2nd Caucasian Kindjal for comment

[Gavin Nugent]

A wonderful few hours were passed away this morning with the French gentleman I spoke of previously, some may question his authority of such items, antique edge weapons is his love and does reflect in the quality and rarity of some weapons I have never had the privilege of handling before.

His knowledge on this subject matter is incredible when heard first hand.

His credentials stand high, curator in France until 1979, is director and founder and curator of well known and respected art galleries and foundations whose artists are represented at the Queensland State art gallery, is an approved valuer of Cultural Heritage to the Commonwealth Government for Australian Artists, both Aboriginal and contempory, also French sculpture, prints, paintings, decorative arts & furniture from 1600-1950.

A number of these weapons I have seen today have been and are documented in his family history from the 1860's.

Again in length many of my questions were answered in full detail today, the acorns shaped icons I mentioned yesterday are actually a symbol of good luck, they are the "hand of Fatima"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamsa

His historical knowledge was expressed in great detail, kind of wished I had a tape recorder. He also touched on coral found on Kinjals and that it is the red coral that was most prized as it too is a symbol of good luck.

Many points about Niello and it's very early origins were also covered off today from medieval time up until today, his chemistry major was shining through on many other subjects too.

Upon further viewing today, what can be viewed of the script remaining in the central panel to the rear of the scabbard, I have been told that it is most likely a verse from the Koran asking for protection or similar, not a presentation as thought by myself and a couple of others, I am still trying to get it read or rubbed for future posting.

Again this piece was put at approx 1870-1900 and from all explanations, it is of the highest gallery quality...This differs from a link below but at this stage I am happy to go with either until further research has been done.

Throughout this steep learning curve in Kinjals, I am hoping some off the original forumites who made earlier postings will further comment on some comparisons found in the Oriental Arms website that has been offered up to me a few times.
I am not looking to discredit anyone, maybe I have now offered up enough imagery that was not available at the initial postings and initial fears and loathing have been overcome? Maybe it will be continue to be said after all comparisons below that it is still not antique? I am just looking to understand why what's is stated as being right for one is not for another even though it shows all the signs of being correct and of period as seen my many first hand, maybe we can all learn from this???

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.

I understand this as the initial photos certainly showed off the best and most unworn parts of the piece, what are your views Ariel on the images of the worn Niello?

Originally Posted by ariel

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?

As this wood has been noted as a very old fabric, does this denote anything in particular. Do the photos of the tip referred to,(at 100X magnification) make the rounded edges any clearer. Do the lack of refinement on the rivets not make it an authentic piece, it has been my understanding that the rivets would rarely be paid a lot of attention, as they, throughout their life may be replaced when and if ever a blade needed to be replaced?

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=966
http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=2766
http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=1062
http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=2885

I haven't looked any further for bad riveting on silver Kindjals..these should do

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....[/QUOTE]

Maybe I need a photography course in bringing real essence out of objects??

Here is a link to it's almost twin brother...again from Oriental arms...

Actually this link may convince others of it's authenticity???

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=2181

And for argument sake within the forum I'll even run with 1920 ...

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.

Hi Charles, it may be a while before I post blade images, I will be working slowly at polishing out the linishing marks, know that the description given in Oriental arms is exactly the same right down to the size.

regards

Gav

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.

Hi Alex, with further images, notes, declarations and links provided, is there anything else or other points of interest you can point out?

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

Hi again Lew, the lines, to my eyes are clearly made by or at least in the same guild/family as the last link on Oriental Arms. What is your views and points of interest with my comparrison?

The dreaded Kindjal postings continues, still striving for facts...

regards

Gav

[Gavin Nugent]

The silence is deafening guys, I was hoping for a little more objective speculation



Gav

[Lew]

Gav

I think we have gone as far as we can with this thread and it's time to put it to rest.

