old kukri, damascus? what pattern?

spiral · 29th May 2006, 10:57 PM

Thanks Rick,Thats helpfull.

I must admit the nearest thing I have seen to it is the Hada on some Japanese work, I didnt realise the Indians or Nepalis did laminating this close/fine & had wondered it it was a variety of wootsz , or even some other proccess I was unaware of.

As to percentages it seems to me that many pre c.1825 era {say Georgian & earlier} are varities of decorative laminated steel , possibly even 50% of them.]

In Victorean times decorative patterns seems much less common {maybe 5% or 10% of non issue kukris, {private purchase or civilian ownership.} although most kukris of that era are laminated shear steel so any faults show up as pattern but the perfect laminations dont as only one steel type was used., so it is not generaly classed as Damascus I understand?

The percentages & date I give are my impresions based on 3 or 4 of the worlds leading kukri collections, including my own, but are not scientificaly or mathmaticaly verified.

They are off the top of my head, so are not exact, just my thoughts.

I have 4 laminated ones I have positivly brought up to visible to date, but suspect I have another 3 to 5 still to be reaveled.

None appered laminated when first seen, so were just bought as random kukris of classical style. This one was obviously exceptionaly well made though.

Intrestingly evry one I have is laminated in a different manner, which for some reason surprises me. Perhaps it shouldnt?

Realy I need to learn more about etching, I have read a lot but not experimented much, tending to err on the side of caution so far!

Spiral

29th May 2006, 10:57 PM	#3
spiral Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,712	Thanks Rick,Thats helpfull. I must admit the nearest thing I have seen to it is the Hada on some Japanese work, I didnt realise the Indians or Nepalis did laminating this close/fine & had wondered it it was a variety of wootsz , or even some other proccess I was unaware of. As to percentages it seems to me that many pre c.1825 era {say Georgian & earlier} are varities of decorative laminated steel , possibly even 50% of them.] In Victorean times decorative patterns seems much less common {maybe 5% or 10% of non issue kukris, {private purchase or civilian ownership.} although most kukris of that era are laminated shear steel so any faults show up as pattern but the perfect laminations dont as only one steel type was used., so it is not generaly classed as Damascus I understand? The percentages & date I give are my impresions based on 3 or 4 of the worlds leading kukri collections, including my own, but are not scientificaly or mathmaticaly verified. They are off the top of my head, so are not exact, just my thoughts. I have 4 laminated ones I have positivly brought up to visible to date, but suspect I have another 3 to 5 still to be reaveled. None appered laminated when first seen, so were just bought as random kukris of classical style. This one was obviously exceptionaly well made though. Intrestingly evry one I have is laminated in a different manner, which for some reason surprises me. Perhaps it shouldnt? Realy I need to learn more about etching, I have read a lot but not experimented much, tending to err on the side of caution so far! Spiral