Morocco dagger!

Bob A · 9th July 2017, 06:40 AM

Regarding the first koumaya, it appears to be quite crude in all respects. The scabbard, while being perhaps the most attractive part of the ensemble, I would guess from the attachment of the rings to be no earlier than mid-twentieth century.

The second has a far nicer blade than the earlier example. I have no clue regarding the stamping on the blade. The scabbard and hilt are crudely soldered, and not particularly well-ornamented. I would guess, again, that it is earlier than the first example, and could well be a weapon carried by a local, rather than a tourist item. The wear from the rings would point to its being carried suspended. Early 20th century seems reasonable to me.

That said, please do not mistake me for any sort of expert.

motan · 9th July 2017, 08:58 AM

Hi rickystl,
Also not my area of collection, but I bought one recently and it was discussed on the forum (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=22848) together with the subject of koummyas in general. I recommend you to read it because members of the forum have contributed examples and sources.

As for your koummya, it cerntainly looks like an authentic ethnographic item that has been used by its owner: the holes for the rings, the general wear of the surface and the signs of repeted re-sharpening of the blade. The type, in terms of general design is common and old-in fact, it is the same as the one I posted in the thread above.
The shape and quality of blade look good but are hard to judge due to grinding. The sign on the blade usually means imported blade (or trying to look like one). Blades have been imported from all over Europe (Italy, France, England, Germany and Spain), but I would guess this is a Spanish blade. I think that early 20th c. as Bob said is a good estimate, but it could be +\- 20 years.
All good, but this is not a dagger for the rich. In "better" ones, the whole front is plated with silver (or even made of solid silver), while in yours, onle small part appear to have be covered with silver.
In summary, old and genuine koummya, but also simple and with lots of wear.

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

9th July 2017, 06:40 AM	#1
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 435	Regarding the first koumaya, it appears to be quite crude in all respects. The scabbard, while being perhaps the most attractive part of the ensemble, I would guess from the attachment of the rings to be no earlier than mid-twentieth century. The second has a far nicer blade than the earlier example. I have no clue regarding the stamping on the blade. The scabbard and hilt are crudely soldered, and not particularly well-ornamented. I would guess, again, that it is earlier than the first example, and could well be a weapon carried by a local, rather than a tourist item. The wear from the rings would point to its being carried suspended. Early 20th century seems reasonable to me. That said, please do not mistake me for any sort of expert.

9th July 2017, 08:58 AM	#2
motan Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: Jerusalem Posts: 274	Hi rickystl, Also not my area of collection, but I bought one recently and it was discussed on the forum (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=22848) together with the subject of koummyas in general. I recommend you to read it because members of the forum have contributed examples and sources. As for your koummya, it cerntainly looks like an authentic ethnographic item that has been used by its owner: the holes for the rings, the general wear of the surface and the signs of repeted re-sharpening of the blade. The type, in terms of general design is common and old-in fact, it is the same as the one I posted in the thread above. The shape and quality of blade look good but are hard to judge due to grinding. The sign on the blade usually means imported blade (or trying to look like one). Blades have been imported from all over Europe (Italy, France, England, Germany and Spain), but I would guess this is a Spanish blade. I think that early 20th c. as Bob said is a good estimate, but it could be +\- 20 years. All good, but this is not a dagger for the rich. In "better" ones, the whole front is plated with silver (or even made of solid silver), while in yours, onle small part appear to have be covered with silver. In summary, old and genuine koummya, but also simple and with lots of wear.