Turkish Kilij-translation requested

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by archer burak

This one is not original Türk kılıç it seems made in afganistan , in these days we can see lots of them coming to istanbul too , there is no Türkish words on barrel , all seems arabic

I do not see anything related to Afganistan. Why do you think it came from there? Also, it is of typical Turkish kilic form. The coftgari could've beeen done elsewhere, but what do you mean it is not original Turkish kilij? What do you think it is?

[archer burak]

Originally Posted by ALEX

I do not see anything related to Afganistan. Why do you think it came from there? Also, it is of typical Turkish kilic form. The coftgari could've beeen done elsewhere, but what do you mean it is not original Turkish kilij? What do you think it is?

Alex , first the hilt form was not typical ottoman and feels like iran between afganistan an d since 2012 afgan sword makers rapidly make ottoman look kılıçs becaouse it favorite and good income for them , beleive me ıstanbul grand bazaar full of this replikas , they have damascus barrels like your , they have hilts and same non turkish words on barrel too . when ı see this koftgari and balçak it shows me the truth ...

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by archer burak

Alex , first the hilt form was not typical ottoman and feels like iran between afganistan an d since 2012 afgan sword makers rapidly make ottoman look kılıçs becaouse it favorite and good income for them , beleive me ıstanbul grand bazaar full of this replikas , they have damascus barrels like your , they have hilts and same non turkish words on barrel too . when ı see this koftgari and balçak it shows me the truth ...

Burak, one simply cannot call this sword a replica. It is most certainly not, just as Kapalicarsi is full of anything like this The blade is at least 19th Century, potentially earlier. The handle, crossguard and coftgari are later to the blade, likely Syrian, as was already mentioned before. They are not brand new, nowhere near 2012, and I think they were made when the swords were still used as part of men attire. My advice to you is not to judge a whole sword by its embellishments. Instead, consider the blade as a main element, and the rest as additions that followed it throughout its life. It is common for a blade to have multiple rehiltings, but the blade is always the core of the sword, and should be respected as such
-
Also, it would be great if you can show pictures of grand bazaar swords you mentioned, so we can compare and discuss. Cok teshakurlar!

[archer burak]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Burak, one simply cannot call this sword a replica. It is most certainly not, just as Kapalicarsi is full of anything like this The blade is at least 19th Century, potentially earlier. The handle, crossguard and coftgari are later to the blade, likely Syrian, as was already mentioned before. They are not brand new, nowhere near 2012, and I think they were made when the swords were still used as part of men attire. My advice to you is not to judge a whole sword by its embellishments. Instead, consider the blade as a main element, and the rest as additions that followed it throughout its life. It is common for a blade to have multiple rehiltings, but the blade is always the core of the sword, and should be respected as such
-
Also, it would be great if you can show pictures of grand bazaar swords you mentioned, so we can compare and discuss. Cok teshakurlar!

...and last photo is original on my message