View Single Post
Old 11th October 2019, 04:59 PM   #21
mariusgmioc
Member
 
mariusgmioc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubur
My Dear Marius,
all your questions especially the last one, can be answered in one sentence:
It is because you are not reading books.
Please read Rivkin a study of the eastern sword
then Islamic arms and armour of the MET
then you will feel much better
stop etching your blades and read, at least to rest a bit


Ok, ok, I can accept one thing here, one thing there but to STOP ETCHING MY WOOTZ BLADES...!?

NEVER... unless I am running out of etchant (like I am now)!


PS: Thank you for the bibliogrphy!

PPS: I do not have Rivkin's book but as soon as I got home from work I checked the Metropolitan book, and it seems the answers to my three questions are:

1. The signature is fake and is of an early 18th century swordsmith (Lotf Ali Shirazi)

2. The swod you posted is NOT a "revival" sword but a honest battle-ready weapon. The fact that yours has Qajar revival hilt does not make it a revival sword.

3. There is no evidence the other inscription saying "Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar" (ruled 1848-1896) was not added later on an older blade.

I already feel better!
mariusgmioc is offline   Reply With Quote