[Ian]

Alan:

You raise some fundamental questions about worth. Inevitably, I think, this is largely a subjective assessment, but there are some aspects that are more objective than others. Quality of materials, expertise in construction, association with a prestigious person or important event, religious or symbolic importance, considerable age--all might add to the merit of a piece.

I think what we have in this discussion are more shades of grey. The attribution of one item to the early 19th C and others to later in that century is, IMHO, largely subjective based on assumed material component in the hilt and some decorative work on the scabbard. In my initial response to the knife in post #6 I noted that the hilt looked like jadeite. Others have said agate. Both are hilt materials on Indian knives, so it could be either. However, we see much more jadeite around, and there is a fairly common white form with greenish streaks that closely resembles the knife in question. The hilt material on that knife could also be a replacement as the profile on the hilt seems rather heavy and "bulbous."

As for the scabbard, do we really know that it came with this knife? It is a common custom, especially online lately, to marry unrelated parts in an attempt to make a piece look older/better than it is.

I think it is interesting that the British Museum has seen fit to place a couple of these knives on display of the type posted originally in this thread. Someone with curatorial experience thinks they are worthy of showing off. Which brings us back to what does "better" mean in the context of this discussion.

Ian.