Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Those who appreciate the spearheads please to have a look at these

  1. #1

    Those who appreciate the spearheads please to have a look at these

    All these are Qing Dynasty spearheads ()about 100-200 years ago)
    The friends who would like to have a further discussion about Qing Dynasty spearheads please contacts with me:
    Ljq0728@hotmail.com
    MSN Ljq0728@hotmail.com
    NO.1 Length:46cm
    NO.2 Length:48cm
    NO.3 Length:74cm
    NO.4 Length:43cm
    NO.5 Length:48cm
    NO.6 Length:46.5cm
    NO.7 Length:452cm
    NO.8 Length:62.5cm
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by zhengjin, Li; 01-15-2006 at 03:36 AM.
    ljq

  2. #2
    NO.2
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ljq

  3. #3
    NO.3
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ljq

  4. #4
    NO.4
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ljq

  5. #5
    NO.5
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ljq

  6. #6
    NO.6
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ljq

  7. #7
    NO.7
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ljq

  8. #8
    NO.8
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ljq

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Riverside
    Posts
    403
    I NEED ONE

    Thank you for sharing, they are outstanding...

  10. #10
    How do you know these are from the Qing dynasty?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sweden, Malmö
    Posts
    568
    Very nice! I am most interested in the broad blade spearhead no 3, it reminds of the blade I asked about a while ago. Mine is only 54 centimeters but the shape is much like a dao. I am still curious to the style of that? Yours look even more dao like, could you show a picture of the receptor part, maybe? No 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, is very nice example of the Qing style spears we have seen before, and I wonder if any one can say how long back that style goes? I have a few the same style and size.
    And then no 8 again sticks out with it's size 62 centimeters is a lot for a spearhead, and it seems to be all iron, no brass parts in the mid section.

    One can judge from the wear, rust, (the receptor part, just like the tang of a sword shows the most of the age), and other details that they are older than yesterday, and no fakes, but no reason to believe they are older than mid to late Qing. One can also polish and etch to check for the smiths works, and see that it the real deal. But this area seems to be even less researched than swords, when it is not Ming, or older, so I think we must build a knowledge our self's, and share our experience, as small as it maybe. I haven't found much about spears in books. "Weapons in ancient China" I have, and it stops at Song dynasty. So any reading suggestions are welcome.

    Here to learn.

    The old thread, with my spearhead.
    http://forums.swordforum.com/showthr...threadid=60607
    Last edited by Klas Larsson; 01-19-2006 at 03:37 PM.

  12. #12
    I have one that looks like #5 in every detail.

    Fascinating!

  13. #13
    Originally posted by Klas Larsson
    One can judge from the wear, rust, (the receptor part, just like the tang of a sword shows the most of the age), and other details that they are older than yesterday, and no fakes, but no reason to believe they are older than mid to late Qing.
    See, this is still the problem: one cannot make the claim above and expect it to have credibility if one cannot prove the claim. Sharing is fine, and posting pictures is fine--even better is to post pictures with some explanation as to the context of those pictures. But to be taken seriously on an academic forum, one needs to offer evidence for claims made. Asking the question as I do above is not an insult; it addresses concerns of responsibility and accuracy.

    Being "older than yesterday" does not seriously answer the question, and one cannot base the rust and wear in the photo without actually examining the material itself. Can "no fakes" really be ruled out?

    Part of being "hear to learn" is asking tough questions that are not easily answered. Part of the learning process on an academic forum is verifying claims made. These spearheads could be from the Qing dynasty--that is the extent of the claim. The challenge is to prove they are from the Qing dynasty.

    Doug M

  14. #14
    In spite of the slightly patronizing tone (i do wish you would stop that), i have to agree with Doug here. When making such claims, it would not only be appropriate, but also very valuable to the community, to cite sources and reasons for stating them
    Bye, bye baby
    Don't be long
    I worry about you
    While you are gone
    - Ivy

  15. #15
    Originally posted by Thøger Kari
    In spite of the slightly patronizing tone (i do wish you would stop that), i have to agree with Doug here. When making such claims, it would not only be appropriate, but also very valuable to the community, to cite sources and reasons for stating them
    Thoger,

    I am glad you agree, but I would like to know how I am using a patronizing tone. You do not hear me say anything, so the "patronizing tone" is what you must think I sound like. However, I am being as clear as possible without patronizing anyone. One's ego must play an important role in being offended by my asking for sources and evidence. I hope that is not the case here.

