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.

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...



:shrug:

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.

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.

I would like to add that in this entire discussion we have not seen a single picture of this sword in its entirety.
Why is that?

We have.
Go to post #1, there is an address, left column, 2nd pic from the top.

The view is not great, but this is the whole caboodle.

Eric,
I understand you are upset. But nobody criticizes you personally: it is about the sword.
All of us sooner or later find ourselves in your shoes. Collectors much more knowledgeable than all of us combined and surrounded by expensive advisers bought antique pieces for millions of dollars .. that later on were shown to be expensive forgeries worth less than their boxes.
Your shashka may end up being authentic: we just see pics, no more.

The only thing I am personally saying is that I do not like it and wouldn’t buy it.
You may follow my ( and other) hunches or may ignore them.
It just not good getting impolite.

Hey Guys, I'm not upset at you at all and all of you have a right to your opinion. I just would like those of you who are 100% convinced that it's a fake to point out why they are so sure that it's fake. When a Russian Collector says that he thinks it's 90% authentic I respect that because you need to touch it and see it in person to be sure, that's all. This thing whether it's real or not cost me nothing because someone bought it for me. I don't have any intention to sell it and it looks great hanging over my fireplace. If in fact it is authentic it would be cool and I thought that I would find a professional collectors on this forum that would be able to tell me that.

Here is a full pic of the shashka if you guys are not sick of looking at it yet...

We don't have a full picture uploaded to the database; only a link from what I can see. :shrug:
Links have a way of disappearing.

Hi Eric.

Write me a private message on the forum. Unfortunately for some reason I can not send you a message

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.

This discussion has been a most interesting editorialized perspective on the conundrums of collectible weapons, 'fake' or reproduction vs. traditionally made modern example etc. Such terms are often misused and fail to observe the actual character or circumstance of an item in altogether too many cases.

Regardless, I would say this shashka is a very attractive example, and well represents the character of examples of these well known in Caucasian regions. The blade seems pretty sound, and likely of the quality of the many trade blades found typically in the many versions of shashka in these regions.
Such a blade refitted to a traditional 'style' hilt does not seem unreasonable as these are traditional weapons still held in esteem by people there.

In looking at the motif in the hilt, if not mistaken there seem to be numbers or Roman numerals like II. Asking the experts.....could this be a hallmark or reference to Nicholas II ?

As to the cosmological symbols on the blade, it must be remembered that these type markings were often added to the blade by workers who of course had wide degree of skill set. These markings I have seen ranged from very well executed to almost cartoonish, and as such it is of course tempting to regard them as 'spurious'.

Whatever the case, I think it is a very attractive example, and well done, regardless of its possibly recomposed nature. Even if somewhat reproduced or with restored or composite components, it still reflects the traditional standards and style of the shashka as a form.

Thank you Sir, very well said.

I was expecting this kind of discussion from the start.

Quite right, this is the monogram of Emperor Nicholas II.
In the Russian Empire, there were rather complicated rules for using the sign of the ruling monarch. In order to publicly wear this sign, it was necessary to have the permission of the Emperor himself and to comply with many requirements. But army and navy officers sometimes ordered signs to jewelers and wore them outside of official service. Especially far from both Imperial capitals :)

I realize this is a layman's question, this type of sword being completely out of my spheres of collection, but would a light etch reveal anything here?
I am a little skeptical of what appears to be the appearance of some kind of twisted core. I would think such a etch might answer some questions about whether it is pattern welded or not. :shrug:

That's a good observation, and myself very much a layman at the metallurgic properties of blades, I thought I cold see some kind of pattern in this blade as well. While Ariel would offer better insight into this, weren't the Russians producing 'bulat', a kind of watered steel at Zlatoust in first quarter 19th c?
The style of this blade and that character as well as the Nicholas II device in the hilt to me offers a bit more integrity to this shashka.

