Go on...show us your Choora!!

ariel · 6th June 2015, 07:25 PM

Mahratt, you have your opinion about dating chooras, I have mine, and we have discussed it many times.

Why wouldn't we put our differences aside and let the Forumites decide for themselves whether they view expert opinion sufficiently convincing. OK?

As to the origin of the handle, I am making arrangements to take it to our Museum of Natural History and have the real experts look at it.

Meanwhile, the Forumites are free to express their opinions.

mahratt · 6th June 2015, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt, you have your opinion about dating chooras, I have mine, and we have discussed it many times.

Why wouldn't we put our differences aside and let the Forumites decide for themselves whether they view expert opinion sufficiently convincing. OK?

As to the origin of the handle, I am making arrangements to take it to our Museum of Natural History and have the real experts look at it.

Meanwhile, the Forumites are free to express their opinions.

You have expressed your opinion, and I expressed my opinion. We both participants of the forum

What are the arguments? Only opinions.

And why do you need an expert to determine the horn? Suffice it to another photo of a certain angle.

ariel · 6th June 2015, 08:17 PM

Why wouldn't we both remain quiet and let the Forumites speak?

David · 6th June 2015, 08:47 PM

Just my 2 cents...
Clearly these papers have been attached to these sheaths for a very long time. If this was an attempt to deceive about the age of these sheaths it would be a very good forgery indeed. Better, sharper photographs would beg helpful though, Ariel.
But if we do assume that the papers were in place for a very long time i don't see that someone even 50 years ago would bother to try to deceive anyone with dates just 100 years previous. What would be the point? Ariel took the time and effort to have these papers scientifically analyzed. I see no reason, therefore, to doubt the dating of these sheaths give the age of the paper. Even if the numbers themselves do not represent dates, the paper and ink has been proven to be 19th century, so i find little to doubt with this finding.
I also don't see why expert examination to determine whether or not the handle is rhino is a bad thing. Photographs can be deceptive, and if you are not too offended by this professional photographer's opinion Ariel, your photographs are just not clear enough to really determine anything for sure.

So personally i would welcome your expert's testimony from the Museum of Natural History.

Why would anyone not welcome such evidence?

ariel · 6th June 2015, 09:05 PM

I freely admit my poor photographic abilities. No offence taken. Do I blush? Yes.... :-(((
Photographing a different view of the pommel, as suggested, is impossible: it is so polished by the years of hand contact that nothing can be discerned. Personal handling by a professional is the only way.

mahratt · 6th June 2015, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Photographing a different view of the pommel, as suggested, is impossible: it is so polished by the years of hand contact that nothing can be discerned. Personal handling by a professional is the only way.

Very strange ... The longitudinal fibers are seen well, although exactly there more hand contact. Their cross, where hand contact less-section is polished so that nothing is visible?

In the Horn of rhinoceros we always clearly visible longitudinal section of a special "drawing".

ward · 7th June 2015, 01:54 AM

I think mahratt is correct to a point. You have not translated what else it says so have no context that this is a date. It could easily mean that it was the 1854 piece they made, maybe it was remembering his grandfather's death. It seems strange that it in western characters and dating while the rest is not. If it says this was made under the ruler whomever, or if it was collected by lord so and so at that date you would have a lot stronger case. As to the paper being added the afghans are notorious for mixing old and new items together. The piece might be that old but Ariel you are far from proving it. I think this debate is one of the more interesting ones I have read.

ariel · 7th June 2015, 05:29 AM

Mahratt,
Why are you so nervous?
On what grounds do you call these labels a fake?

You might be right, and the handle may not be a rhino one. This is exactly why I am making arrangements to show it to an expert. But this is an aside and bears no influence on the main question.

The important thing is the age.

David has already agreed with the idea of the "19th century". Please stop adding more and more unrelated verbiage and images and let other Forumites express their opinions.

Thanks.

mahratt · 6th June 2015, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Just my 2 cents...
Clearly these papers have been attached to these sheaths for a very long time. If this was an attempt to deceive about the age of these sheaths it would be a very good forgery indeed. Better, sharper photographs would beg helpful though, Ariel.
But if we do assume that the papers were in place for a very long time i don't see that someone even 50 years ago would bother to try to deceive anyone with dates just 100 years previous. What would be the point? Ariel took the time and effort to have these papers scientifically analyzed. I see no reason, therefore, to doubt the dating of these sheaths give the age of the paper. Even if the numbers themselves do not represent dates, the paper and ink has been proven to be 19th century, so i find little to doubt with this finding.
I also don't see why expert examination to determine whether or not the handle is rhino is a bad thing. Photographs can be deceptive, and if you are not too offended by this professional photographer's opinion Ariel, your photographs are just not clear enough to really determine anything for sure.

