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.

7th June 2005, 09:45 PM	#3
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