The blade scratchings shown in #6 as well as #30 attributed to c. 1550 Solingen are remindful to the somewhat tacky marks of Sudanese kaskara intended to invoke German quality or Islamic spiritual essence. IMHO I would think that a Nicholas II signature grip would be paired with a higher class blade without crude marks.

REgards,
Ed

There is definitely some kind of pattern visible in the pics. From the pics though it is difficult to impossible to tell what kind. It does not look like wootz, or twist core. It could be a pattern welded blade or it could be etched. A light polish and etching would help determine the pattern. Please note; I am saying this from a pattern identification standpoint, as I am unfamiliar with these blades I do not know if a polish/etch is appropriate or blasphemy.

Hey guys, I have some good news for you, well bad for some of you...

I have sent bunch of hi res pictures of my shashka to a real Russian collector and researcher in these weapons and this is what he said...

Hi Erik!
The sword is authentic 1890’s shashka with a blade of Caucasian origin. N2 cypher was added after 1910 year. Silver - work of daghestanian craftman. Blade - bit earlier, daghestanian or Georgian (most probably).
All the best

I'm not sure what he means by N2 Cypher but everything else sounds good to me. ;)

The last person to make wootz blades was Elizarov, and that was long before NII:-) Virtually all shashka blades are plain steel ( too expensive to make mechanical damascus, as per local masters). There are very few mechanical damascus kindjals, and the pattern is easily visible. Gurian kindjals of high quality had beautiful "Tiflis damascus" exclusively within the fullers.
Etching was widespead.
All in all, the likelihood of finding anything but plain steel in that blade is close to zero.

Thank you for coming in on this Ariel, as I know you know the topic of wootz etc. especially in Russia well. I am unclear on the 'bulat' that I mentioned, which as I understand is a form of pattern welding (?) but has characteristics of mechanical Damascus (?).
I was under the impression that there was a maker at Zlatoust trying to reproduce the character of wootz in the 1830s and this was the source of bulat in some blades.
I am likely not describing this well, so hoping for your elucidation on this.

Is it possible that this may have been a sabre blade made in the early 19th century and in circumstances I have mentioned, and perhaps remounted in the present hilt later?
I know that the Russians were very big on heirloom and especially trophy blades, which were often remounted in more contemporary hilts. Somewhere in the archives I have a Russian book with many of these (it will take some excavation to find it!).

Perhaps an officer or official in the time of Nicholas II had such a blade and had it remounted? much in the manner of the Caucasian shashkas being copied in the ranks of the officers of the Russian military (as described in Mollo, "Russian Military Swords"). The attempt at reproducing the well known cosmological groupings often seen on earlier European blades may have been genuinely placed in a commemorative sense, despite the less than adept rendering.

bulat is the Russian version of wootz. Just like in the US there are modern makers of it. The Russian version can be found here;
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/...ranov.1318838/

Full disclosure, I am not a believer in the lost art of working steel.

So "bulat" is nothing more than the Russian word for wootz.

There are many modern bladesmiths who can make very good quality wootz in US, Germany, Russia and in the Scandinavian countries. They all attempt to replicate the patterns and properties of antique wootz.

Among the best of them are the Georgian Zaqro Nonikashvili and the Russian Ivan Kirpichev. I have seen a blade made by Kirpichev that comes very close to the Kirk Narduban pattern of ancient Persian wootz.

Yet, from all I have seen, none of the modern wootz makers managed to get the same mesmerizing watering as the old masters, albeit their blades are in most cases mechanically superior.

PS: The mechanical properties of wootz are not that impressive when compared to modern steels. Even the average kitchen knives of our times have in most cases better mechanical properties. Wootz had the merit of holding the crown for best steel up to approximately 16th century when it was surpassed by the European steels made in Toledo, Solingen, etc.

PPS: Regarding this blade, I do not see any indication that it may be anything else but monosteel, so etching will only contribute to the advancement of corrosion of the blade.