Some of you may recall that I posted some pictures a few days ago of a parrying dagger ostensibly an antique. There was some question as to its authenticity and so I came to you guys for opinions. My own opinion based on the handle was that it was probably not authentic but rather a victorian reproduction. It seems that this was the general consensus from the forum together was some helpful information as to what style it was "supposed" to be and the time period it came from. At the time other photos were called for but there were none available. However, more were made available which allowed the original questioner to make a good determination based on his own knife experience. I will provide those photos here to see what you guys think. After you have made your calls I will provide the real results. Don't just tell everyone it's "real" or it's "fake" but tell us why you think that is true.

Well, I'll bite. I'm far from an expert, but I've studied some of the art of the period, so let's see where that goes.

First, I shall have to go with the notion that the "period" that this would come from would be early to mid-17th Century due to the function of the blades, i.e. a specialized dueling main gauche, although such devices were known in the 16th Century too. So from a functionality point of view, we could say 1575-1650 for a rough guestimate.

The simple cross hilt looks rather odd to me, especially with the splayed out ends of the quillons. Most of the period pieces that I am familiar with are turned, or more plainly (and more artistically) enlarged at the ends. This just doesn't look "right" to me.

Now for the chiseled relief decoration. Looks kind of crude me, especially when compared to the superb carving of the ivory handle. With a piece of work which is supposedly of that high a quality in line with the ivory, it's not very good. It's possible that it was done for some Nouvue Riche individual with more money than sense of course, but one would hope that the buyer would have been appalled at the lack of refinement. It almost looks cast, though it would take closer inspection for that judgement.

Now the ivory! I just doesn't look Mannerist. It's Baroque, which of course was in fashion at the end of the period of discussion, but just barely. However, even if it did fit the other artistic aspects, the ivory isn't actually fitted to the hilt. There ought to be some sort of a collar, which there isn't, and even if not, the ivory SHOULD come evenly to the hilt, rather than having a step to it. Just not the quality of workmanship that a fine carving of this nature would require for fitting to the rest of the piece.

My bottom line is that at the very least your original conclusion was correct, and that the ivory is definitely not associated originaly with this piece. I would be very suspicious of it, and my own rough apprasal is that it's a Victorian Reproduction, with perhaps some help from a few bits of an original here and there. I would be quite surprised to find it a complete original.

Gordon

Kudos to Gordon for being willing to step up and take a shot. Anyone else?

I think that the ivory handle could originally have been part of a wedding present set of carving knife+eating knives.
During the 16th and 17th C this was a fairly common thing.
The sculpting could often follow a theme (of moral and/or relgious nature) and Adam and Eve together on the handle of the big carving knife is perhaps a possibility. (Them both together on the tool of cutting/division sounds like it would be attractive to the mindsetof the time.
The eating knives could have Adam and Eve presented separately.

The decoration of the guard and blade (that seems to be out of proportion, just as Gordon said previously) look more like they are heavily etched, rather than cut.
There is something grainy about them... It might be the photos, but I think not.

The guard on these spring loaded parry daggers are as a rule pretty wide and arc towards the blade. Even if the blades on these types of daggers are rather big, this one looks a bit too clunky, but then again this is hard to tell from a photo.

These aspects makes me think the grip is an original piece that was mounted on a more recent work. I would think the weapon as it now is was put together in the late 19th C.
It was a common practise to use original parts in the production of replicas. There are usualyy a few of these items in most museums. Some are very good (even so good that they end up in the display among originals) but most have a feel of something not quite right about them.

Well since it seems that you gentlemen are the only ones that are willing to step up and take a swing I'll post the analysis.


Initial analysis, based on small photos:

This *type* of three-part blade parrying dagger was *supposedly* first made c1600 in Germany, then later made in Italy and in Spain.

Examples *supposedly* meant to be used have wide forward curving quillons on the guard, which are made of steel so they won't break when parrying a sword thrust -- and positioned so they keep the blade branches from opening too far. They have sturdy handles with solid grip -- evidently made to match the rapier that the dagger was *supposedly* used with.

By contrast the knife in question has a small guard that would not work for parrying, only for keeping the user's hand off the blade. And the handle is obviously decorative, not made for combat.

