Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

B.I · 1st February 2005, 02:59 PM

jens,
your honesty is very apparant in what you write

i say this because you assume the placement of glass instead on precious stone was done to save the buyer some cost. i think that the original buyer probably paid the full amount from someone who replaced the originals with costume jewellery.
the hilt is a good thing, and the channels cut into the pommel area and the base of the hilt suggest original gold inlay. inlay on a jade hilt suggest the hilt once may have held expensive stones and not ' born' with glass. a nice piece.

1st February 2005, 02:59 PM	#32
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	jens, your honesty is very apparant in what you write i say this because you assume the placement of glass instead on precious stone was done to save the buyer some cost. i think that the original buyer probably paid the full amount from someone who replaced the originals with costume jewellery. the hilt is a good thing, and the channels cut into the pommel area and the base of the hilt suggest original gold inlay. inlay on a jade hilt suggest the hilt once may have held expensive stones and not ' born' with glass. a nice piece.