them, as he wishes. I think David has summed up the situation, and unless someone has new information they wish to share perhaps we can move on.

Ian