A further puzzlement is that this style and quality of figural carved ivory handle was normally used on aristocratic table cutlery, where the artistry could be studied at leisure by dinner guests. It would not normally have been used on a sidearm. Those had more robust handles.

Therefore we must consider two possibilities that would adversely affect the value of this item -- very substantially.

The first, is that it might be a 19th or early 20th century 'marriage' of two unrelated old parts -- the dagger blade, and a handle from a carving knife. Such marriages are, alas, at least as common in edged weapons as they are in antique furniture -- probably more so.

The second, and more likely, is that the whole thing might be a mid 19th century fabrication, made as a collector curio. Many such 'historical' daggers were made in that period, and some really splendid examples were displayed at the Crystal Palace in London in 1851. I have a newspaper engraving of one from the Great Exposition, and the caption says there were others there. Several examples made by Wostenholm of Sheffield still survive, with ornate neo-Gothic hilts. None of these that I have seen were exact copies of old weapons; rather they were '19th century modern' interpretations of old styles. None of them were designed to be used.

On the knife in question, the oddly small guard is decorated in a similar Gothic revival style. The handle sacrifices function for art. The blade branches do not appear to be reinforced adequately for parrying.

However this is all surmise. I do not have other examples to study. I have been through all of my 'arms & armour' books, and although this general type is mentioned in several, only one shows a photo, attached below (from Daggers & Fighting Knives of the Western World, by Harold Peterson, Bonanza Books, 1970; that knife is from the Wallace Collection, in London). Note how different the lines and proportions of that knife are from the knife in question -- and how it has a typical rapier hilt, with the ring protecting the button, and with the quillons backing up the blade branches.

[ Linked Image ]

A re-enactment version is offered for sale on several websites. Note how it is a simplification of the one in the Wallace Collection -- which might just turn out to be the ONLY real period example in existence (either that, or it might be a really well-made Victorian fantasy item, and there are NO real ones).

[ Linked Image ]


Analysis based on better photos:

1. Quite possibly this knife was "de-accessioned" by a museum, once the curators figured out what it is -- and isn't. That red might be a museum number, but private collectors sometimes numbered their items that way, too. And crooked dealers were (and are) not above adding fake museum numbers to their fake merchandise. I've seen a few, sometimes alongside fake military rack numbers.

2. Closeups show clearly that the handle and blade do not belong together. The ivory was just cut off straight, with n'er an effort at refinement -- and it doesn't even match the diameter of the bolster. With such fancy ivory work, there would have been a careful, elegant transition, possibly with an intervening ferrule, but certainly with more attention to detail.

3. The condition of the ivory is excellent. The condition of the steel is rusted "relic." With all the rusting the blade has done, it would have stained and split the ivory -- except that the ivory was added to the blade, with the blade already in its current rusted, cleaned, and stabilized (i.e. intentionally patinated) condition.

4. There does appear to be a mark, on the bolster just below the handle (see attached detail).

[ Linked Image ]

It is on a stepped down band, probably meant to be covered by a ferrule, associated with the original handle (if there was one). This mark appears to be a casting mold mark, suggesting that the steel components were cast, complete with "engraving." This would account for the overall softness of the "engraving." A real dagger would never have been cast, and a 17th century cast anything would not have had mould marks like this. But for making a fancy replica or fantasy item in the 19th century, casting would have been the easiest way to go. This seems to confirm that the blade is a Victorian product; that the "aging" was induced (note how the aging is uniform, and does not compromise either the decoration or the mechanism -- real aging is rarely this considerate, AND it confirms that the handle is an addition, since there is a recess for a ferrule -- but no ferrule, and no room for one, and no recess in the ivory for one.

5. Even if the blade, with its cast components, proves to be "late" rather than "fake," the handle still does not belong on it.

Too bad the ivory carving was sawn off this way. It's fairly nice work -- not great, but nice. The kind of dealers who did (and do) this sort of marrying don't care how much damage they do. This sort of fakery goes back at least to Roman times.

This analysis was supplied by Bernard Levine, respected author and appraiser. As you can see both Gordon and Peter did very well in their analysis especially the bits about the cross. NICE job on identify the handle as part of a carving set Peter.