Anglo-Indian Knives

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So, for you, a knife is "better" if it is older.
A knife is "better" if it is intended for use by people living in the area where it was made.

Not all the secrets revealed in one day!

I don't think that older is always better
for example, I like knife 12, probably more than 6...
Sometimes, at least for me, aesthetic can prime.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ian, yes, agreed, my questions could be interpreted as worth related, but I have most definitely not related my questions to worth.

My objective is as I have stated:- I am interested in the thought processes that result in ranking something as "better" than something else.

I have no intention at all of getting involved in any discussion or debate about which of the knives in this thread is "better" than any other, I simply want to understand how people can look at a photo of something and determine that it is "better" than something else.


Kubur, as I have stated, I'm not interested in a popularity contest, my questions are simple ones, and all I'm really interested in is the way in which experienced collectors arrive at their opinions.

[Ian]

Sorry Alan, I did not wish to imply "worth" in terms of monetary value, but rather worth in terms of intrinsic merit or "worthiness"--i.e., what is "better" in the eye of the beholder.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you gentlemen.

Kronckew, yes, I do agree that some examples of this style of knife are of rather poor craftsmanship, and that retaining nuts on tangs and blades etched with "Victory" are hardly indicative of ethnographically accurate Indian cutlery.
Detlef has already clarified the "all" word, so that sort of limits the field a bit, but using objective comparisons, perhaps not.
Detlef also makes it clear that he has expressed a personal opinion, not an objective judgement, and from that perspective, well, we're all entitled to whatever opinion we wish to hold. But it is still interesting to try to understand what drives an opinion like this.

Ian, thank you for your clarification, yes, I did misunderstand your intent. However, if somebody thinks of something as "worthy" , how was that opinion formed? Why is it "worthy"? This is what I am attempting to try to understand.

Any of us can form an opinion, and we are entitled to that opinion, but there is always a reason for the opinion. That is what I'm trying to get at.

The responses to my initial question seem to be tending in a general direction of age and ethnicity, rather than any idea of quality of craftsmanship. For me, this is a very interesting way of thinking.

Actually, I think that possibly only Marius has tried to address my question in an analytical fashion. I did not intend to start a popularity contest as to where each knife ranked in terms of "betterness", but Marius has succeeded in giving reasons for his opinions, so he has clarified for me how he is thinking and why, and that is what I am trying to understand.

[Jon MB]

Dear Mr Maisey,

As you seem to have some stringent criteria for what constitutes a user-friendly description of a rational process for the evaluation of these items, it might be useful to hear about your own processes and criteria for evaluating Kris.

That would also provide a framework for other commentators to provide the answers you seek.

I agree with comments that age should not preceed quality in terms of evaluating an item, but age can be a useful thing to note during evaluation, as for example a 17th C. piece of low quality would be less likely to survive 'till now.

[A. G. Maisey]

Jon, I regret that I have been unable to make the objective of my questioning clear, so I will try again:-

I am not in the smallest degree interested in which of the knives shown in this thread is "best".

I am not interested in attempting to promote nor to establish any method to be used in appraisal of these or any other knives.

I am only interested in the way in which the experienced collectors who decided that the post #6 knife was better than all the others reached that decision.

In fact, the two experienced people who gave the original judgement that the post #6 knife was better than all the others have already responded to my question, and in their own ways have provided very clear indications of the way in which they think.

One other gentleman gave a measured and reasoned response, and I appreciate that addition to the discussion.

My interest was in the way in which people think, my interest was not at all in the knives themselves.

As for the way in which I appraise a keris, that is a very difference game to appraising a knife such as those shown in this thread. In fact, this is far too broad a subject to be dealt with in this thread. If you care to open a thread on this subject in the Keris Forum, I am fairly confident that you will get input not only from myself, but from other people as well.

[ariel]

Alan,
Allow me to add my 5 cents worth of purely personal perspective.
IMHO, there are as many collections as there are collectors. We all have different criteria, and the general statements such as “ Genlemen prefer blonds” just do not apply.

Some go for quality blades, some go for the baubles ( Al- Sabah collection), some for historical connections ( I am still sore for missing a sword gifted by Mohammed Ali), some ( I am sure) collect anything in pink or chartreuse.

Personally, I like simple fighting weapons, rare examples, old ( even worn), unusual, showing features of penetration of a different culture. Not into daggers for some reasons, although I have a Kindjal signed by Iosif Papov( there are probably less than 10 with his full signature in the world) and am a sucker for the Afghan and Central Asian ones.
Mass-produced, regulation and “ tourist” items do not interest me, as are newly-made reproductions of even high artistic or mechanical level. I am not into Kris ( sorry), simply because they were not so much weapons as accoutrements. But I understand people who collect them for their artistic and mystical value.

My criteria virtually guarantee an impossibility of recouping my expenses. Few people may be interested in a Tulwar with a handle that was illustrated in Hamzanameh and vanished since, even though it was featured by Elgood in a separate chapter as “important”. But collecting is a purely emotional issue, and the best ( for me) it does, it forces ( me) to buy books.



“Better” just has different meaning for different people.

[kronckew]

as i have said before, i'm leery of any of these indian arms with hex nut tang terminations. i suspect they are mid 20th century at best, the ones with long ricassos with vrious simple mottos etche in and sold as middy dirks especially. i do have one, think i paid £5 for it at at a car boot sale. (flea market) the older pesh did not have these nasty rat tangs and nuts. i offer two of mne for examples below, one the green/white stone grips, the other very much similar with a proper wood grip. the jade-ish one has a field repaired scabbard, so is not a diagnostic aid, the wood grip one has a nice older scabbard. Also a smaller one with a guard that is more of a paper kinfe as it's too small to get your finger inside the knuckle bow, no scabbard.

I also last show my nutted 'naval dirk POJ (piece of junk) as a caveat. It was sold as a sikh 'kirpan'. Says 'Victory in the etched side panel of the ricasso.