A result of ivory regulations ???

Ian · 21st January 2024, 06:39 AM

These two Burmese dha are beautiful examples of late 19th C Burmese crafts. The koftgari work on the blades is excellent, and the pictures show how finely cross hatched the blade was prepared for the silver to be applied. It is thought that this work was either done by highly skilled Indian craftsmen, or by Burmese who had trained under Indian masters.

It is distressing to see that neither has its hilt. The second example shows a remnant of the ferrule, and this has been deliberately and crudely cut so that the hilt could be removed.

I've seen several other high end dha that apparently have been mistreated similarly. These have all been in the last 6–9 months. What we are seeing here, I believe, is a response to worldwide restrictions on selling items containing ivory. Some marketers seem to believe it is better to damage a fine work of art to sell it for a meager sum than leave it intact.

The first one below sold for 70 GBP. The other did not receive a bid. What a waste of two lovely swords. No doubt one could rehilt these with silver and they would look fine (but would be expensive these days).

The sad thing is that any ivory on these swords would have been more than 100 years old and likely exempt from CITES regulations.

.

21st January 2024, 06:39 AM	#1
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,200	A result of ivory regulations ??? These two Burmese dha are beautiful examples of late 19th C Burmese crafts. The koftgari work on the blades is excellent, and the pictures show how finely cross hatched the blade was prepared for the silver to be applied. It is thought that this work was either done by highly skilled Indian craftsmen, or by Burmese who had trained under Indian masters. It is distressing to see that neither has its hilt. The second example shows a remnant of the ferrule, and this has been deliberately and crudely cut so that the hilt could be removed. I've seen several other high end dha that apparently have been mistreated similarly. These have all been in the last 6–9 months. What we are seeing here, I believe, is a response to worldwide restrictions on selling items containing ivory. Some marketers seem to believe it is better to damage a fine work of art to sell it for a meager sum than leave it intact. The first one below sold for 70 GBP. The other did not receive a bid. What a waste of two lovely swords. No doubt one could rehilt these with silver and they would look fine (but would be expensive these days). The sad thing is that any ivory on these swords would have been more than 100 years old and likely exempt from CITES regulations. . Attached Images