So personally i would welcome your expert's testimony from the Museum of Natural History.

Why would anyone not welcome such evidence?

David, no one disputes that the paper is very old and that the paper glued for a long time (50 years is a long time, too). There is no question about the fact that it is a fake. But! 1) Ariel no has translated all the text and stopped at the numbers, which he considers dates. It is not quite correct. Maybe it's a record of the number of sheep

2) No one person does not determine exactly when the old paper was glued (50 years ago, 100 years ago or 150 years ago). And in Afghanistan, a very old paper used for household needs 40-50 more years ago. 3) It is known that the scabbard choor often papered with paper, so they came to the sword belt tight (see photo).

And another. Let's look a hypothetical situation. I have an old edition of the newspaper in 1927. And I have a knife that did in 1970. If I glue a piece of old newspaper on the knife that did in 1970, this knife will be stabbed in 1927? )

And on account of rhino horn - is online now enough people who can simply determine what kind of horn in question, if the photos will be presented in a certain foreshortening.

6th June 2015, 07:25 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Mahratt, you have your opinion about dating chooras, I have mine, and we have discussed it many times. Why wouldn't we put our differences aside and let the Forumites decide for themselves whether they view expert opinion sufficiently convincing. OK? As to the origin of the handle, I am making arrangements to take it to our Museum of Natural History and have the real experts look at it. Meanwhile, the Forumites are free to express their opinions. Attached Images Last edited by ariel; 6th June 2015 at 07:40 PM.

7th June 2015, 05:29 AM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Mahratt, Why are you so nervous? On what grounds do you call these labels a fake? You might be right, and the handle may not be a rhino one. This is exactly why I am making arrangements to show it to an expert. But this is an aside and bears no influence on the main question. The important thing is the age. David has already agreed with the idea of the "19th century". Please stop adding more and more unrelated verbiage and images and let other Forumites express their opinions. Thanks. Last edited by ariel; 7th June 2015 at 07:28 AM.

6th June 2015, 08:17 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Why wouldn't we both remain quiet and let the Forumites speak?

6th June 2015, 08:47 PM	#4
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,261	Just my 2 cents... Clearly these papers have been attached to these sheaths for a very long time. If this was an attempt to deceive about the age of these sheaths it would be a very good forgery indeed. Better, sharper photographs would beg helpful though, Ariel. But if we do assume that the papers were in place for a very long time i don't see that someone even 50 years ago would bother to try to deceive anyone with dates just 100 years previous. What would be the point? Ariel took the time and effort to have these papers scientifically analyzed. I see no reason, therefore, to doubt the dating of these sheaths give the age of the paper. Even if the numbers themselves do not represent dates, the paper and ink has been proven to be 19th century, so i find little to doubt with this finding. I also don't see why expert examination to determine whether or not the handle is rhino is a bad thing. Photographs can be deceptive, and if you are not too offended by this professional photographer's opinion Ariel, your photographs are just not clear enough to really determine anything for sure. So personally i would welcome your expert's testimony from the Museum of Natural History. Why would anyone not welcome such evidence?

6th June 2015, 09:05 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I freely admit my poor photographic abilities. No offence taken. Do I blush? Yes.... :-((( Photographing a different view of the pommel, as suggested, is impossible: it is so polished by the years of hand contact that nothing can be discerned. Personal handling by a professional is the only way.

7th June 2015, 01:54 AM	#7
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	I think mahratt is correct to a point. You have not translated what else it says so have no context that this is a date. It could easily mean that it was the 1854 piece they made, maybe it was remembering his grandfather's death. It seems strange that it in western characters and dating while the rest is not. If it says this was made under the ruler whomever, or if it was collected by lord so and so at that date you would have a lot stronger case. As to the paper being added the afghans are notorious for mixing old and new items together. The piece might be that old but Ariel you are far from proving it. I think this debate is one of the more interesting ones I have read.