![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,356
|
![]()
This has indeed been a fascinating discussion, and as always a total learning experience.
It has been for me more of a 'by the numbers' probe into examination of an example from photos alone, so my observations are admittedly rather arbitrary as derived from resources available. I first began to learn about shashkas in around 1993, and through Oliver Pinchot, who honestly knew more about them than I could imagine, and most of it from first hand knowledge through many connections in these and associated regions. Though being disappointed in the outcome, I would not by any means dispute his assessment. I.P. in your post #13, you note the pre 1896 suggestion I made, which I meant to be toward these fixtures in the mounts. It would seem surprising that the silver hallmark would be spuriously applied. Very good note on the chemical anomalies which occur in silver as well. This blade is as agreed an older blade with the running wolf grouping more recently applied. I had not noticed the reverse carry on the Russian swords, and I do not have 'Mollo' handy, but if I recall, the reverse carry was adopted by mounted troops after the Caucasian fashion in the Cossack units. This was I think also put into use in the line units. In the one sword in the drawings the scabbard mounts show the cross type apertures to place the Moison-Nagant socket bayonet from the 1891 rifles. This would suggest infantry if not mistaken. Eduard Wagner, the artist and author of the book "Cut & Thrust Weapons" from which this is derived, was not one for 'artistic license', in fact his penchant for detail was beyond reproach in my opinion. So I would think this interpretation on the carry mounts is correct. At this point I am still unclear on the definition of skan, and still puzzled at the grip and decorative elements in the mounts material. I would also appreciate a more objective description of 'Circassian' style. It seems that the Circassian groups were thoroughly dispersed over much of the western Caucusus transcending regional borders. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 467
|
![]()
The grip material may be ivory or it may be bone. The issue isn't about materials; the maker used whatever he had access to and then aged it, more or less cleverly creating something of a patina. The metal may be silver, German silver or even white brass.
Any of the forum members who are knowledgeable about Caucasian arms (notably Ariel, among others) will note that only the general form of the sword is Caucasian. The embellishment is vaguely Georgian, with its panels of filigree. The sections of carved ivory, or whatever it is, are decidedly modern-- they have no precise analog in the historical period of production. And as I noted above, the wolf, poor thing, is recent and poorly aged to look antique. the 84 mark is made with a recent stamp, slight differences are identifiable by comparison with period silver stamps. As well-intended as much of the rest of this discussion is, it's frankly pointless. The form of the ricasso, Circassian influence on Georgian work (an existing and interesting type, but there is none whatsoever here) do not enter into the most basic characteristics of attribution: there is, as noted above, no such historical example of this type-- it is simply the modern... imagining... of a craftsman who, like many other Georgians attempting to augment their income in difficult times, engages in cottage industry. He has jeweler's skills, forming, soldering, filigree, carving, engraving and setting. If he can get hold of a blade, he's all set to create. No, I do not have photos, I never thought them worthy of memorializing. I did comment to one bright young guy who was selling these that he was close to making genuinely good copies; why didn't he replicate what he saw in museums and books instead? Marketed as fine copies, he could do well. Too much work, he replied. Tourists have to think they stole a treasure from you. They wouldn't know the difference, anyway. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 52
|
![]() Quote:
Thanks again for the detailed response! /thread |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,356
|
![]()
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation Oliver!
Collecting in our time, more so than ever before, is perilous as these 'craftsmen' in their cottage work become more skilled. As I have always thought, the most important weapon an arms collector can possess is knowledge, and one never stops learning. The audacious comment by the bazaar seller, says it all, and the thing is...if you're going to buy and collect.....KNOW the difference! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 467
|
![]()
JT, we all find ourselves in your situation from time to time. I would urge you to visit a reliable forum (there are many out there,) and perhaps inquire before investing in an antique arm beyond your specific knowledge? It will save you a buck in the long run. This time, just consider it tuition. That's what the rest of us do ;0)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,356
|
![]() Quote:
OUCH! wow, there's some sage advice.......go out and find a 'reliable' forum! Gee, wish I would have had those back when I was just getting into it all. Well noted on tuition, and I spent a LOT to get what knowledge I gained, but clearly not quite enough. Thank you JT for giving us a shot here, I learned a great deal here myself, still learning........still a novice after 40+ years of study. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 467
|
![]()
But you can sure wear the heck outta that ascot, Jim!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 16
|
![]()
I am not going to add much to the argument but I am going to say that the metal work with twisted wire soldered on plates is abkhzian and Western georgian metal work characteristics, here is an example
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|