Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
I will admit right up front that i know very little about this type of sword. But from simple observation it is clear to see that the fittings on Joe's Jian are rather poor for anything with legitimate age. We can clearly see the difference between what Joe has posted and the dagger that Robin has posted. And as Robin points out, even in 1900 when he estimates his double dagger from, these were most probably being made for European tastes.
I also agree with Robin that the ray skin looks a bit suspect on Joe's sword. The general quality of the piece seems low. It may be vintage, but i have serious doubts it is genuinely antique. Either way i suspect it's purpose was most probably not as a user, but a wall hanger.  |
David, you've hit the nail right on the head. No use over-intellectualizing the Buddhistic symbolism, this thing is bogus. The uneven workmanship, the assembly of the hilt (note especially the pommel which simply butts against the end of the grip without having the integral "skirt" that is the counterpart to the ferrule at the forward end), the decorative technique on the blade, I can go on and on. Having collected, dealt in, and restored Chinese swords (and somewhat analogous forms from Korea) for decades, plus examining them in museums both in Asia and the West, I can see too many discrepancies in this piece, which has far more in common with the fakes in Chinese souvenir shops than any of the originals in my experience.