mughal dagger with royal provenance

B.I · 7th June 2005, 09:45 PM

i finally got some more images (not very good i'm afraid) of this dagger and i hope it will provoke a debate, as its form and the above description beg questioning.
sorry, battara, but it is not mine. i did get a chance of a close examination and was left in confusion.
the description waxes eloquently about a tenuous link to king charles, but if you read carefully, you see this is purely speculative. even more speculative (and a bold and daring guess) is the name of the giver, which is assumed (and stated its assumed) by pure 'indian' association.
i have a lot of problems with this piece, and most of which are of an asthetic nature. the jade rams head it very well carved (of high quality), but it just doesnt match the agate handle. i cant believe a 17thC craftsman would put these 2 elements together. the repair they mention, is the band in the centre of the grip, which joins two broken halves of agate. the pretty box is pure victoriana and the name on it apparantly matches this 19thC date.
my feelings are that in the late 19thC, probably at the same time the box was made for it, it was put together from different elements.
the only true provenance (before entering fairy land) is late 19thC so there is a good chance that the piece didnt exist as such, long before it was bought by phillip primrose.
the CR on the blade must be a mystery, as i know they had access to all known cutler markings. whethe rits king charles or not, who knows. it may well be, but i feel if it is, than it was a re-used blade.
the gold decoration is of an indian style, and probably done in india.
in the past, jens has shown a great katar he owns, with a side knife by john jencks (early 17thC). this knife was part of a wedding set, and reused and redecorated in india to match the katar which it was married to. the katar is of a slightly later date to jencks, although probably within the same century. i feel its strong possibility that this has happened here, although at a much later date to the original knife. victoriana itself is a mismatch of known styles, but i wonder if this was a product of the time, or just a bad match.
would love some opinions here, i this is just my assumption and feeling. also, whether the CR is known to anyone.

Jim McDougall · 8th June 2005, 02:42 AM

Hi Brian,
An extremely interesting piece, and I think you have some outstanding perspective on its seemingly progressive history. In a brief look through material on markings it seems that the crown with large lettered initials as seen here was often used by English gunsmiths on thier work. The blade certainly seems to have some age, and such markings in this arrangement I noted were from early 18th century onward. Possibly we may be looking for a gunsmith who may have furbished this piece?
All the best,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 8th June 2005, 01:59 PM

It is an interesting knife BI is showing. To me the CR with the crown stands for Charles Rex. It could have been made in India, knowing who the coming owner would be, or it could have been made on arrival to England after Charles I got it. I think it is most likely that it was made in India – but who knows. The blade is old, it could very well be as old as the Jencks blade (early 1600), and it could be English, although I think it is Indian made. The hilt is strange, as I doubt that an Indian craftsman would mix agate and jade in this way, the two bands looks suspiciously too, as does the form of the hilt. If the ram’s head is as crisp as BI says, I think the hilt must have been broken and a new one made, using the rams head from the old hilt.

Battara · 8th June 2005, 10:06 PM

I agree with it being a composite. Although jade is hard, it is brittle too I think. The mix is a little strange.

B.I · 9th June 2005, 12:19 AM

hi,
would jim, jens and battara (or anyone else) like to put a value on this. i'm not looking for a valuation as such, but just curious how you would judge this, going from all your assumptions. i valued it in my head, and still think i was accurate. but, in reality (the place outside my own head) i was completely wrong. the value, in this case, is an attribution to its description, given the supposition of provenance and in this case, i hope the moderators will agree. the piece is sold and now locked away permanantly in a collection, but someone paid the price, according to his faith in its described history. you can only judge what you see and go by your feelings. i felt this was put together, maybe just before entering the first 'known' owner in its recent history. the seller and buyer disagreed. i am not relenting as my feelings havent changed. look forward to a few stabs, no matter how wild.

Jim McDougall · 9th June 2005, 04:41 AM

Hi Brian,
It seems we have all agreed that there is a great deal of speculation concerning this piece and certainly such provenance as associated with it only begs for scrutiny and support. Your astute observations and determined questions are hallmarks of your scholarship and knowledge on these weapons, and it is doubtful that further assessment as far as value would be useful. I have always thought that public discussion on these matters is best avoided here so I would forego estimates of valuation, but would very much be interested in continuing the research and discussion.

I think the observations you guys have made on the hilt materials are most interesting, and since this topic is out of my scope, I continue to focus on the blade and markings. I agree with Jens that this is likely a very early blade, but am still wondering on the marking. CR certainly does seem possible for Charles Rex, but did he use that type marking or title on personal items etc?

All the best,
Jim

B.I · 9th June 2005, 09:37 AM

hi jim,
you are right, of course, in that the price has no bearing on the actual piece. but, i wasnt after a valuation for future reference, but rather a discussion on how you percieve a piece. if you are a collector, and not just a pure academic, then the value will run along side importance. you will price something according to all the boxes the piece ticks. some people will value things higher that others, and the market itself because he sees something there that others dont.
this piece is a great example, in that all those that commented found fault, whether to question the blade, the date, or the composition. no one in their right mind would rely purely on someone elses speculation, and you have to question everything and try to soak in all data (including market value) and then attempt some sort of conclusion. if your own speculation marries up with that of the original description, then you are ahead of the game. if not, then you are left confused when someone comes along that disagrees.
someone did disagree and paid a staggering £96000 for it ($175,250).
this makes you rethink for a moment, then you sit back comfortably and trust your initial thoughts.
the purpose of this post, was not just to list an interesting dagger, but also a statement of how easy it is to just believe what you read and base your own assessment on someone elses.
crazy world, eh!

