Is it madness or are we all stinking rich?

spiral · 27th August 2007, 12:06 AM

Sometimes Bill When you point out someone didnt have a clue what they were doing, im my expierience they take it as an insult to thier masculinity, knowledge etc. & wish to play shoot the messenger. I deal with loads of them with fake 1917 kukri, & those with delusians & fantasys about what theve found.etc..

re. sharing info. many "expert"s are still buying & dealing, fools buying junk often means there not bidding on the real stuff & they still get a top profit margin.

Sadley top dealers seem as honest as thier customers knowledge on any given item as far as I can see, but hell that not new in the arms trade.

as for the sleepers thats what its all about, in my book.Otherwise the funs gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

Emergency edit just in case anyone google "fetish doll" you had better google- Congo fetish doll.

strangly not to bad if you just click images with it, stuff from chad etc.

Spiral

asomotif · 27th August 2007, 03:21 PM

back to the original question from Ariel.

Please bear in mind these are auctions where also live floor bidders are involved. Things can go pretty wild at auctions.
You only need 2 persons with enough cash and a certain object in mind to have this happening. I have seen objects going away at more than 10 times the realistic value where even the auctioneer was openly amazed and shaking its head over the price that was bid.(and he was getting 25% of it both ways

)

This does not mean we are all stinking rich (yet).

But being able to spent money on old iron objects without any real purpose than to fill the empty space in my oversized house.
Yes, that can be considered rich.

By the way, nice bamboo container Ben !

Bill M · 27th August 2007, 03:52 PM

Just one of the many things I respect about this Forum is that people here are willing to discuss validity and origin of pieces that may challenge -- in a very beneficial way -- time honored concepts.

Two particular men (and there are many others) on this Forum have my utmost respect as researchers and gentlemen.

I had always heard that Parang Naburs were the province of the Sea Dayaks, and then VVV (Micheal) put forth the idea that they are more in the arena of the Phillippines.

I also have a pair of the aluminum handled khuks that were supposed to have been made for the troops of the Maharajah of Jodhpur, and a man whom I respect as one of the greatest khukri experts active today has pretty much convinced me that this is untrue. The research he has done very much supports his assertion.

Andrew · 27th August 2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

Two particular men ... on this Forum have my utmost respect as researchers and gentlemen.

Oh, stop it Bill. You're embarrassing me.

Dajak · 27th August 2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

I had always heard that Parang Naburs were the province of the Sea Dayaks, and then VVV (Micheal) put forth the idea that they are more in the arena of the Phillippines.

.

There is no proof of this Bill .

The malay introduced the Nabur into the coast of Borneo and some off the Iban Pirates used this weapon the one that are made in Borneo look somethimes like Jimpuls there is an rare straight nabur that was in my collection did had an lot off Iban influence
And now in American hands.

Ben

VVV · 27th August 2007, 09:11 PM

Seems to be a bit misunderstanding here about the so called Nabur issue again.
It all unfortunately started with Stone's book.
The picture in Stone shows a Luzon blade and I wasn't the one who figured out exacty where it came from.
Only that it wasn't from Borneo, or had any other Malay origin, and my guess was the Philippines.
Other forumites concluded to which area in the Philippines.
The text from Stone however was based on a misunderstanding of a quote from Ling Roth about the Parang Nyabur.
The sword Ben refers to - the Beladah Belabang - is of Malay, non-Dayak origin, and is not a Sea Dayak traditional sword.
Actually I haven't seen any of those collected at all even close to any Sea Dayak territory.
Ben, if you found new evidence to show that this is incorrect please state a reliable and old enough source for this?

Michael

27th August 2007, 03:21 PM	#2
asomotif Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,235	It might be madness... back to the original question from Ariel. Please bear in mind these are auctions where also live floor bidders are involved. Things can go pretty wild at auctions. You only need 2 persons with enough cash and a certain object in mind to have this happening. I have seen objects going away at more than 10 times the realistic value where even the auctioneer was openly amazed and shaking its head over the price that was bid.(and he was getting 25% of it both ways ) This does not mean we are all stinking rich (yet). But being able to spent money on old iron objects without any real purpose than to fill the empty space in my oversized house. Yes, that can be considered rich. By the way, nice bamboo container Ben !

27th August 2007, 03:52 PM	#3
Bill M Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Georgia Posts: 1,599	Just one of the many things I respect about this Forum is that people here are willing to discuss validity and origin of pieces that may challenge -- in a very beneficial way -- time honored concepts. Two particular men (and there are many others) on this Forum have my utmost respect as researchers and gentlemen. I had always heard that Parang Naburs were the province of the Sea Dayaks, and then VVV (Micheal) put forth the idea that they are more in the arena of the Phillippines. I also have a pair of the aluminum handled khuks that were supposed to have been made for the troops of the Maharajah of Jodhpur, and a man whom I respect as one of the greatest khukri experts active today has pretty much convinced me that this is untrue. The research he has done very much supports his assertion.

27th August 2007, 09:11 PM	#6
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Seems to be a bit misunderstanding here about the so called Nabur issue again. It all unfortunately started with Stone's book. The picture in Stone shows a Luzon blade and I wasn't the one who figured out exacty where it came from. Only that it wasn't from Borneo, or had any other Malay origin, and my guess was the Philippines. Other forumites concluded to which area in the Philippines. The text from Stone however was based on a misunderstanding of a quote from Ling Roth about the Parang Nyabur. The sword Ben refers to - the Beladah Belabang - is of Malay, non-Dayak origin, and is not a Sea Dayak traditional sword. Actually I haven't seen any of those collected at all even close to any Sea Dayak territory. Ben, if you found new evidence to show that this is incorrect please state a reliable and old enough source for this? Michael