Comparing a modern replica of a Pulwar sword hilt to an original antique
 

When comparing the craftsmanship I was surprised to see the pierced openwork decoration on the modern replica hilt surpassed the original Antique example. Should this really be surprising? Im assuming the modern craftsman has access to modern machine tools that make his work more even and precise, while the original craftsmen did this all by primitive hand tool, which inevitably made his work less neat and even.

At least this is my hypothesis, please correct me if I’m wrong

I think your hypothesis is correct; modern tooling allows repetitive precision that cannot be achieved with simpler tools. For me, much of the allure and my excitement about the antiques is the empirical ingenuity of the craftsmen in creating functional and beautiful edged weapons despite the limitations of tooling, materials and understanding of what is really happening at a physical and chemical level.

I will take it further and opine that the sometimes derided modern mass market replicas will outperform the treasured heirloom antiques if the manufacturer pays careful attention to the selection of material and proper subsequent heat treatment for that specific material.

One advantage the old makers would have had would be feedback from those that actually employed these weapons as such. The replica maker does not need to find any originality when reproducing the geometries worked out long ago, as improvement on that is rarely possible.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Modern fabrication techniques may make a pretty sword, but it will likely never be tested in actual combat.

That said, my personal interest is in the connection of an artifact with a once-living culture. It brings the two realities together at the nexus of the object.