A kind of pesh kabz, opinion and translation please

[gp]

Originally Posted by ariel

Oh no, not kindergarten "skirmishes" but full blown "special military operations" :-))))

that's why I referred to Georgy Konstantinovich ; Георгий Константинович Жуков never was the kindergarten type ....as confirmed by Ike / Eisenhower

and "Khalkhin Gol "was far from a skirmish ☺☺☺

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by gp

that's why I referred to Georgy Konstantinovich ; Георгий Константинович Жуков never was the kindergarten type ....as confirmed by Ike / Eisenhower

and "Khalkhin Gol "was far from a skirmish ☺☺☺

You are absolutely right But it was not even "fighting" skirmishes of Khalkhin Gol. It was more like "Battle of Stalingrad"

By the way, despite our current disagreements, in that "battle" I was "in the same trench" with аriel

[ariel]

And for the life of me, I cannot even recall which side I was on:-)

Perhaps it made no difference: to steal a line from George Bernard Shaw’s pithy take on economists, if all the arms experts were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.

Valid dating and attribution have to rely on the inscriptions and on physical signs of the object (patina, rust, wear, evidence of old repairs, techniques used, historiography etc.).

Gut feelings may be deceiving: there are too many instances of parallel development and/or mutual origin. That’s why G.C. Stone misread Minasbad for Parang Nabur and Tirri claimed N.African origin of Laz Bicagi etc. I have shown here Khyber knife and Bauernwehr with identical blades.

Only physical facts can serve as valid evidence of dating and origin. The rest of argumentation can force us to take a wrong turn.

In retrospect, does the dagger with pierced details belong to Afghanistan or Crimea is still uncertain to me. Sorry. We were laid end to end ……

[mahratt]

I agree 200% with these words:

Originally Posted by ariel

Valid dating and attribution have to rely on the inscriptions and on physical signs of the object (patina, rust, wear, evidence of old repairs, techniques used, historiography etc.).

But! Paying attention to the inscriptions, you should always remember the "Assad Allah Syndrome". We can find the name of this master on blades made from the 16th century to the end of the 19th century. And if you trust the name on the blade, you can make a mistake and date the item incorrectly.

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Paying attention to the inscriptions, you should always remember the "Assad Allah Syndrome". We can find the name of this master on blades made from the 16th century to the end of the 19th century. And if you trust the name on the blade, you can make a mistake and date the item incorrectly.

Quite right! That is why extremely prestigious blade attribution contests are held in Japan, the author's signatures on which are closed.

[ariel]

Ren Ren,
Of course, forging famous names is a very attractive ploy to up the price.
But that is exactly why I mentioned long list of physical features that had to be looked at first.
A pretty primitive blade " signed" by Assadullah or even a first-rate blade " signed" by him and carrying gold-inlayed , calligraphically perfect date of 1845 :-) provide 100% guarantee of fake. This is beyond any argument.

Classic example of it are several gorgeous shashka/saber blades with the name of "His Imperial Majesty armourer Geurk" and written dates circa 1830's from highly reputable private collections and world-famous museums were proven to be made not by Geurk, but likely by his descendants or even assistants simply because Geurk died 1820-1824.

But by and large dates and signatures are genuine, especially when and if they are not capable of bringing any substantial profit.

This is why I am really interested in francantolin's dagger. It is obviously so simple that any hope of spurious dating and attribution is not going to up its price by more than $10:-)

No faker would spend any time and effort forging a blade with a complex profile and engraving it by hand with long cartouches for such a pittance.

But the fully remastered handle serves as a strong argument of its rather substantial age.

[mahratt]

A solid age... Is it a lot or a little? Half a century (50 years) is quite a respectable age. The handle of an object that was used could have been replaced a year after it was made, if it was damaged