Yataghan on e-bay

[ariel]

Just ended.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320203452608&indexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting
The handle looks new to me ( see rivets) and the "ears", although quite thin, are perfectly intact.The bolster is re-worked ( see "footprint" on the blade) and is of strange configuration.
Overall, I think this is a heavily restored Yataghan and the project was done within the past several years.
But what really puzzles me, is the date. It is 1661 H, ie ~ 2240 Gregorian, which makes no sense ( unless one assumes that it is a Gregorian date written in Arabic numbers and the thingie is 400 years old :D :D ).
In regular photography, we would suspect inverted negative. Can it also happened with the digital technique?
Is it 1221?

[Jim McDougall]

Hmmm, interesting.

[Battara]

I noticed this too. The ears look Balkan, but you are right about the restoration - and not the best at that - the ears look bone.

[ALEX]

Is it possible that the coftgari is new altogether? Koftgari technique is still practiced in Middle East and India, and there are many masters who create good quality work. The geometrical coftgari on this Yataghan is relatively simple, and even unusually simple in comparison with known old types. The condition of silver strikes me as being a bit too newish in comparison with condition of the blade.
Sandeep Singh, who is Forum member, and one of the best coftgari masters in my opinion, perhaps can comment on this (and I think he can do a better work by the way :)

[ariel]

Alex,
You are right: something bothered me about the koftgari, but I did not emphasize it enough.
It looks remarkably intact: nary a loss across the entire length of the blade.
But, then it becomes even funnier: couldn't they put a more believable date?

[ward]

I would agree that damacene is new the swirls in the pattern are not traditional either. The hilt is new. All mounted on a older blade

[ALEX]

It could be a part of the puzzle Ariel,
As we've seen badly executed and/or copied cartouches with some artistical mistakes (where it's hard to tell the lion, for example), this could be an equivalent of coftgari mistake, where the date was copied incorrectly, perhaps by someone who does not understand Arabic.

[Jeff D]

I vote new koftgari, with a reversed image. Date 1221 (1229 ?).

Jeff