![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
|
![]()
No offense, but
Muhammad Ja'far was doing top notch objects https://collections.vam.ac.uk/search...%2c%20Muhammad So for me it is more a revival of a classic, like a Chanel bag made in China. More seriously it is a very good counterexample of the dha that I posted, inscriptions can say a lot but they need to be tested in context. I probably lost half of the forum members on that one ![]() I forgot, you have a very nice dagger! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 153
|
![]()
Muhammad Ja’far is a very common name in many places and there is no indication this is meant to be the maker rather than the owner
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
As noticed by Kwiatek, there certainly were more than one Muhammed Jafars between Iran and Bengal and between 1798 and 1898.
I do not think we can be certain that the scabbard is original or not but it looks very fitting and taking into account that scabbards and organic handles were the most perishable components of any bladed weapon and were changed from time to time, this one is IMHO either original or replaced during the working life of the dagger. Doesn’t look new or even recent to me. This is not a masterpiece dagger for the Victoria & Albert Museum, but a solid working dagger dating IMHO to the 19 century and witnessing quite a lot of real action. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Rhineland
Posts: 375
|
![]()
Thank you all for your opinions, all the information and the interesting discussion!
Kind regards Andreas |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|