Marius, very nicely explained, and please accept my apology for my remarks. I did try to note that you 'probably' had not meant the comment as I perceived it but I unfortunately used it at your expense, to make a point. That was improper, so again, my regrets.
Some good points have come up here in the ongoing discussion, that many 'revival' weapons do indeed bear actual combat or trophy components. This is much the same as weapons used in votive context in temples, etc.
Well noted as well on the absence of Qajar weapons in certain references and compendiums on Persian weapons. I would note that Manoucher's book, if I understand, is focused more on premiere examples and not on the broader spectrum of these weapons.
An interesting case in point in in the discussions we have had here concerning certain Omani broadswords, which have always been collectively termed 'kattara' in collectors parlance. What evolved is that in actuality, the majority of these swords were not actually 'weapons' , but used in Omani events where a sword dance was an impressive and key ritual.
It was argued that the 'kattara' was not a 'dance' sword, but indeed a sword used in combat. While there were examples of these cylindrically hilted swords which had substantial European blades, these were status oriented accoutrements worn by individuals of standing in a dress or court sword type demeanor.
The 'dance' versions were blades made primarily for dramatic effects with flashing shine and reverberating undulation with flexible but dreadfully sharp blades. The argument was that these WERE used in combat, but it was realized by many that there WAS distinctly a difference between the same visually appearing swords by the type of blades they had.
While obviously, the flimsy 'dance' blades would probably have not served well in combat, the dress versions with stout blades, if properly sharpened, may have. However the open hilt determined not likely.
This analogy simply is to illustrate that in certain cases, the composition of the blade metal and its manufacture is, as you well illustrate, most important. Obviously decorative character blades do not necessarily require the durability necessary for a combative blade.
However, the decoratively etched or engraved blades of Indian and Persian hunting swords (I believe termed shikargar) do seem to maintain the integrity of a usable blade. Perhaps numbers of these 'revival' blades were made in this manner, and thus serviceable if sharpened as mentioned.
Again, each case on its own merits, and that includes trophy, remounted former combat blades and even wootz
Again, my apologies for my own 'blunt' response earlier.