2nd Caucasian Kindjal for comment

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by ariel

Butterfield or not, I have an uneasy feeling about it.
The niello looks very fresh and remarkably intact: not a scratch, not a missing segment. Repousse has a feel of being stamped.
The wooden inserts ( handle) are light in colour. The incised lines at the tip of the scabbard are shiny and the edges look sharp. The blade has strange proportions and is too clean. The "buttons" on the back of the hilt are poorly flattened, very crude. Are there any markings?
I understand, of course, that photographs are not an ideal way to evaluate antique items, but..... It looks to me as if it hails from the same " workshop" as the first one.
Sorry, I am not enjoying bringing bad news....

Oh dear gents, glasses please, no offense taken or ment on my behalf.

I will have to go back to my old camera and with bad lighting and show all the losses of niello that there is much on the reverse, this in turn will also show the honest age patina that covers the silver and neillo and the chiseled releif. If I could get a good image of the cartouche to the rear that I have cleaned, there is a forgein script within it covering 4 lines that is now so rubbed, even if I knew the lingo, I do not think I would be able to read it, but it looks to be in the style of a presentation.
Same work shop Ariel, I will have to take a photo of them side by side for you too compare....ouch
The blade it is true has suffered a very bad clean I must say, that will be fixed, I know not of any wood that you mention either, what I see is only a coloured woven material that show genuine period age.
The scabbard, oh I wish you were sitting at my desk... I can see every chisel and incise very clearly, and there is not a single sharp edge to the acorn at the base, it a shame how the 3 dimensions that you have when holding a piece cannot be presented correctly in 2 dimensions.

Originally Posted by ALEX

As always - very good observations Ariel. I completely agree.
Gav, I have a comment about the term "craftsmanship". It'd be deceiving to think of it in isolated manner, i.e. without detailed comparison of quality, technique, design, etc. To produce anything requires work, skills and effort. But as Ward said - one has to be critical of any item. Just because it looks like someone "worked" on it, does not mean much. Even if it looks good and wonderful... unless you know exactly what to look for... is irrelevant in terms of collectors value!!! One will be able to see the difference only by studying, handling and comparing as many pieces as possible.

Absolutely Alex, I agree about comparrison and work verses craftsman ship, funny thing, I showed these to a Elderly Romanian gentleman today and not that it is any indication for you to go by but he was in awe of the kindjal posted in this thread.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I'm with Alex and Ariel on this one. Have bad feeling about it. The blade most especially looks to much like the new ones. The quality of the niello and silver work is suspect. Some more pics of the blade may answer the age question.

Hope I am wrong for freebooter's sake.

Heres hoping you can see more detail in the photos coming up.

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

I'm with Ariel.

Looks more recent to me and the incised lines are pretty sloppy not something you would see on an older piece. Everything looks too fresh and new to me. Artzi has a number of older examples in his sold section here is one for comparison.

http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2601

Lew

Nice, and something that I would consider a lovely piece to have in my collection, especially the blade but not the best for comparision for "craftmanship" but like anything it is an opinion, although it is hallmarked I could point out a couple of faults with it that would ring true from previous words from others here about these pieces.
Please point out the sloppy lines you refer to Lew?