Mughal style dagger

[Jens Nordlunde]

Marius,

You could be right, that the 'green glass' were emeralds, but still quite small, so when you are at it, why not take the rubies as well?
I have a dagger where the gems are replaced with glass with coloured metal foil under (cat. pp. 63-64).

Jens :-)

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Marius,

You could be right, that the 'green glass' were emeralds, but still quite small, so when you are at it, why not take the rubies as well?
I have a dagger where the gems are replaced with glass with coloured metal foil under (cat. pp. 63-64).

Jens :-)

Hi Jens,

I am certain the stones are all original and none were replaced. What I meant was that they were originally a mixture of gems and glass. I have seen this very often in 19-20 century "Mughal" daggers with stone hilts and kundan. Will check again when I will be out of the hospital.

Regards,

Marius

PS: My guess for the age is around 1900.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Marius,

It can be very hard to date these hilts, especially from pictures, but I think your guess is correct.

Jens

[mariusgmioc]

Manged to have the stones tested at the jeweler.

Hilt = Quartz
Eyes & forehead stone = Rubies (fairly good quality albeit not the best)
small red stones = Rubies (low quality; tested just a couple of them as they are carbochon and difficult to test but did a visual exam on the rest)
orange stones = probably Aghate but unsure as they are too small
green stones = glass

While they couldn't be 100% sure they said the mountings appear to be untampered so probably all stones are the originial ones.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Manged to have the stones tested at the jeweler.

Hilt = Quartz
Eyes & forehead stone = Rubies (fairly good quality albeit not the best)
small red stones = Rubies (low quality; tested just a couple of them as they are carbochon and difficult to test but did a visual exam on the rest)
orange stones = probably Aghate but unsure as they are too small
green stones = glass

While they couldn't be 100% sure they said the mountings appear to be untampered so probably all stones are the originial ones.

It is possible that the sheet silver at the base and the stones in the silver was added at a later date, maybe to cover up a fault or just to add some bling...the gold kundan on the eyes does not really match the silver work holding the other stones, just a thought.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

It is possible that the sheet silver at the base and the stones in the silver was added at a later date, maybe to cover up a fault or just to add some bling...the gold kundan on the eyes does not really match the silver work holding the other stones, just a thought.

I don't think so as the silver is basically one piece with the front bolster and it serves also as consolidation for the mounting of the blade since the tang is only about 2 cm (from all I can see).

[Jens Nordlunde]

Marius,
It is interesting about the rubies and the green glass, I wonder why that is?
Do you think the silver was made to cover a fault? Maybe the dagger was once dropped, or do you think it is to compensate for the short tang?
Jens