Gav this will be my last response on this thread. The sloppy lines I referring to are in these two areas below. Unevenly scribed on the acorn shaped tip that extend past the area that is bordered by that scribed oval which are themselves very poorly applied. Also within the panel above the tip the checkered work is unevenly done with some of the lines being crooked. This is not the work of a master engraver. The theory that an apprentice did this work does not make sense do to the fact that the master would not have let this leave his shop looking like this because it would a some what of a negative effect on his reputation. Hey if you like the kindjal and think it's old and original than that's fine but I am entitled to my opinion as are the other forumites and I think we have made up our minds on it already. I am basing this on my experience and observations over the last 25 years that I have collecting edged weapons.



Regards

Lew

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

Gav

I think we have gone as far as we can with this thread and it's time to put it to rest.

Gav this will be my last response on this thread. The sloppy lines I referring to are in these two areas below. Unevenly scribed on the acorn shaped tip that extend past the area that is bordered by that scribed oval which are themselves very poorly applied. Also within the panel above the tip the checkered work is unevenly done with some of the lines being crooked. This is not the work of a master engraver. The theory that an apprentice did this work does not make sense do to the fact that the master would not have let this leave his shop looking like this because it would a some what of a negative effect on his reputation. Hey if you like the kindjal and think it's old and original than that's fine but I am entitled to my opinion as are the other forumites and I think we have made up our minds on it already. I am basing this on my experience and observations over the last 25 years that I have collecting edged weapons.



Regards

Lew

Interesting Lew,

Everyone's opinions are welcome and I am more than happy to have mine or anyones elses opinions substantiated or dismissed with absolute knowledge to help the learning process.

From all that has been presented thus far, this would mean that 9.9 out of every 10 Kindjals with silver fittings of any discription presented on this forum over the years, and all links provided by all that have made postings, are indeed, NOT the real Macoy even if some say it is...I do not understand how sloppy for one can make it real but not the other....so confused
All information that has been put forward as to what identifies both a real and a not real Kindjal really actually puts all positings in the "not a real Kindjal" column???
I can only offer up what I see first hand and describe it best I can with images 100 times larger than the item really is. I too offer up links from the same people that are presented to me and....well like you say, opinions????

Gav

[Lew]

[QUOTE=freebooter]Interesting Lew,

Everyone's opinions are welcome and I am more than happy to have mine or anyones elses opinions substantiated or dismissed with absolute knowledge to help the learning process.

From all that has been presented thus far, this would mean that 9.9 out of every 10 Kindjals with silver fittings of any discription presented on this forum over the years, and all links provided by all that have made postings, are indeed, NOT the real Macoy even if some say it is...I do not understand how sloppy for one can make it real but not the other....so confused
All information that has been put forward as to what identifies both a real and a not real Kindjal really actually puts all positings in the "not a real Kindjal" column???


Gav

Your logic is flawed to say the least you asked the specialists on this forum to give you there thoughts on your kindjal and they did.
Regards

Lew

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

Gav

Your logic is flawed to say the least you asked the specialists on this forum to give you there thoughts on your kindjal and they did.
Regards

Lew

Hi Lew, flawed logic........ with regards to silver fitted kindjals...

Without circling all visual references supplied in this forum over the years, I do wish to know from yourself and these specialists and any others who have knowledge in this forum on these weapons. Take these following comments on board with out taking any visual references of my Kindjal into perspective, just leave it out of any thought process.
Why does lets say, unfinished rivets, sloppy lines for starters make one kindjal a true piece and another not?? Does this flaw in accuracy point to the differences between a collector and a researcher. I don't claim to be a professional researcher but I think these valid visual references do point to something that needs to be researched for the betterment of all concerned in learning the truth behind these weapons, after all this is a resource/research site is it not, not just a show and tell???

regards

Gav

[Lew]

Gav

It's a real kindjal but collectively we do not feel that it's from the 19th century. Just like in my jambiya thread the newer piece is a real jamibiya that an adult male Yemenite would wear it's just not from the 19th century as I have shown in my photos what to look out for when one is looking for an older piece the quality of the older pieces speak for themselves Maybe one day you can join us at our annual show at Timonium and you can bring your kindjal so you can compare it in person with some others that our advanced collectors have and then we will see. Until then this thread should be put on hold.


Regards

Lew

[fernando]

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

Gav

I think we have gone as far as we can with this thread and it's time to put it to rest.

IMHO, wouldn't that have been the wisest attitude ?


.