The grip material may be ivory or it may be bone. The issue isn't about materials; the maker used whatever he had access to and then aged it, more or less cleverly creating something of a patina. The metal may be silver, German silver or even white brass.
Any of the forum members who are knowledgeable about Caucasian arms (notably Ariel, among others) will note that only the general form of the sword is Caucasian. The embellishment is vaguely Georgian, with its panels of filigree. The sections of carved ivory, or whatever it is, are decidedly modern-- they have no precise analog in the historical period of production. And as I noted above, the wolf, poor thing, is recent and poorly aged to look antique. the 84 mark is made with a recent stamp, slight differences are identifiable by comparison with period silver stamps.
As well-intended as much of the rest of this discussion is, it's frankly pointless. The form of the ricasso, Circassian influence on Georgian work (an existing and interesting type, but there is none whatsoever here) do not enter into the most basic characteristics of attribution: there is, as noted above, no such historical example of this type-- it is simply the modern... imagining... of a craftsman who, like many other Georgians attempting to augment their income in difficult times, engages in cottage industry. He has jeweler's skills, forming, soldering, filigree, carving, engraving and setting. If he can get hold of a blade, he's all set to create.
No, I do not have photos, I never thought them worthy of memorializing. I did comment to one bright young guy who was selling these that he was close to making genuinely good copies; why didn't he replicate what he saw in museums and books instead? Marketed as fine copies, he could do well. Too much work, he replied. Tourists have to think they stole a treasure from you. They wouldn't know the difference, anyway.
|