Caveat emptor!!!

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by ariel

The $755/$18,000 ratio was humorous.
No doubt in my mind that the blades are real and very good, especially the one with gold inlay and a signature. I doubt very much it is a real AssadUllah's signature purely on statistical grounds: he must have made ,- what?- 100? 200?- swords in his lifetime, but thousands of swordmakers put his name on their swords. If his signature is real, and it requires careful evaluation that cannot be done by us, screen gazers, then this sword should be valued way above $18,000. If not, it should be viewed as yet another very good Persian blade and bring what the market will bear.
However, my point is that both swords were grossly misrepresented. We all would agree that the fittings are modern. Well, even that is not a sin. But to claim that " all is original" is blatantly not true. This is a "restored" sword and should have been presented as such.
The circumstances of the repeated "sale" of the sword with the plainer blade
are intriguing. What "men with no names" bid on it? Who "wins" it ? Why is it appearing again and again at no reserve, reaching high prices and then being re-listed?
All together makes me wonder about the whole operation and the authenticity of other items as well. Buying from that seller is out of the question for me (even if I could spend $18,755 )

Apparently, Assadullah is still alive with us, and still making swords, in Syria, many newly made crap is still marked with the lion mark, "assadullah", and the famous phrase "Ya qadhi kul-il-hajat", "Oh fullfiller of all needs" Seriously, there are more probably more than 800 blades in worldwide circulation, all bearing the assadullah sign, while most are Persian trade blades, noted specifically in Mr.Oliver Pinchot's great article, some must have been of assadullah's manufacture himself. Still, its not only the assadullah mark that gives great value to wootz blades, look at the other unmarked persian wootz blade, I would say that that blade, is probably was more valuable historically, than the marked one, as the unmarked blade is not a trade blade, its a blade of very high quality, and I suppose that commercialism has not played an important factor in its production, as with most persian trade blades.

[Rivkin]

I think Bazalai is more appropriate here than Geurk - Geurk "copies" come up here and there, while it is relatively easy to find an obviously fake Bazalai.

To the point of prices and japanese swords - I doubt I would ever buy a 2000$+ sword from a dealer without NBHTK or NHTK papers. I mean, why would such an expensive sword lack basic 100$ or so appraisal papers ? Something must be wrong with this picture. The very least one should do is to ask dealer to guarantee certain minimal appraisal at NBHTK.

Now here we have a smudgy-wudgy signature that looks nice, but I would not buy 18,000GBP persian sword for the kicks of it, as I would not buy 18,000$ japanese sword without papers, and I would not buy 18,000$ Rembrandt, even if the signature looks good on a photograph. Taking in mind that all other swords we've seen sold so far are rather obviously misrepresented, I truly wonder if anyone would bite this AA blade.

I would buy a very expensive sword if it would be valuable as it is; but things like famous attribution or historic provenance are not "ebay" material.

btw, lots of these blades are sham and not wootz.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

btw, lots of these blades are sham and not wootz.

Sham, is a kind of low contrast wootz, forged mainly in Damascus, and does not have the beauty of Persian wootz. Now I know that Verhoeven claims differently, but still, it was a crucible steel, forged in the same way as other wootz, the only difference is a slight difference in metallurgy, and pattern. AS for its value, of course, its much less valuable as a collectors item, than a quality persian wootz blade.