Anglo-Indian Knives

A. G. Maisey · 25th January 2018, 11:24 PM

Thank you gentlemen.

Kronckew, yes, I do agree that some examples of this style of knife are of rather poor craftsmanship, and that retaining nuts on tangs and blades etched with "Victory" are hardly indicative of ethnographically accurate Indian cutlery.
Detlef has already clarified the "all" word, so that sort of limits the field a bit, but using objective comparisons, perhaps not.
Detlef also makes it clear that he has expressed a personal opinion, not an objective judgement, and from that perspective, well, we're all entitled to whatever opinion we wish to hold. But it is still interesting to try to understand what drives an opinion like this.

Ian, thank you for your clarification, yes, I did misunderstand your intent. However, if somebody thinks of something as "worthy" , how was that opinion formed? Why is it "worthy"? This is what I am attempting to try to understand.

Any of us can form an opinion, and we are entitled to that opinion, but there is always a reason for the opinion. That is what I'm trying to get at.

The responses to my initial question seem to be tending in a general direction of age and ethnicity, rather than any idea of quality of craftsmanship. For me, this is a very interesting way of thinking.

Actually, I think that possibly only Marius has tried to address my question in an analytical fashion. I did not intend to start a popularity contest as to where each knife ranked in terms of "betterness", but Marius has succeeded in giving reasons for his opinions, so he has clarified for me how he is thinking and why, and that is what I am trying to understand.

Jon MB · 27th January 2018, 09:11 AM

Dear Mr Maisey,

As you seem to have some stringent criteria for what constitutes a user-friendly description of a rational process for the evaluation of these items, it might be useful to hear about your own processes and criteria for evaluating Kris.

That would also provide a framework for other commentators to provide the answers you seek.

I agree with comments that age should not preceed quality in terms of evaluating an item, but age can be a useful thing to note during evaluation, as for example a 17th C. piece of low quality would be less likely to survive 'till now.

A. G. Maisey · 27th January 2018, 10:45 AM

Jon, I regret that I have been unable to make the objective of my questioning clear, so I will try again:-

I am not in the smallest degree interested in which of the knives shown in this thread is "best".

I am not interested in attempting to promote nor to establish any method to be used in appraisal of these or any other knives.

I am only interested in the way in which the experienced collectors who decided that the post #6 knife was better than all the others reached that decision.

In fact, the two experienced people who gave the original judgement that the post #6 knife was better than all the others have already responded to my question, and in their own ways have provided very clear indications of the way in which they think.

One other gentleman gave a measured and reasoned response, and I appreciate that addition to the discussion.

My interest was in the way in which people think, my interest was not at all in the knives themselves.

As for the way in which I appraise a keris, that is a very difference game to appraising a knife such as those shown in this thread. In fact, this is far too broad a subject to be dealt with in this thread. If you care to open a thread on this subject in the Keris Forum, I am fairly confident that you will get input not only from myself, but from other people as well.

ariel · 27th January 2018, 12:44 PM

Alan,
Allow me to add my 5 cents worth of purely personal perspective.
IMHO, there are as many collections as there are collectors. We all have different criteria, and the general statements such as “ Genlemen prefer blonds” just do not apply.

Some go for quality blades, some go for the baubles ( Al- Sabah collection), some for historical connections ( I am still sore for missing a sword gifted by Mohammed Ali), some ( I am sure) collect anything in pink or chartreuse.

Personally, I like simple fighting weapons, rare examples, old ( even worn), unusual, showing features of penetration of a different culture. Not into daggers for some reasons, although I have a Kindjal signed by Iosif Papov( there are probably less than 10 with his full signature in the world) and am a sucker for the Afghan and Central Asian ones.
Mass-produced, regulation and “ tourist” items do not interest me, as are newly-made reproductions of even high artistic or mechanical level. I am not into Kris ( sorry), simply because they were not so much weapons as accoutrements. But I understand people who collect them for their artistic and mystical value.

My criteria virtually guarantee an impossibility of recouping my expenses. Few people may be interested in a Tulwar with a handle that was illustrated in Hamzanameh and vanished since, even though it was featured by Elgood in a separate chapter as “important”. But collecting is a purely emotional issue, and the best ( for me) it does, it forces ( me) to buy books.

“Better” just has different meaning for different people.

kronckew · 27th January 2018, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

...

Personally, I like simple fighting weapons, ...

“Better” just has different meaning for different people.

Me. My main criteria is would I have taken this into battle. Is it suitable for it's intended purpose. And do i like it.

Pretty, Old, Rare are secondary to 'Could i bet my life on it'. I do have a general preference for naval connections, but that's not too important to functionality. Even rusty is OK if it's functional under the old warhorses age mottled skin. Being a bit unusual helps too.

