|
|
|
30th December 2015, 02:38 PM
|
#1 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
30th December 2015, 04:58 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Quote:
Since Qajar dynasty did not exist after 1925 anymore, I have no objections. How about Pahlavi, a la Qajar? :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
30th December 2015, 05:28 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
not changing my mind, Ariel
 there is no evidence it was done after 1925 this kind of work is almost exclusively associated with Qajar, so the term sticks what I meant is that if it was done in 1926 by a master who continued making them a year prior... but that is subjective of course. the motif is certainly Qajar and I do not believe it is much later.--------------------------------- By the way, does anyone have similarly styled jambiya of Pahlavi era for comparison? |
|
|
|
|
31st December 2015, 12:18 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Well, no bickering about that on my end.
Happy New Year! |
|
|
|
|
31st December 2015, 07:42 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 584
|
Quote:
wishing you a Happy New Year Miguel |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
