Real wootz or etched iron?
 

Hallo, the designs on the blade of this shamshir, look like somebody has put acid on the blade.
When you touch the surface of the blade, you can feel the difference in depth between the lavels of the design, like some points have been eaten by the acid.
Was it a faint wootz pattern, and this was done to give emphasis, is it a visual trick on plain still, or is it just my imagination?
Is this an old technique during its working life or a "new improvement?
Also the sword, althought is sharp, looks like is not expertly made (look at the places that the steel is folded, like was not cared too much for details.)
It is a fairly heavy blade.

some more
 

some more photos

Hi Eftihis.
Very nice Persian shamshir.In my opinion is an overetched sham wootz blade not acid.
All the best
Aristeidis

Eftihis,
This is the first time I have to respectfully disagree with you:-)
The presence of fold line in my strong opinion is a sign of quality rather than carelessness. It is an indication of a folding process and I believe it was intentionally left by a smith to showcase the fact of him folding the steel, i.e. his last fold out of many. It is still used by dealers as the advantageous "selling point", proving the manual folding. Many high quality blades do have this line present, so it's a good thing! Unlike Katana blade, which has to be spotless, the thornier fold line on shamshir blade makes it more beautiful:-)
I also agree with Aristeidis. I do not think it is acid etched, in fact - it does not look acid etched at all (i.e. false wootz), even though it is quite strange to have uneven blade surface, and the pattern indicates real wootz, perhaps sham wootz.

Hi Aristeidis and Alex, thanks for your insights. Alex, a discussion without disagreement is boring, so dont worry!
i havent thought of the visible "folded evidence" as a quality evidence!
I am sure dealers can use it now to prove it is hand made, but what about the time that the blade was made when it was the only way? What would be the reason then? I guess it could have been used as evidence during the beggining of industrial revolution when the machne and the man-made blade were simultanesly on the market.
But look also at the photo where the end point of the blade is: The folding of the 2 pieces is almost seperated in 2 parts, not a very reassuring thing when you go for battle.

Yes, I noticed the split at the tip, and thought of it as a chip, perhaps a result of an impact. It looks like very small inclusion, and something which could have been easily filed off if desired.
I do believe the fold lines were not regarded as defects, as most of these blades were produced prior to industrial revolution. What we perceive as imperfections now were common and they meant something we may not recognize. The fold line could have been the statement of a process, not a prove that is was hand-made as it was obvious those days. The final fold could also signify the "sacred" process of making a blade. just my personal, thoughts:-)

Apparently, there are some pics I cannot see: I am at a place with a very, very pre-industrial Internet connection.
I think it is a Sham wootz, so I am somewhat confused that "folding" is mentioned. Are you implying it is a mechanical damascus? Am I wrong thinking it is wootz?

Ariel, the "folding" here refers to a fold line visible on top ridge of the blade - a visible line associated with the last fold of the steel. I also think it is wootz or sham wootz, and neither mechanical nor acid etch.

I am with ariel on this. I do not think wootz is folded. One of the smiths can correct me if I'm wrong, but if you heat wootz to welding temperature needed to do the folding you loose the wootz pattern. Wootz as I understand has to be worked at low temperatures. So there seems to be a contradiction here. I agree it does look folded. The problem at the tip looks to be a welding flaw.

fold
 

The fold seems to be involving about 1/3 of the blade rather than a 1/2. I'd like to see Alex's theory prove out as I have a dog in the fight so to speak.
This Khanjar came in with a forging flaw, or? Your thoughts, Steve

The seams sometimes seen on the spine of wootz blades arrive there in three ways; they can be caused by porosity on the top of the ingot that gets stretched into fissures or cracks as the ingot is forged into a bar, they can be the remnants of a slight depression in the top of the ingot that is not removed in the forging, or they can be a sign that two or more pieces of wootz were welded together or welded onto a piece of core steel. The artisans of the time considered these seams flaws, though you do sometimes see them on otherwise nice blades. Although wootz was not ‘folded’ in the sense that pattern-welded material was folded to get layers, they would often join two or more pieces of wootz to get a sword-sized bar of metal or in latter days to ‘dress up’ a bar of plain steel.
Below is a photo of an interesting piece of metal (Thanks Artzi!) that was lost or discarded immediately after the welding process, an ingot of wootz cut in half and welded back on itself with a third piece in the middle, probably to increase mass.
The above blade looks like wootz to me, and not sham – you can see a ladder rung in one photo, did they put the kirk narduban into sham blades?
(I know, one rung does not a ladder make ;) )

Good info, Jeff. Thanks
That rung, I think, is naturally occurred, and not deliberately cut. It lacks more defined core one would expect on a ladder rung, IMHO.
In terms of welding wootz ingots together - some form of folding must have been involved. The fold lines on many shamshir blades appear on top ridge, and not elsewhere, which is why I think it was done deliberately. But perhaps we should call it "weld" line instead of "fold" line:-)
In the interesting example above, where the line appears on the side of jambiya blade - the blade lacks the top ridge by design, and the smith attempted to keep it close to the cutting edge, to mask it, but missed it by a bit.
BTW, I am not claiming my "theory" is correct, these are only my thoughts based on observations of making wootz blades by a "traditional" smith.

I think your theory is correct from a modern perspective, the seams on the back are a point of interest and source of much speculation, and I know from personal experience how hard they are to avoid so I can see why one might, if one were a traditional smith in the modern era, try to turn it around into a mark of quality. But traditionally, they were flaws. The contemporary literature on the subject of working wootz often mentions ways of avoiding such flaws along the spine. I recently came across an account of sword quality in the book “Traditional Crafts in Qajar Iran” by W. Floor (a book that in small part is concerned with how European imports killed off wootz), he is quoting from DeRochechouart’s ‘Souvenirs d’un voyage en Perse’ (1867):
“If the making of damask is complicated and demands great skill of the workers, recognizing its quality is not less difficult. Above all, you need to look at the back of the blade, and if there is no defect at all, if it is perfectly smooth and that you cannot find any trace of a crack, that is already proof that the sword is not absolutely bad.”
The book also includes a translation of Massalski’s 1841 article on making wootz swords which is more well-known;
“…One has to avoid [ingots] that have many pores on their exterior surface, otherwise these pores form deep holes on the back of the saber, which the smith knows well how to stop, but which diminish the value of the saber.”
Massalski also describes how old, tired wootz swords were forged out to twice their length and welded onto plain iron to make a new sword.