Anglo-Indian Knives

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Detlef.

Yeah, communication by Smartphone sucks. Agreed. I hate it so much I don't even own a Smartphone, and I leave my 15 year old mobile switched off, unless I want to make a call.

I'll wait until you get onto a proper keyboard where you can express yourself clearly and give me a proper analysis.

What I'm looking at is fit, finish, condition, design, craftsmanship.

I'm looking at the post #6 knife, and all the others, as if they were in a competition to select the knife that has been most skillfully crafted. In other words, which knife from amongst all of these is likely to be the work of a master, not the work of a village tinkerer.

I am not looking at what I might like to own for one reason or another.

I am applying purely objective judgement --- the sort of judgement that gets applied to knives in custom knife making competitions.

[Jon MB]

Apologies if my previous post seemed abrupt, I'll add more later.

[Kmaddock]

if any more pictures are required for the "competition" ask away. I am in no way strongly attached to this knife so I do not mind at all if the judges vote against my knife in the virtual competetion

The scabbard has no chape and has been singed in a fire at the top.
The cover is a v fine leather
Regards

Ken

[mariusgmioc]

Double message deleted.

[mariusgmioc]

I disagree with the idea that the knife at #6 is better than the others.

While the knives at #1 are quite touristy and probably made for the souvenirs market (see the fairly crude etchings on their blades), the knives at #3 (second one) and #12 are of very good workmanship that I find much better than that of #6.

Both knives at #3 (second one) and #12 have very carefully chiseled blades, with T-shaped spine and reinforced edge, as opposed to the blade of #6, that is only grooved.

Moreover, the knives at #3 (second one) and #12 have much more elaborate hilts, with pommels and front bolsters of hard stone and mid portions with intricately made mother-of-pearl geometric paterns, as opposed to the knife of #6 that has very basic hilt made of two slabs of hard stone.

So in my oppinion, the knives at #3 (second one) and #6 are of significantly better workmanship/quality than the knife at #6.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your contributions gentlemen.

To clarify a point:- my intent was not and is not to stage any sort of competition, virtual or otherwise, I asked the question because I felt that I needed to understand the reason, or reasons, why two experienced people should select the post #6 knife as "better" than all others.

Why is it "better"?

What makes it "better"?

What does "better" mean?

That it might be considered "better" is an opinion, and in somebody's opinion it might indeed be "better", so just exactly what factors make it "better" for that person.

This is what I really would like to know, or at least, understand.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thank you for your contributions gentlemen.
Why is it "better"?
What makes it "better"?
What does "better" mean?
.

Hi Guys,
My post was related to the original message from Ian
"The second is the knives made in India during the late 19th and early 20th C aimed specifically at European markets and British people"

So when I wrote better, I meant better than the late 19th - 20th c. early touristic products for Europeans.
Better means earlier
Better means for authentic use by local people
As it's an ethnographic forum, my "better" makes sense no??

[Kubur]

Another one
from the Brittish Museum...

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Kubur, this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, the rationale behind the thought process that will rank one thing "better" than another.

So, for you, a knife is "better" if it is older.
A knife is "better" if it is intended for use by people living in the area where it was made.

This then raises another couple of questions.
In respect of the knife in post #6:-

1) what is its approximate age, and how do we know this?

2) you posit that the post #6 knife style was aimed specifically at European and British visitors to the area of production. In the case of some of the knives produced in this style, this idea of production for visitors does seem to be so, but is it true for every knife produced in this style?
If this is so, what evidence do we have that this is true?

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I asked the question because I felt that I needed to understand the reason, or reasons, why two experienced people should select the post #6 knife as "better" than all others.

Hello Alan, like said already in my previous response, the words "better" & "older" I use in comparison to the three pieces at the right from Ian in post #1 with the one in post #6, I've handled some pieces similar to the 3 (let me call them "tourist" dagger) from Ian, they look nice but all is very cheap worked and I doubt that a dagger like this is usable.
The other shown examples seems to be very well worked, no question, the T-spine blades are well worked from the view to look at a usable dagger, a very nice to look at and for sure workable weapon. The handle is an intricate small work of art. But again I think that the dagger in post #6 is older and was for sure intended for use.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Why is it "better"?

Because, and here I speak for my own taste/sensation, it's a used ethnograhic dagger!

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

What makes it "better"?

I am nearly sure that it will have a very well worked (maybe laminated) blade, the signs of use.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

What does "better" mean?

My personal taste, again the curiosity to see and work at the blade, the clearly signs of use.

I hope to have answered your questions in a way you want to know.