What can you tell me about this sword?

[Ren Ren]

Perhaps I didn’t quite correctly understand your idea. But we are at an international forum, even a global one. And forum participants only in rare cases have the opportunity to see objects with their own eyes and hold in their hands before discussing them. In the vast majority of cases, the opinion of the participants is based on a photo and confidence in their own right.
In addition, I have come across many times that people stubbornly and shamelessly defend their erroneous opinion for one single reason - they had the misfortune to vote for this opinion with their own wallet
I think that you are aware of such cases more than one.

[ariel]

All of us here are called to express their opinion based on photographic images. This is a big limitation, no doubt.
And you are correct: the urge to defend their choice is inherent in human psychology. That’s why many people stick to their abusive or drug-addicted spouses.

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by ariel

All of us here are called to express their opinion based on photographic images. This is a big limitation, no doubt.
And you are correct: the urge to defend their choice is inherent in human psychology. That’s why many people stick to their abusive or drug-addicted spouses.

Oh yeah! I met collectors for whom their items were closer and more expensive than children and spouses. This has a lot in common with drug addiction

[Drabant1701]

Greetings Eric,
I am no expert in russian swords so I can not tell you if its real or a reproduction. I do hovever think that the provenance of the sword might help in determining if it its the real deal. There is a big difference between finding it in in the attic of someone who was an officer in the imperial russian army and buying it on E-bay from India.

I must say if its a reproduction it looks very authentic. I have however seen a large italian auction house sell several reproduction shashka (described as second half of the 20th century) that looked pretty old and authentic to my untrained eye

[erikmarko]

Hi Drabant, the sword was bought at some small flea market on the west coast of Canada. We do have a quite a few Russian immigrants. The interesting thing about the sword is that the entire blade was covered in thick gunky substances I guess to protect it from rusting. So we did not really knew what the blade looked like all we saw was the hilt that got our attention. I'm thinking that if the sword was fake and someone wanted it to look old they would not cover it in the gunky stuff to protect it from rusting.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Drabant1701

Greetings Eric,
I am no expert in russian swords so I can not tell you if its real or a reproduction. I do hovever think that the provenance of the sword might help in determining if it its the real deal. There is a big difference between finding it in in the attic of someone who was an officer in the imperial russian army and buying it on E-bay from India.

I must say if its a reproduction it looks very authentic. I have however seen a large italian auction house sell several reproduction shashka (described as second half of the 20th century) that looked pretty old and authentic to my untrained eye

Getting provenance data from a seller may be intriguing: any self-respecting dealer in forgeries has at least 3 versions ready. At least two will include personal friendship with Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great.

By the way, my son just came back from Georgia ( he climbed Mount Kazbek) and sent me pics of unending street stalls in Tbilisi with dozens of kindjals and shashkas for sale.

[mariusgmioc]

Genuine, traditional Katanas are made as we speak, and they are neither fakes, nor reproductions. Moreover, most of them cost more than 90% of the antique katanas on the market.

High quality Omani Khanjars are made as we speak and sold in the souk of Muscat. And they are neither fake, nor reproductions.

Stuning Indonesian krisses are made as we speak and many of them are much more expensive that the vast majority of antique kerises, and they are neither fake, nor reproductions.

So let us set things straight:
if a blade is of modern manufacture, that doesn't make it neither fake, nor a reproduction!

A "fake" is something made with the intention to deceive, and isn't necessarily of modern manufacture.

There are many "fake" 16th century katanas made by more or less obscure swordsmiths but signed with famous names of the period. However, such a sword is considered a "fake" ONLY if it is sold as a genuine masterpiece of the famous swordsmith. If the very same sword is sold openly as "gimei" (with fake signatue), it can fetch good money and would not be considered "fake" (but just the signature).

One can sell a magnificent 19th century rapier without being considered a fake, but a piece of the "historicism". Yet, if the same rapier is sold as a genuine 16th century piece, instantly it becomes a fake.

