Indian Daggers?

Miguel · 29th December 2015, 08:16 PM

Dagger No2:-

Miguel · 29th December 2015, 08:19 PM

Dagger No3:-

ALEX · 29th December 2015, 08:55 PM

Hello, Miguel
You're right, no.1 is Indian, rather modern, not much Arab influence, more of a novelty item to resemble Mughal style. The blade is of "tiger-eye" pattern, late 20 C.
No.2 is Persian Qajar, decent quality for this type, late 19/early 20C.
No. 3 is Persian/Indo-Persian), not as old as 2 but not as "recent" as 1)

ariel · 29th December 2015, 09:03 PM

I have an uneasy feeling that all of them are either fully modern or assembled from new and somewhat older parts.
BTW, isn't the handle on #2 put backward? The pommel should be on the blade's convex side.
Am I wrong?

ALEX · 29th December 2015, 09:08 PM

Ariel, you're right. No 2 has handle other way, but it is Qajar nevertheless, could be for some reason or design it is that way, it looks matching as an item.

ariel · 30th December 2015, 02:33 AM

Well, real Qajar knife makers were less likely to make such silly mistake: they saw khanjars daily, didn't they?
Shall we call it a la Qajar? :-)

ALEX · 30th December 2015, 02:38 PM

According to workmanship and material it is Qajar, could be slightly after 1925 but the work and style is typical late Qajar, and late Qajar is still Qajar) I'd not discard it because the handle orientation.

estcrh · 30th December 2015, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, real Qajar knife makers were less likely to make such silly mistake: they saw khanjars daily, didn't they?
Shall we call it a la Qajar? :-)

These look like versions of jambiya, khanjar would have a double curved blade I believe.

I am not a big fan of most late Persian Qajar weapons, this particular one has some interesting differences. While that handle orientation is not common at all it is not unknown.

Miguel · 31st December 2015, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello, Miguel
You're right, no.1 is Indian, rather modern, not much Arab influence, more of a novelty item to resemble Mughal style. The blade is of "tiger-eye" pattern, late 20 C.
No.2 is Persian Qajar, decent quality for this type, late 19/early 20C.
No. 3 is Persian/Indo-Persian), not as old as 2 but not as "recent" as 1)

Hi Alex,
Thank you very much for your comments, I never ceased to be impressed by yours and other members knowledge, I learn something every time. Would you say then that the first piece is meant for tourists or made to deceive? Thank you again and I wish you a Happy New Year.
Regards
Miguel

ALEX · 2nd January 2016, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miguel

Hi Alex,
...Would you say then that the first piece is meant for tourists or made to deceive? Thank you again and I wish you a Happy New Year.
Regards
Miguel

Hello Miguel,
Yes, this would be proper assessment. First was made for the decorative purposes. even though the blade is damascus, the technique is relatively simple, and it was not meant for use.
Happy New Year to you too!

29th December 2015, 08:16 PM	#1
Miguel Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 584	Dagger No2:- Attached Images

29th December 2015, 08:19 PM	#2
Miguel Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 584	Dagger No3:- Attached Images

29th December 2015, 08:55 PM	#3
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Hello, Miguel You're right, no.1 is Indian, rather modern, not much Arab influence, more of a novelty item to resemble Mughal style. The blade is of "tiger-eye" pattern, late 20 C. No.2 is Persian Qajar, decent quality for this type, late 19/early 20C. No. 3 is Persian/Indo-Persian), not as old as 2 but not as "recent" as 1)

29th December 2015, 09:03 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I have an uneasy feeling that all of them are either fully modern or assembled from new and somewhat older parts. BTW, isn't the handle on #2 put backward? The pommel should be on the blade's convex side. Am I wrong?

29th December 2015, 09:08 PM	#5
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Ariel, you're right. No 2 has handle other way, but it is Qajar nevertheless, could be for some reason or design it is that way, it looks matching as an item.

30th December 2015, 02:33 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Well, real Qajar knife makers were less likely to make such silly mistake: they saw khanjars daily, didn't they? Shall we call it a la Qajar? :-)

30th December 2015, 02:38 PM	#7
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	According to workmanship and material it is Qajar, could be slightly after 1925 but the work and style is typical late Qajar, and late Qajar is still Qajar) I'd not discard it because the handle orientation.