[Interested Party]

I would agree with "very nice". I am very interested to see Tula still has its chops. I am not sure how similar the construction of these two pieces is though. I found the screws attaching the handle to the blade jarring. For me they created disharmony. The screws for me stopped what in story telling is called the suspension of disbelief. It is what keeps an audience's attention within a narrative frame. These, if screws had a superior design element to rivets or resin, could have been easily hidden in the motif as the English did on engraved shotgun actions. The blade is a combination of pool and eye, and ladder pattern? Was this blade and dress commissioned by an individual or an exhibition piece to show what was possible? To reiterate my first point, it is impressive work, if I could create anything on this level, I would consider my life complete. It only falls short when compared to the original. It checks all the boxes but, to my eye, does not have the umami of the original, for lack of a better word. I would love to see how the ears of the hilt are done. That is an angle that is not photographed enough.

On the original piece is the chap encrusted with pearls, or are those small gold beads? The koftgari on the original blade is interesting in that it echos the Tiflis patters but uses different design elements. I find the vining on the right side that creates three legged swastikas and yin and yang symbols out of the negative spaces to be very clever. This one section reminds me of imitation Circassian work. The eye and mind pass over it and almost fill in the duck heads. Then you double take and realize how different the elements are from both Tiflis and Dagestani motifs. I would call it a masterpiece of Armenian craftmanship. I will hope to find a picture of the complete blade and scabbard.

Mercenary thank you for showing us these historical blades in your last couple of posts.