Old Khyber

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

The inscription is in Farsi. I saw word “Allah” and am almost sure the entire text is a part of one of the Suras.

I won't be so sure, it might be poetry, you might have names, places...

Richard's date looks very right.

Originally Posted by ariel

I would like to ask a general question: on what grounds do we discard unusual objects as some kind of “fake”?

Answer ignorant and arogance

A few years ago when I joined this forum, i trusted very much members opinions. I remember for some khanjar and others objects. Now i don't.
Most of the members here (including myself - sometimes) have very limited ideas and they base their opinions only on their own knowledge (unfortunately sometimes based only on Google and wikipedia).

Fake, modern, recent is an easy way.
I remember a discussion on the Greek yataghans, it was a disaster: statments without any proofs (only the ones that I provided and were turned against my own demonstration) and this by reputable and knowledgable members.

Originally Posted by ariel

to conclude that we have no idea when its blade was etched? That “1229” may be a genuine date ( even in Jalali)?

Another point for you Ariel is why doing such complicated "fake", the script and the rider, all these decorations are very rich and i wonder if someone wanted to enhance an object to sell it to a dealer or a collector, he would have spend so much time. One inscription, one date wouldb have been more than enough. In short your sword and the etching are problably genuine and it's true that the doubts that we might have are based mainly on the uniqueness of the object.

Originally Posted by ariel

Even they admit from time to time that they do not know something and cannot pass an informed judgement. Shouldn’t we all adopt a similar attitude?
“Just the facts, Ma’am!”

I can give you many examples such as the Berber swords from Morocco it was decided by Forum members that these swords are all Spanish colonials from the Carabean or South America. When you have many nimcha with Spanish blades and I know some of these swords were collected in Morocco...

It's not only about facts, it is also how you use the references and the facts (again look at the discussionon the Greek yataghan).

[ariel]

Atypical and unusual are not bad words.

Often they tell us about bridges between traditions and cultures. Charles presented here quite a few such examples, mainly from Indonesia. Deccan was a place where South Indian and Mughal traditions fused together.

Sometimes they are rare surviving examples of a previously well-established pattern: Shapsugh kindjals were described as having unusually wide blades. But Shapsughs were exiled from their land by the Russians ~150 years ago, settled elsewhere in the Ottoman realm and ceased to maintain their exclusive traditions. Their weapons largely vanished as a result. Currently, having encountered their old kindjal, we may dismiss it as an “ atypical” and exclude it from consideration.

We are to ignore the “unusual” to our peril: it impoverishes our understanding of history of people and their weapons. We are at our right ( and obligation?) to weed out fakes, but we need to support such a decision with damn good facts, not with superficial factoids and general statements.

Regretfully, cocky self-appointed “gurus” are the most vocal and the most aggressive popularisers of their pseudo-knowledge, and Internet as well as self-publishing book companies present them a vast arena for spreading their narcissistic balderdash.

This is why it is an obligation to remain serious, factual and “academic” in our discussions. There are quite a few people who can teach us how to do it, - LaRocca, Alexander, Elgood, Rivkin, Mohamed. They are professionals unlike us, the amateurs, but we still can learn the basics from them.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Atypical and unusual are not bad words.
Often they tell us about bridges between traditions and cultures. Charles presented here quite a few such examples, mainly from Indonesia. Deccan was a place where South Indian and Mughal traditions fused together.

It would be very interesting if you would tell in more detail about the "bridges between traditions and cultures" in Afghanistan. This would increase the knowledge of all forum participants.

Originally Posted by ariel

We are to ignore the “unusual” to our peril: it impoverishes our understanding of history of people and their weapons. We are at our right ( and obligation?) to weed out fakes, but we need to support such a decision with damn good facts, not with superficial factoids and general statements.

It may be better to confirm "unique" items "a with damn good facts, not with superficial factoids and general statements. That would be more logical.

Originally Posted by ariel

This is why it is an obligation to remain serious, factual and “academic” in our discussions.

Personally, I look forward to when will begin “academic” in this discussions. But unfortunately, so far only assumptions have been voiced that are not based on unserious facts ...

For the fourth time, for example, I very much ask the participants who claimed that the Sunnis could depict anthropomorphic figures and animals on their blades, show Ottoman blades of the 19th century, executed and decorated by Turkish masters, with similar images in this topic ...
Is this too immodest a request?

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Another point for you Ariel is why doing such complicated "fake", the script and the rider, all these decorations are very rich and i wonder if someone wanted to enhance an object to sell it to a dealer or a collector, he would have spend so much time. One inscription, one date wouldb have been more than enough.

