2nd Caucasian Kindjal for comment

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by David

Gavin, i think you have not quite grasped what i was trying to say. Probably my fault for not being clear enough. It is not the facts of these threads which i personally found alienating. Perhaps i read too much between your lines, the the post which prompted me to write what i did came off to me as "I found some some real experts, they told me all you guys are wrong and i was right....so there!" Followed, of course, by a very large raspberry.
Now, this may not have been you intention, but it is certainly the way it came off to me and i would guess probably some others. Norman (and yourself) make some good points about knowledgable members sometimes being too hard on certain items that get posted and of course if someone knocks a knife you own you want to hear solid facts as to why, especially if you thought it was something greater than what people are making it out to be. The difference i see here is that while some members have knocked your kindjal (an object), you seem to me knocking the the members (actual people). This is what i found to be possibly alienating, not the mere fact that you have found your own experts who disagree with the members here. Most of our membership is pretty good about admitting they were wrong when presented with facts that show they were.
BTW, you seem you want very specific evidence from the forum members as to why they believe your kindjals are not quite kosher. What evidence (other than their say so) did your experts give you that they are indeed authentic antiques?
Keep in mind Gavin that i've got no horse in this race. I know nothing about kindjals though i do like to think i know something about quality. I could clearly see the points of forumites who remarked negatively on your first kindjal. I am on the fence about the second. The silverwork and neillo look quite beautiful to my eye. I don't know enough about the blades to know whether or not the style is period. It's a nice knife regardless of it's age or origins.
What i suggest is that everyone just take a step back and take a deep breathe. I don't think any member here intended to disrespect you with their comments about your kindjals. Their comments were on the knife itself. I also think that they are trying their best to communicate with you just what it is about these knives that don't sit right with them and if you gave it some time more might come out. And they may well be wrong about this last one. I am just afraid that rubbing your expert's opinions in their faces, especially ones that are equally unsubstantiated, is not likely to get you positive responses.

Hi David, thanks again for coming in.

Maybe a little was lost in both our translations. No one at this stage has said anyone is wrong, I am however tenacious in understanding the differing points of comparisons and comments and consistancy of statements and will vigorously follow these up when time does permit as I plainly cannot understand these somewhat obvious points, more to follow in up coming postings with these and other unanswered questions, maybe my questions are beyond the realm of probable questioning without the item in their hands???
With regards to what other dealers and collectors/enthusiasts have said about this piece, I will add too that this piece was shown around a few more dealers on Saturday at the Brisbane arms and Militaria fair with good reception but no further concrete evidence other than what is below. About half a dozen people including the Jeweller and previous enthusiast have passed comment with some interesting points, I also rang the previous owner today an asked if he had any more information in his weapons register.
Some of the points that have been mentioned are First and formost the superb quality workmanship has been mentioned and that it is distinctly Georgian and is a very lovely piece without a doubt made by a master craftsman for someone of wealth or importance, it too was offered up that the rubbed inscription panel will most likely hold the key to understanding it's history and who it was for. It was also mentioned that the blade has a good deal of age to it and does show despite what some fool at some stage has done with it and that is run the blade over a belt sander at some stage of it's life, "they should have been drawn and quartered" was the remark of one dealer about what it has suffered. I have had good points bought to my attention on the best way to fix it and out of the cupboard comes my ole faithful Lanskey honing stones or varying degrees and the long task of oiling and rubbing with the stones starts. It has also been advised that the acorn final and the acorn patterns that I hadn't previously noticed in the neillo design and in the chiseling may also real more about the time period if research can be done on these points. Also said that it carries a good deal of honest wear to the reverse side and has beeen well cared for and other than the state of the blade, well respected.
It too has been stated in relation to other Kindjals that have been through the hands of these dealers, that an unsightly seam is often seen in the manufacture of the scabbard, someone has gone to great trouble to join this scabbard in an very unobvious spot and short of pulling the old timber from the scabbard it remains undetectable to the naked eye. When probed about hallmarks it was said that it is not uncommon at all to find Silver unhallmarked. The design of the rivet heads was noted too as it gives a very positive feel about where the hilt is in the hand in all range of movements. the shape too may reveal more about it's origins.
That's about all I can recall for tonight David, a long day is now at an end for me. Lots more food for thought has been offered up by others, I'll spend a bit of time digesting it all and write again soon.

regards

Gav