In the worlds of WW2's Mad Jack Churchill "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed". (I'll leave off the longbow tho.)

A. G. Maisey · 27th January 2018, 07:48 PM

Precisely Ariel.

As I said:- my question was directed at the way in which two people thought.

In the absence of a qualifier, the word "better" is all inclusive.

So why was the #6 knife "better"?

mariusgmioc · 27th January 2018, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So why was the #6 knife "better"?

Because of the eye of the beholder!

25th January 2018, 11:24 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Thank you gentlemen. Kronckew, yes, I do agree that some examples of this style of knife are of rather poor craftsmanship, and that retaining nuts on tangs and blades etched with "Victory" are hardly indicative of ethnographically accurate Indian cutlery. Detlef has already clarified the "all" word, so that sort of limits the field a bit, but using objective comparisons, perhaps not. Detlef also makes it clear that he has expressed a personal opinion, not an objective judgement, and from that perspective, well, we're all entitled to whatever opinion we wish to hold. But it is still interesting to try to understand what drives an opinion like this. Ian, thank you for your clarification, yes, I did misunderstand your intent. However, if somebody thinks of something as "worthy" , how was that opinion formed? Why is it "worthy"? This is what I am attempting to try to understand. Any of us can form an opinion, and we are entitled to that opinion, but there is always a reason for the opinion. That is what I'm trying to get at. The responses to my initial question seem to be tending in a general direction of age and ethnicity, rather than any idea of quality of craftsmanship. For me, this is a very interesting way of thinking. Actually, I think that possibly only Marius has tried to address my question in an analytical fashion. I did not intend to start a popularity contest as to where each knife ranked in terms of "betterness", but Marius has succeeded in giving reasons for his opinions, so he has clarified for me how he is thinking and why, and that is what I am trying to understand. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 26th January 2018 at 06:01 AM.

27th January 2018, 09:11 AM	#2
Jon MB Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 143	Dear Mr Maisey, As you seem to have some stringent criteria for what constitutes a user-friendly description of a rational process for the evaluation of these items, it might be useful to hear about your own processes and criteria for evaluating Kris. That would also provide a framework for other commentators to provide the answers you seek. I agree with comments that age should not preceed quality in terms of evaluating an item, but age can be a useful thing to note during evaluation, as for example a 17th C. piece of low quality would be less likely to survive 'till now.

27th January 2018, 10:45 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Jon, I regret that I have been unable to make the objective of my questioning clear, so I will try again:- I am not in the smallest degree interested in which of the knives shown in this thread is "best". I am not interested in attempting to promote nor to establish any method to be used in appraisal of these or any other knives. I am only interested in the way in which the experienced collectors who decided that the post #6 knife was better than all the others reached that decision. In fact, the two experienced people who gave the original judgement that the post #6 knife was better than all the others have already responded to my question, and in their own ways have provided very clear indications of the way in which they think. One other gentleman gave a measured and reasoned response, and I appreciate that addition to the discussion. My interest was in the way in which people think, my interest was not at all in the knives themselves. As for the way in which I appraise a keris, that is a very difference game to appraising a knife such as those shown in this thread. In fact, this is far too broad a subject to be dealt with in this thread. If you care to open a thread on this subject in the Keris Forum, I am fairly confident that you will get input not only from myself, but from other people as well.

27th January 2018, 12:44 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Alan, Allow me to add my 5 cents worth of purely personal perspective. IMHO, there are as many collections as there are collectors. We all have different criteria, and the general statements such as “ Genlemen prefer blonds” just do not apply. Some go for quality blades, some go for the baubles ( Al- Sabah collection), some for historical connections ( I am still sore for missing a sword gifted by Mohammed Ali), some ( I am sure) collect anything in pink or chartreuse. Personally, I like simple fighting weapons, rare examples, old ( even worn), unusual, showing features of penetration of a different culture. Not into daggers for some reasons, although I have a Kindjal signed by Iosif Papov( there are probably less than 10 with his full signature in the world) and am a sucker for the Afghan and Central Asian ones. Mass-produced, regulation and “ tourist” items do not interest me, as are newly-made reproductions of even high artistic or mechanical level. I am not into Kris ( sorry), simply because they were not so much weapons as accoutrements. But I understand people who collect them for their artistic and mystical value. My criteria virtually guarantee an impossibility of recouping my expenses. Few people may be interested in a Tulwar with a handle that was illustrated in Hamzanameh and vanished since, even though it was featured by Elgood in a separate chapter as “important”. But collecting is a purely emotional issue, and the best ( for me) it does, it forces ( me) to buy books. “Better” just has different meaning for different people.

27th January 2018, 07:48 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Precisely Ariel. As I said:- my question was directed at the way in which two people thought. In the absence of a qualifier, the word "better" is all inclusive. So why was the #6 knife "better"?