Here are absolutely grotesque examples of modern products of Afghan masters. Why didn’t they put only one inscription on the blades? Or just an image of one animal? I have no answer. But I think that no one will doubt that these are souvenirs ....

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Here are absolutely grotesque examples of modern products of Afghan masters. Why didn’t they put only one inscription on the blades? Or just an image of one animal? I have no answer. But I think that no one will doubt that these are souvenirs ....

Excellent examples, just decorative, I don't think they can be qualifed of fakes.
The technique is very different too, engraved or ciselled.
I think Ariel's sword is another animal.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Excellent examples, just decorative, I don't think they can be qualifed of fakes.
The technique is very different too, engraved or ciselled.
I think Ariel's sword is another animal.

I say that in the case of Ariel’s Khyber’s knife, and in the case of the objects that I showed, the master was not limited to “one inscription” or “one animal”. But the technique of decorating blades is certainly different)))

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I think Ariel's sword is another animal.

Kubur,

I apologize if I was insufficiently clear, but the Khyber I have shown is NOT mine. It was just posted on e-bay for $5,885 :-))), not sold ( naturally) and taken off the auction.
When the latter was done, I posted its pictures as required by Forum rules.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I think Ariel's sword is another animal.

Kubur,
Unfortunately, fakes are of different levels. Some are grotesque, others are well made. For example, choora dagger, which was recently sold on e-bay. Very nice decoration of the blade. I even liked it. But "A Devil in the Details". . For example, if it was an old decoration of the blade, then the master would definitely decorate the T-shaped spine in the same style...

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Kubur,
Unfortunately, fakes are of different levels. Some are grotesque, others are well made. For example, choora dagger, which was recently sold on e-bay. Very nice decoration of the blade. I even liked it. But "A Devil in the Details". . For example, if it was an old decoration of the blade, then the master would definitely decorate the T-shaped spine in the same style...

Very interesting example, but the fact that the decoration on the blade was made by a different person doesn't make it a fake!

Japanese swords are usually made by a master swordsmith and occasionaly decorated/engraved (horimono), sometimes at a much later date by another master. But that doesn't make them fakes, nor does it decrease their value.

The choora in your photos appears to have the decorations on the blade made by chiseling. This takes a big amount of time and skill and by no means can it be seen as diminishing the value of the blade.

I wouldn't consider even your earlier examples as fakes, but just poorly executed knives for the souvenirs market.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Very interesting example, but the fact that the decoration on the blade was made by a different person doesn't make it a fake!

Japanese swords are usually made by a master swordsmith and occasionaly decorated/engraved (horimono), sometimes at a much later date by another master. But that doesn't make them fakes, nor does it decrease their value.

Agree 100%. Nothing "fake-y" here. Everywhere from Turkey to India blades were made by bladesmiths and the rest by some other masters. Persians even had specific names for each profession, but I just forgot them. Thinking that had it been real, it would have had similar decoration on the handle is akin to asserting that had it really been da Vinci who painted Mona Lisa, he would have given her more luxurious frame.
I also agree that the previous ones, labeled as "fakes" are nothing but. An object becomes a "fake" when a newly-made one is offered for sale as a genuinely antique. Otherwise, it is either an honest working one made recently, or a souvenir.

[mahratt]

Probably, I incomprehensibly explained It was necessary to put the link:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/ANCIEN-COUT...wAAOSwx0FdZCQw

This choora dagger, judging by the description, is declared as ancient. Beautiful floral carving on a blade is a modern work. I will explain again what I wrote a little earlier. If the old master made this carving, he would decorate the T-shaped spine this choora dagger in the same style. The photo shows that the T-shaped spine this choora dagger is decorated very roughly. Old masters did not allow such stylistic differences.
So we are dealing with a fake ... As I said before, there are fakes of a very good standard
I didn’t say anything about the hilt Perhaps my bad English is to blame. Sorry for not being able to explain right away...

For me personally, modern work (in my understanding "modern work" for an object that is 100 years old is 10-30-50 years old) on an old blade (even if it will be very good) - reduces the value of the item ... For me, such an object will be fake.

Marius, I agree with you that Japanese swords are usually made by a master swordsmith and occasionaly decorated/engraved (horimono), sometimes at a much later date by another master. That doesn't make them fakes, nor does it decrease their value.
But if I make an engraving on an old Japanese blade - what do you say about this?)) Will it be a fake?