Wootz Katar

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Bob A

I'm struck by the contrast between the two sets of photos. While obviously the same katar, the Oriental Arms photos give an impression of considerable flatness in the figures on the blade, while emphasising the grain of the wootz. The photos by the OP show more curvilinear sculpting, and eliminate the grain in the steel.

Pictures don't lie, but certainly are unable to completely elicit Truth.

Unless this katar was purchased directly from Artzi it could have been worked on, polished etc in some way, the two images do look to show a different surface appearance.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Unless this katar was purchased directly from Artzi it could have been worked on, polished etc in some way, the two images do look to show a different surface appearance.

Yes, katar was not purchased directly from Artzi.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Unless this katar was purchased directly from Artzi it could have been worked on, polished etc in some way, the two images do look to show a different surface appearance.

Posibly you are right, but I am more inclined to think it's just the play of reflections and shadows.



PS: After carefully examining both photos in detail, I am pretty sure there was absolutely no other polishing done (well maybe some very mild cleaning). Artzi's photo generally is very flat, showing no relief because of the angle and the absence of shadows.

However, if we examine all the scratches, oxidation and traces of pitting (on the edges, on the high relief figures as well as on the chiseled down base metal), we can clearly see them present in both photos in the same configuration. Any polishing would have, if not completely removed, certainly reduced those traces of oxidation and pitting.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I am more inclined to think it's just the play of reflections and shadows.

You are probably right.

I like these hunting scenes, they give some interesting details. Below is one from the Met Museum collection.

[mariusgmioc]

Considering that the Indian aristocracy didn't go to war every day, neither did they go out to kill somebody regularly, it is quite logical to assume hunting was a much more common activity, and therefore the Katars were used much more frequently at hunting. But that doesn't make them hunting daggers.

It is like many hunters have and use a Kabar USMC, but that doesn't make it a hunting knife.

Interesting that I have seen many Katars, Khanjars and even Tulwars with hunting scenes, but not a single one with a battle scene.

Thank you for the photos!

I would love to get my hand on a Katar like Mahratt's!

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I would love to get my hand on a Katar like Mahratt's!

I do not think it is a katar, I would like to see the whole image though, nice wootz pattern.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

I do not think it is a katar, I would like to see the whole image though, nice wootz pattern.

No, no, the one with the hunting scene. That's the one I would like to have!

But I wouldn't say no to this one as well (it seems to be a Khanjar or a relative). The etching is poorly done as the surface was crudely cleaned, but not polished adequately (up to 2000-3000 grit).

[Jens Nordlunde]

Marius,
Where would you say stop - no, no, no:-):-)?
We all have our limits, where is yours?

[David]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Unless this katar was purchased directly from Artzi it could have been worked on, polished etc in some way, the two images do look to show a different surface appearance.

Please accept the opinion of a professional photographer. The only difference between these two images (beyond positioning and background) is the lighting.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you David, I had hoped that you could comment on the pictures, as I am only an amateur.