    Doug M

  16. #16
    Originally posted by Doug M
    Thoger,

    I am glad you agree, but I would like to know how I am using a patronizing tone. You do not hear me say anything, so the "patronizing tone" is what you must think I sound like. However, I am being as clear as possible without patronizing anyone. One's ego must play an important role in being offended by my asking for sources and evidence. I hope that is not the case here.

    Doug M
    Don't worry, this time it wasn't bad, and i've always agreed with you on the demand of evidence, no hassle there. Perhaps it is because you are being as clear as possible, making it sound like you think you're talking to a child, e.g. saying the same thing more than once. Hence the "patronizing tone". I'm quite sure it's not intentional and it could be only me who reads it like that, but recent "incidents" could be an indicator that you should perhaps consider it.
    Like dr. Phil says () "there's no truth, only perception" so as much it may not be intentional, this could still be the signal people are recieving. I know i do. And I don't just pick people out at random and decide they have a patronizing tone.
    I hope you're at least open to the possibility, and I do not intend to adress this issue any further, as it is already disrupting the topic of the thread. If you wish to discuss anything, feel free to pm me.
    Cheers
    Bye, bye baby
    Don't be long
    I worry about you
    While you are gone
    - Ivy

  17. #17
    Thoger,

    Well, I certainly do not intend to talk down to anyone. I really repeat ideas only to return to the point I try to make, and making that point can appear offensive. But I mean none. Contacting me outside the forum, you can find me to be very honest and open about many things, so I can clarify these "incidents" if you would like. As always, nothing happens or is said without a reason, and I respond in such fashion above when a situation calls for it. Of course, everyone should ask and demand these questions: the moderators should also step in and tackle them as they appear.

    Doug M

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sweden, Malmö
    Posts
    568
    Thøger said
    When making such claims, it would not only be appropriate, but also very valuable to the community, to cite sources and reasons for stating them
    My main reason for stating this is that a want to see other people contributing their information, to have a discussion on spears. As for sources, well there are the spears I have seen, and other peoples information on their spears, written sources I have seen few.
    My statement is not based on the spears in the pictures only, but by comparing them to my own spears and the spears I have seen so far, with friends, in the forum, in books and on the market. A close look at some these show that they have age, for example the receptor parts being almost rusted away, extremely deep pitting on some of the blades, and deep battle marks. I put this together with other observations of the general picture of the wear of the spears, and conclude that they are not fakes. Then when I see other spears of the same style and with some signs of age, I can say that they are most likely not fakes. (Certain is a big word, and need close, hands-on examination). We also know that the spear was a very common weapon, so for there to be a few still around is not strange. Exactly how old they are, is, if I understand it right, hard to say, if the styles haven't changed much, and there is so far no reason to believe them to be older than Qing. This is not much, but a start maybe, not much "valuable to the community", but it may get better?

    But, and I want to stress this, wise of experience how threads go dead from it, do not take it as an invitation to discuss if we can discuss this or if we are academic enough, or if this is written somewhere. As far as I know it's not, and if it is I would be very interested to read it. So if you have something to contribute, please, if not, stay of the thread, and dont interfere. Another dead thread is not what we want is it?

    That is, to be perfectly clear, if you have something to say on spears, maybe oppose my opinion, based on some other facts, please do so. I am not interested to discuss if we can discuss this, (or to demonstrate scary "amazing rhetorical skills"), I leave that to others, thank you.

    I will not answer post who just repeats the obvious , that we need to "prove our claims".

    We can not restrict our self to stating what has already been stated in a book. We are not children, most of us are I hope, grown ups, who can think and discuss. Not to discuss if we can discuss it.

  19. #19
    I would like to add, that i don't think this type of worn rust patina can be easily reproduced in short time. At least it takes that much skill that it would almost be worth the money . If they were fakes, they sure were very maticulous and attentive to detail. Typical oxidizing agenst will make the steel flake, while those "bubble" formations are more typical signs of age, where rust have emerged from within.
    Do anyone know whether or not this appearance can actually be achieved with relative ease?
    Last edited by Thøger Kari; 01-21-2006 at 10:10 AM.
    Bye, bye baby
    Don't be long
    I worry about you
    While you are gone
    - Ivy

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    460
    Hi Doug,

    This is not a challenge! May I ask what sort of proof would you consider vigorous?

