Preservation vs. restoration - opinions?

FenrisWolf · 27th January 2007, 10:31 AM

I'm curious; a number of times I've seen weapons offered for sale that, through wear and tear or simple neglect, have deteriorated significantly from their original condition. Now at what point should one look at such a blade and take active steps to restore it in some manner, beyond the bacis of simply cleaning and oiling the steel?

I currently have one such, a short yataghan with an eared hilt of walrus ivory that has been abused by decades of neglect. The blade is literally black with rust, the sivlerwork that normally decorates the transition from hilt to blade is missing, and the wood spacers underlying the ivory scales are so dried out the the hilt positive rattles.

I have already started conservation work on the blade itself, carefully removing as much of the rust as possible without damaging the underlying metal. At best it will probably turn out something like the blade of the nimcha I posted earlier, badly pitted with patches of smooth steel in between. It won't be beautiful, but it will arrest the ongoing corrosion. My real question is what to do about the hilt?

Assuming one could be found, would it be proper to put the sword in the hands of a weaponsmaker who could duplicate what has been lost? If, say, the silverwork was hallmarked to indicate it had be redone in modern times, would that be acceptable? Or should I leave it strictly alone, and stop at preserving the blade? One other thought I had was to hang on to the yataghan just as it is, and wait until I find another one, one with a fine blade but a badly damaged hilt and transfer the ivory to that one?

I know that in the Middle East the re-hilting of blades is not uncommon; one of the great treasures is finding a kaskara with a captured Crusader's sword blade in its mounts, and european blades in Middle Eastern fittings are a byword. So where is the line drawn on such restorations?

Fenris

27th January 2007, 10:31 AM	#1
FenrisWolf Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 181	Preservation vs. restoration - opinions? I'm curious; a number of times I've seen weapons offered for sale that, through wear and tear or simple neglect, have deteriorated significantly from their original condition. Now at what point should one look at such a blade and take active steps to restore it in some manner, beyond the bacis of simply cleaning and oiling the steel? I currently have one such, a short yataghan with an eared hilt of walrus ivory that has been abused by decades of neglect. The blade is literally black with rust, the sivlerwork that normally decorates the transition from hilt to blade is missing, and the wood spacers underlying the ivory scales are so dried out the the hilt positive rattles. I have already started conservation work on the blade itself, carefully removing as much of the rust as possible without damaging the underlying metal. At best it will probably turn out something like the blade of the nimcha I posted earlier, badly pitted with patches of smooth steel in between. It won't be beautiful, but it will arrest the ongoing corrosion. My real question is what to do about the hilt? Assuming one could be found, would it be proper to put the sword in the hands of a weaponsmaker who could duplicate what has been lost? If, say, the silverwork was hallmarked to indicate it had be redone in modern times, would that be acceptable? Or should I leave it strictly alone, and stop at preserving the blade? One other thought I had was to hang on to the yataghan just as it is, and wait until I find another one, one with a fine blade but a badly damaged hilt and transfer the ivory to that one? I know that in the Middle East the re-hilting of blades is not uncommon; one of the great treasures is finding a kaskara with a captured Crusader's sword blade in its mounts, and european blades in Middle Eastern fittings are a byword. So where is the line drawn on such restorations? Fenris