Mughal style dagger

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Marius,

Speedy recovery:-).

I am no specialist on crystal and jade daggers, so I will not try to guess how old the dagger is, but I have some doubt that it is very old.
A few things worries me, like the ears of the horse, they are very intact, and why would someone remove the green stones and replace them with green glass, and not at the same time remove the rubies, and replace red glass in stead?
I find the way the stones are added somewhat unusual for a high quality Indian dager, why are they not inlaid in the crystal - like they usually are?
Marius, when you are fit again, contact a jeweller, and ask him to measure the hilt and the stones for hardness, as he will be able to tell you if the hilt is rock crystal, if the green 'stones' are glass and if the rubies really are rubies.

There are, no doubt, daggers made a century or more ago, put in an armoury, and never or very seldom used. These daggers will be intact/very close to intact, but I can not judge this from photos.
The chiselling on the blade seems to be very bussy to me, and why did both of us expect the covering metal to be brass?

Sorry I could not be of more help

Jens

Thank you Jens! That's way more than I have expected.


Regarding the green glass, I believe emeralds were much rarer than rubies and that's why we often see Indian blades adorned with a mixture of gems and glass.

As soon as I will get out of the hospital and be fit enough will have the dagger checked. However, considering the light diffraction through the hilt, I am pretty sure it is rock crystal.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Marius,

You could be right, that the 'green glass' were emeralds, but still quite small, so when you are at it, why not take the rubies as well?
I have a dagger where the gems are replaced with glass with coloured metal foil under (cat. pp. 63-64).

Jens :-)

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Marius,

You could be right, that the 'green glass' were emeralds, but still quite small, so when you are at it, why not take the rubies as well?
I have a dagger where the gems are replaced with glass with coloured metal foil under (cat. pp. 63-64).

Jens :-)

Hi Jens,

I am certain the stones are all original and none were replaced. What I meant was that they were originally a mixture of gems and glass. I have seen this very often in 19-20 century "Mughal" daggers with stone hilts and kundan. Will check again when I will be out of the hospital.

Regards,

Marius

PS: My guess for the age is around 1900.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Marius,

It can be very hard to date these hilts, especially from pictures, but I think your guess is correct.

Jens

[mariusgmioc]

Manged to have the stones tested at the jeweler.

Hilt = Quartz
Eyes & forehead stone = Rubies (fairly good quality albeit not the best)
small red stones = Rubies (low quality; tested just a couple of them as they are carbochon and difficult to test but did a visual exam on the rest)
orange stones = probably Aghate but unsure as they are too small
green stones = glass

While they couldn't be 100% sure they said the mountings appear to be untampered so probably all stones are the originial ones.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Manged to have the stones tested at the jeweler.

Hilt = Quartz
Eyes & forehead stone = Rubies (fairly good quality albeit not the best)
small red stones = Rubies (low quality; tested just a couple of them as they are carbochon and difficult to test but did a visual exam on the rest)
orange stones = probably Aghate but unsure as they are too small
green stones = glass

While they couldn't be 100% sure they said the mountings appear to be untampered so probably all stones are the originial ones.

It is possible that the sheet silver at the base and the stones in the silver was added at a later date, maybe to cover up a fault or just to add some bling...the gold kundan on the eyes does not really match the silver work holding the other stones, just a thought.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

It is possible that the sheet silver at the base and the stones in the silver was added at a later date, maybe to cover up a fault or just to add some bling...the gold kundan on the eyes does not really match the silver work holding the other stones, just a thought.

I don't think so as the silver is basically one piece with the front bolster and it serves also as consolidation for the mounting of the blade since the tang is only about 2 cm (from all I can see).