    For example, let's take the example of spearhead #5. It is a very common form, I own one (bought from a pretty knowledgable collector and forumite), I think Klas owns one, apparently Cleaver owns a variation. Based on what Mr. Philip Tom said of the same type on the WLE website, we can assume that this spearhead variation is from the late Qing and what sort of patina one can expect. In addition, based on my interactions with Misters Tom and Rodell (business), and from the limited number of E-bay buys that I have polished up, I think I sort of know what the patina and other metallurgical details I can expect. So based on all of this and my personal spearhead, I can say that my still inexpert opinion is that most of those spearhead are authentic.

    However, all of this based on inference etc and the assumption that the expert opinions of Misters Tom and Rodell are generally correct (not that I have any doubt of this!). For example, I have no clear trail tracing my pieces to the last century or beyond, so my personal stuff could be all fakes. All of the swords that I have polished could possibly be of recent manufacture, and I got san mei, qianggang pieces at rock bottom prices. I can't definitely prove that these pieces aren't somehow doctored by someone quite expert; I mean economically it doesn't make sense and thus not probable, but not improbable.

    So again, what sort of proof is vigorous? I'm an academic, but not in the humanities or history so I'm not quite sure what is considered acceptable in these fields.

  21. #21

    Lightbulb The likelihood of faking spearheads

    It is my opinion that most of the spearheads like the ones above found today are genuine. By geniune, I mean that they are really as old as they look without being picky over Late Qing, Early Qing, etc. My reasoning is this:

    1. False aging to a reasonably good degree requires a fair amount of skill

    2. False aging of a specimen would be more or less the same effort for a spearhead, dao or jian.

    3. Spearheads are not particularly valuable compared to dao or jian. (Excepting possibly the first two, which are very nice.)

    4. A forger would be better off spending his time faking dao or jian.

    To my eyes the #5 variety I have looks real up close. I guess it is a lot harder to tell with the low res digital photo. It is possible that these are forged, but there are no real giveaways and the likelihood of anyone bothering to fake these is quite slim.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Katoomba, Australasia
    Posts
    12

    Post qing qing

    to be taken seriously on an academic forum, one needs to offer evidence for claims made. Asking the question as I do above is not an insult; it addresses concerns of responsibility and accuracy.

    Being "older than yesterday" does not seriously answer the question, and one cannot base the rust and wear in the photo without actually examining the material itself.

    Doug M [/B][/QUOTE]

    Definately agree with this statement. I buried a contemporary boot knife once and forgot about it; Upon finding it maybe five yealrs later it was in a terrible state. Though I unfortunately ditched it if I had a photo you would see corossion holes and rust that made it seem alot older.

    Thus to say these are qing examples "though they may be so" is difficult in the least to quantify by looks alone. Check perhaps against old woodcuts or "have them carbon dated", lol!
    "The one who feels closest to mastery is closest to having knowledge in decline"

    ...Masakatsu Agatsu...

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    460
    Check perhaps against old woodcuts
    But the general forms of spearheads hasn't changed much over the years, so say a leaf shape is going to fairly consistent. I have seen woodcut illustrations of spear heads from a Ming dynasty copy of "The Water Margin" in an English translation published in the 80's (I'll have to find it, don't have it on me right now), that don't look any different from depictions from the Qingding shujing tushuo (published in 1905) which depicts various kinds of craftsmen at work.

    In addition, the whole point of a forgery is to replicate the form, so the shape of the thing doesn't really say much.

    Anyway don't want to get off topic; anyone else have spearheads to show? I have to take pictures of one that I have that is almost shaped like the stuff we use for wushu these days.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Katoomba, Australasia
    Posts
    12

    spear head

    yes, had noticed that myself.

    It would be interesting to note the construction of these spear heads also. at a glance it is difficult to see. Is there a chance of close ups of these or other spear heads from anyone.
    "The one who feels closest to mastery is closest to having knowledge in decline"

    ...Masakatsu Agatsu...

  25. #25
    Originally posted by Klas Larsson
    We can not restrict our self to stating what has already been stated in a book. We are not children, most of us are I hope, grown ups, who can think and discuss. Not to discuss if we can discuss it.
    Discussion is good. I would like someone to point out where anyone here as stated that discussion should cease. One should more honestly and accurately qualify claims: if one thinks something dates back to the Qing dynasty--early, middle, or late--one should state that the item in question is probably or possibly from the Qing dynasty. Or one could state, "I believe this item is from the Qing dynasty." That would about cover it. Otherwise, people who critically think about things will look at the item and the bold claim and ask how such an item is accurately dated.

    This is pretty simple stuff, guys: clarity, honesty, and responsibility. There is no need to be offended by it.

    Doug M

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •