Originally Posted by chregu
Thank you for your quick response.
I had the age of the dagger much older estimated before 1900?
because from my experience for blades and the patina of the grip material. well as the signs of wear of the silver decorations may include a higher age.
what are your reasons for dating 1960-1970?
Salaams Chregu, The decorative tiny detailed silver work in the hilt and upper scabbard is of a later provenance and actually there is little damage or hard wear caused by age in either the blade or the silverwork other than a couple of missing bits as outlined. I am probably at the outer limit by quoting around the 60 year marker..Silver is very soft...it wears out fast because not only is it worn where wear is quite agessive but because of the vigourous oxidation (and constant cleaning) of the icon.. The blades, if used regularly, will also degrade nicely and for 1900 I would expect a relatively battered steel ... not so on this. In regard to an aprox. 1900 Khanjar I would expect a very worn almost smooth silver patina...
The difficulty on khanjar age estimation is compounded because the trend has been to replace worn parts!! So my "point" about blades has to be "tempered" with the assumption that the blade is original...when it may not be. The belt cannot be used either on age estimation.
In this case however there is no way that it is older than 1950 and absolutely not 1900... That is way out of line on age.
To view khanjars of 100 years or more I would need to be in a Museum as no such weapons exist other than there or private collections...I was looking at http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/...etails.aspx#top
for examples even for first half of the 20th C .. but even with those examples I would say they were 1940 or 50... Pushing the envelope back to 1900 is not easy.
Your dagger... I would be happy with 1960.
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.