Now with regards to reproductions, the term may be equally ambiguous but I consider a reproduction, an object which looks like the original but cannot function (or will function improperly) like the original.

So you can have a Chinese made katana, of stainless steel with no cutting edge, that looks great to be hanged on the wall but cannot cut a sheet of paper. That would be a reproduction.

But if you have a razor sharp Chinese katana, made of high quality steel that can cut like an 16th century original (albeit they quite often cut much better), then I wouldn't call it a reproduction.

Just a few thoughts...

[Will M]

What use is a 16th century signature on a modern made sword? Reproduced proof markings also are fake as the weapon was never officially proofed. Whether old repros/fakes or modern these items are made to deceive. Recent European made Napoleonic swords are much more accurate to originals, why? It takes only some exposure to weather then a clean to give them "aged patina".
My point is the only reason many of these copies, repros, fakes sell is because they market to fraudulent sellers. Mixing of authentic and fakes for sale is to give authenticity to the fake.
That's my two cents, authentic or fake.

[ariel]

Marius,
To summarize your perfectly accurate post, there is a sharp line between "fake" and " reproduction": intent to deceive.
From there on, dividing lines become more and more blurry: "reproduction" vs. " composite", " composite" vs. " restored" etc.
The majority of genuinely old Indian sword are "composite", as convincingly demonstrated by Elgood: blade and handle do not coincide. That does not disqualify them from being genuine if the "marriage" occured during working life of the sword. The same is true about scabbards: original ones rarely survive 200-300 years, and may be of a third or tenth generation. But what about recently replaced Indian handle? Is it legitimate composition ( this is exactly what the old owners did!) or something more sinister? "Restored" depends on the degree of restoration: excavated swords require active involvement to prevent disintegration. But I have seen allegedly genuine excavated swords "preserved" with tannate, but with perfectly sharp complex edges, obviously untouched by rusting.

Important to remember that many old museum paintings and frescoes were "restored" ( Sistine Chapel!), that perfectly white ancient Greek marble statues were originally garishly painted, and that some were reassembled and re-glued.

IMHO, at the end of the day, the intent to deceive is what counts.

[mross]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Genuine, traditional Katanas are made as we speak, and they are neither fakes, nor reproductions. Moreover, most of them cost more than 90% of the antique katanas on the market.

High quality Omani Khanjars are made as we speak and sold in the souk of Muscat. And they are neither fake, nor reproductions.

Stuning Indonesian krisses are made as we speak and many of them are much more expensive that the vast majority of antique kerises, and they are neither fake, nor reproductions.

So let us set things straight:
if a blade is of modern manufacture, that doesn't make it neither fake, nor a reproduction!

A "fake" is something made with the intention to deceive, and isn't necessarily of modern manufacture.

There are many "fake" 16th century katanas made by more or less obscure swordsmiths but signed with famous names of the period. However, such a sword is considered a "fake" ONLY if it is sold as a genuine masterpiece of the famous swordsmith. If the very same sword is sold openly as "gimei" (with fake signatue), it can fetch good money and would not be considered "fake" (but just the signature).

One can sell a magnificent 19th century rapier without being considered a fake, but a piece of the "historicism". Yet, if the same rapier is sold as a genuine 16th century piece, instantly it becomes a fake.

Now with regards to reproductions, the term may be equally ambiguous but I consider a reproduction, an object which looks like the original but cannot function (or will function improperly) like the original.

So you can have a Chinese made katana, of stainless steel with no cutting edge, that looks great to be hanged on the wall but cannot cut a sheet of paper. That would be a reproduction.

But if you have a razor sharp Chinese katana, made of high quality steel that can cut like an 16th century original (albeit they quite often cut much better), then I wouldn't call it a reproduction.

Just a few thoughts...

The only thing I disagree with is your last line about the katana. If it is not made by a certified Japanese trained smith then it is a reproduction. Granted there are quite a few smith who made excellent katana, Atar, Big Ear, too name a few, but they are considered Japanese Style. The Nihonto world is very picky on this point.