From whence this Bichaq?

[Marcus]

The diameter of the handle of #1 is only about half an inch. I do not think it is plausible that it would have been suitable for a full size sword.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Marcus

The diameter of the handle of #1 is only about half an inch. I do not think it is plausible that it would have been suitable for a full size sword.

From what 0liver wrote he seems to be suggesting that the blade may have originally been a yatagan that was shortened, I do not think he meant that the hilt was a yatagan hilt, just the blade, at least that is how I read it.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

From what 0liver wrote he seems to be suggesting that the blade may have originally been a yatagan that was shortened, I do not think he meant that the hilt was a yatagan hilt, just the blade, at least that is how I read it.

From what I read, Oliver refers to the whole knife as being a modified full size Yataghan and not only the blade.

Even if he were referring only to the blade, I believe that is highly improbable as there is absolutely no indication why would it be so (as Oliver didn't mention any reason).

On contrary, the engraving on the blade is small and narrow, perfectly matching the narrow blade of a knife and definitely not suitable for a wider Yataghan blade.

Moreover, if the blade were to come from a full size Yataghan that would have been immediately visible from the thickness of the blade... which I don't think is the case.

But I already made my case in an earlier comment.