![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 44
|
![]()
Thanks for everyone's welcome! That was my first guess, that it's a late 1800 sword, when I saw it the first time, but there's something about the way it handles. Also I forgot to mention that the length of just the blade itself is 19", smaller that the typical krisses that was common during the revolutionary/phil-am war and later era, when these swords were more flamboyant and bigger.
As far as what you mentioned Bill, in regards to the smaller cockatoo pommels; that's exactly what I was trying to say, that the smaller ones (smaller that what I have) are truly archaic, perhaps late 1600's/early 1700's, and at some point there has to be a transitional period and I am assuming that this type of cockatoo pommel are the missing link. That is just my opinion , though. And yes, I have etched this, and a few 'marbled pattern' appeared, but I've decided to leave it as it is, since I don't really see the point of the pattern over-riding the inlay pattern. Btw, can you tell me more about the inlay? The Indonesian angle is a possibility as well, but I really don't have any provenanced example to compare it with. As far as what you mentioned, Battara, the handle wrap is old, and again, I would assume it's original to the sword rather that a rewrapped in the later period. Quote:
Quote:
Again, thank you for everyone's assessment, More comments would be truly appreciated. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|