7th June 2005, 09:45 PM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i finally got some more images (not very good i'm afraid) of this dagger and i hope it will provoke a debate, as its form and the above description beg questioning. sorry, battara, but it is not mine. i did get a chance of a close examination and was left in confusion. the description waxes eloquently about a tenuous link to king charles, but if you read carefully, you see this is purely speculative. even more speculative (and a bold and daring guess) is the name of the giver, which is assumed (and stated its assumed) by pure 'indian' association. i have a lot of problems with this piece, and most of which are of an asthetic nature. the jade rams head it very well carved (of high quality), but it just doesnt match the agate handle. i cant believe a 17thC craftsman would put these 2 elements together. the repair they mention, is the band in the centre of the grip, which joins two broken halves of agate. the pretty box is pure victoriana and the name on it apparantly matches this 19thC date. my feelings are that in the late 19thC, probably at the same time the box was made for it, it was put together from different elements. the only true provenance (before entering fairy land) is late 19thC so there is a good chance that the piece didnt exist as such, long before it was bought by phillip primrose. the CR on the blade must be a mystery, as i know they had access to all known cutler markings. whethe rits king charles or not, who knows. it may well be, but i feel if it is, than it was a re-used blade. the gold decoration is of an indian style, and probably done in india. in the past, jens has shown a great katar he owns, with a side knife by john jencks (early 17thC). this knife was part of a wedding set, and reused and redecorated in india to match the katar which it was married to. the katar is of a slightly later date to jencks, although probably within the same century. i feel its strong possibility that this has happened here, although at a much later date to the original knife. victoriana itself is a mismatch of known styles, but i wonder if this was a product of the time, or just a bad match. would love some opinions here, i this is just my assumption and feeling. also, whether the CR is known to anyone. Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

8th June 2005, 02:42 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,298	Hi Brian, An extremely interesting piece, and I think you have some outstanding perspective on its seemingly progressive history. In a brief look through material on markings it seems that the crown with large lettered initials as seen here was often used by English gunsmiths on thier work. The blade certainly seems to have some age, and such markings in this arrangement I noted were from early 18th century onward. Possibly we may be looking for a gunsmith who may have furbished this piece? All the best, Jim

8th June 2005, 01:59 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	It is an interesting knife BI is showing. To me the CR with the crown stands for Charles Rex. It could have been made in India, knowing who the coming owner would be, or it could have been made on arrival to England after Charles I got it. I think it is most likely that it was made in India – but who knows. The blade is old, it could very well be as old as the Jencks blade (early 1600), and it could be English, although I think it is Indian made. The hilt is strange, as I doubt that an Indian craftsman would mix agate and jade in this way, the two bands looks suspiciously too, as does the form of the hilt. If the ram’s head is as crisp as BI says, I think the hilt must have been broken and a new one made, using the rams head from the old hilt.

8th June 2005, 10:06 PM	#4
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,282	I agree with it being a composite. Although jade is hard, it is brittle too I think. The mix is a little strange.

9th June 2005, 12:19 AM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi, would jim, jens and battara (or anyone else) like to put a value on this. i'm not looking for a valuation as such, but just curious how you would judge this, going from all your assumptions. i valued it in my head, and still think i was accurate. but, in reality (the place outside my own head) i was completely wrong. the value, in this case, is an attribution to its description, given the supposition of provenance and in this case, i hope the moderators will agree. the piece is sold and now locked away permanantly in a collection, but someone paid the price, according to his faith in its described history. you can only judge what you see and go by your feelings. i felt this was put together, maybe just before entering the first 'known' owner in its recent history. the seller and buyer disagreed. i am not relenting as my feelings havent changed. look forward to a few stabs, no matter how wild.

9th June 2005, 04:41 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,298	Hi Brian, It seems we have all agreed that there is a great deal of speculation concerning this piece and certainly such provenance as associated with it only begs for scrutiny and support. Your astute observations and determined questions are hallmarks of your scholarship and knowledge on these weapons, and it is doubtful that further assessment as far as value would be useful. I have always thought that public discussion on these matters is best avoided here so I would forego estimates of valuation, but would very much be interested in continuing the research and discussion. I think the observations you guys have made on the hilt materials are most interesting, and since this topic is out of my scope, I continue to focus on the blade and markings. I agree with Jens that this is likely a very early blade, but am still wondering on the marking. CR certainly does seem possible for Charles Rex, but did he use that type marking or title on personal items etc? All the best, Jim

9th June 2005, 09:37 AM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jim, you are right, of course, in that the price has no bearing on the actual piece. but, i wasnt after a valuation for future reference, but rather a discussion on how you percieve a piece. if you are a collector, and not just a pure academic, then the value will run along side importance. you will price something according to all the boxes the piece ticks. some people will value things higher that others, and the market itself because he sees something there that others dont. this piece is a great example, in that all those that commented found fault, whether to question the blade, the date, or the composition. no one in their right mind would rely purely on someone elses speculation, and you have to question everything and try to soak in all data (including market value) and then attempt some sort of conclusion. if your own speculation marries up with that of the original description, then you are ahead of the game. if not, then you are left confused when someone comes along that disagrees. someone did disagree and paid a staggering £96000 for it ($175,250). this makes you rethink for a moment, then you sit back comfortably and trust your initial thoughts. the purpose of this post, was not just to list an interesting dagger, but also a statement of how easy it is to just believe what you read and base your own assessment on someone elses. crazy world, eh!