Anglo-Indian Knives

A. G. Maisey · 27th January 2018, 10:45 AM

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 · 27th January 2018, 12:44 PM

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 · 27th January 2018, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

...

Personally, I like simple fighting weapons, ...

“Better” just has different meaning for different people.

Me. My main criteria is would I have taken this into battle. Is it suitable for it's intended purpose. And do i like it.

Pretty, Old, Rare are secondary to 'Could i bet my life on it'. I do have a general preference for naval connections, but that's not too important to functionality. Even rusty is OK if it's functional under the old warhorses age mottled skin. Being a bit unusual helps too.

In the worlds of WW2's Mad Jack Churchill "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed". (I'll leave off the longbow tho.)

A. G. Maisey · 27th January 2018, 07:48 PM

Precisely Ariel.

As I said:- my question was directed at the way in which two people thought.

In the absence of a qualifier, the word "better" is all inclusive.

So why was the #6 knife "better"?

mariusgmioc · 27th January 2018, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So why was the #6 knife "better"?

Because of the eye of the beholder!

Ian · 27th January 2018, 10:05 PM

Alan,

I fear you are starting to get circular answers.

Let me move sideways a little and comment further on the original examples that I posted. I agree with those who say the three on the right lack some refinements, especially in relation to their blades and sheaths. But the hilts are a bit more interesting and, I think, well made (even allowing for the screw nut on the end). The late 19th/early 20th C--the late Victorian/Edwardian era in Britain--coincided with the Art Nouveau period in fine art and the decorative arts, a period where there was considerable experimentation with different materials in art and architecture.

The hilts of the knives I showed have geometric mosaic designs of mother of pearl interspersed with jet (I am quite certain the black material is jet). Jet was a semi-precious gem during the Victorian era and Queen Victoria had several items of jewelry, including beads, made of jet to match her black mourning attire following the death of her husband Albert.

MOP and jet were not commonly seen in Indian art, let alone on knives, up to that time. Perhaps the appearance of these materials on Indian knives intended for British/European consumption had something to do with the Art Nouveau influence. The fitting of MOP and jet on the handles of these knives shows some skill IMHO, and the slim handles and flowing lines of the curved blade also seem to fit the artistic period.

To follow a little of Alan's theme, just because a knife is designed for a foreign market and made in large quantities does not mean it is without merit. I like these knives for the story they tell about the period they were made. I also like them because they have a touch of European refinement in an Asian setting, Anglo-Indian as I mentioned at the top of this thread--a cross-cultural item that benefits from both its heritages.

To bring this back to Alan's question of what is valued in a knife, I would add the expression of the culture(s) from which it comes and the period it was made. For me, this transcends the materials used and the quality of the workmanship, although both of those undoubtedly contribute to the overall quality of the piece.

I'm abstaining from ranking dissimilar items as better or worse.

Ian.

A. G. Maisey · 28th January 2018, 09:27 PM

Yes Ian, the discussion is getting circular. It has gone right away from my original intent when I first asked my questions.

In fact, the two gentlemen whom I addressed have both answered me well, in their own fashion, and I now believe I understand how they were thinking when they declared that the post # 6 dagger was "better" than all the others.

Their "better" meant according to their own personal preferences.

It was not an analytical, reasoned, objective opinion, it was an emotional, subjective opinion based their own personal preferences.

That was really all I wanted to understand.

I did not set out to start a discussion on how knives are, or should be, assessed or appraised.

I only set out to understand how two experienced collectors thought, and those two gentlemen have given me more or less what I wanted.

27th January 2018, 10:45 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	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.

27th January 2018, 12:44 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.

27th January 2018, 07:48 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Precisely Ariel. As I said:- my question was directed at the way in which two people thought. In the absence of a qualifier, the word "better" is all inclusive. So why was the #6 knife "better"?

27th January 2018, 10:05 PM	#6
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,399	Alan, I fear you are starting to get circular answers. Let me move sideways a little and comment further on the original examples that I posted. I agree with those who say the three on the right lack some refinements, especially in relation to their blades and sheaths. But the hilts are a bit more interesting and, I think, well made (even allowing for the screw nut on the end). The late 19th/early 20th C--the late Victorian/Edwardian era in Britain--coincided with the Art Nouveau period in fine art and the decorative arts, a period where there was considerable experimentation with different materials in art and architecture. The hilts of the knives I showed have geometric mosaic designs of mother of pearl interspersed with jet (I am quite certain the black material is jet). Jet was a semi-precious gem during the Victorian era and Queen Victoria had several items of jewelry, including beads, made of jet to match her black mourning attire following the death of her husband Albert. MOP and jet were not commonly seen in Indian art, let alone on knives, up to that time. Perhaps the appearance of these materials on Indian knives intended for British/European consumption had something to do with the Art Nouveau influence. The fitting of MOP and jet on the handles of these knives shows some skill IMHO, and the slim handles and flowing lines of the curved blade also seem to fit the artistic period. To follow a little of Alan's theme, just because a knife is designed for a foreign market and made in large quantities does not mean it is without merit. I like these knives for the story they tell about the period they were made. I also like them because they have a touch of European refinement in an Asian setting, Anglo-Indian as I mentioned at the top of this thread--a cross-cultural item that benefits from both its heritages. To bring this back to Alan's question of what is valued in a knife, I would add the expression of the culture(s) from which it comes and the period it was made. For me, this transcends the materials used and the quality of the workmanship, although both of those undoubtedly contribute to the overall quality of the piece. I'm abstaining from ranking dissimilar items as better or worse. Ian. Last edited by Ian; 27th January 2018 at 10:16 PM.

28th January 2018, 09:27 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Yes Ian, the discussion is getting circular. It has gone right away from my original intent when I first asked my questions. In fact, the two gentlemen whom I addressed have both answered me well, in their own fashion, and I now believe I understand how they were thinking when they declared that the post # 6 dagger was "better" than all the others. Their "better" meant according to their own personal preferences. It was not an analytical, reasoned, objective opinion, it was an emotional, subjective opinion based their own personal preferences. That was really all I wanted to understand. I did not set out to start a discussion on how knives are, or should be, assessed or appraised. I only set out to understand how two experienced collectors thought, and those two gentlemen have given me more or less what I wanted.