Well, after all this time I should have learnt to keep my mouth shut. But I still believe, fool of me, that submitting a piece to such an open scrutiny implies a desire by the poster to gather opinions about them.
And an opinion is what I have. It’s a pity it doesn’t coincide with yours or the curator of the Dutch Army Museum’s, but I still stand by it.
There’s indeed a typology of medieval (14th-15th c.) dagger blade of triangular (or peaked diamond) section with a strong mid-rib. It’s there in swords, also. What I’m saying is that the blade of this particular piece is not one of them. It’s from a cut-down small-sword, probably an early one, given the inlaid decoration, maybe late 17th or early 18th.
I wouldn’t dare to pass a definitive judgement by pictures alone, of course. And, for sure, my reasoning never took into account the actual condition of the piece, nor I think I said so. I know very well how dependent to particular conditions corrosion is, not to mention the wonders of restoration.
I, of course, agree with Oakeshott, who wouldn’t. After all, what he says is the very basics of Antiques evaluation. It’s from there up that one builds a criterion for appraisal.
Also (and here we disagree again, I’m afraid
), although I too believe that judging by pictures is far from ideal, after all I wouldn’t stamp my signature in a report that would be used to certificate anything basing my evaluation in pictures alone, of course, I think that pictures, in this particular environment of ours, are good enough to pass by a first impression. We don’t have anything better, after all.
Well, in any event, let me repeat, it’s just my opinion. Probably it’s indeed only me
P.S. The ballock dagger is still, again in my opinion
, nothing short of terrific.
P.P.S. The pictures are here only to illustrate my point about the typology.