I got my AC "Bhojpure" Pre- 1890 kukri today!!!!

Originally posted by John Powell
Stubborn cuss ain't ya?
Click to expand...

Yer Dayumed Right!!!!!:D

Originally posted by John Powell
Without photos I can't give you any opinion, but I have now handled 12 of these and have seen the variations. I consider the classic D and the bhojpure as the ones I have showed. I am using the overall shape of the blade and the much smaller grip as basic criteria.
Click to expand...

And I've been telling you that the kukris I got look just like the pic of the Bhojpure and WW I you posted!
If you don't want to believe me in what I'm saying about the composite pix in the scans lieing then it's no skin off my nose.:rolleyes: Hey, it's the internet!!!!:p :D

Besides, Terry just left and he confirmed that indeed I do have a Bhojpure And a WW I.
Maybe if you saw them in person?:rolleyes: :p :D
 
Believe you? Absolutely. But I also believe pictures so convince and give me the measurements of the 'waist' the bolster and the grip width. Have your on scene "expert" take some pictures...
 
Ive been thinking about this a lot today & is something that is between the two ,one thing or the other? My B & my D are both hybrids, that maybe doesnt sound so romantic, but perhaps the designs sometimes include the best of both worlds. After all In a way this is the beuty of hand kukris, there individuality!

Perhaps Shakespeare had a suitable line,

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

Spiral
 
Originally posted by John Powell
Believe you? Absolutely. But I also believe pictures so convince and give me the measurements of the 'waist' the bolster and the grip width. Have your on scene "expert" take some pictures...
Click to expand...

John I did post the measurements in a post above. I'm posting the handle measurements below this quoted post at the bottom.

Originally posted by Yvsa
That's for sure D/R!!!! Unlike the scan and reassembly shows of my Bhojpure it's only 1 7/16" at it's waspish waist and swells out to 2 & 5/8 inches!!!! And it's the one with the non-standard cho I drew.

My WW I is 1 1/2" at its waist and swells out to 2 & 1/2 inch. The cho on it appears to be maybe a little non-standard, but I haven't made up my mind if it's made that way or the result of being beaten around. At the bottom of the uvula, for want of a better word;), it sorta appears to have a small cut on one side making it sort of a Fleur-Dis-Les design.
Terry's supposed to be by later this morning and maybe he can shed some light on it.;)
Click to expand...

The handle width is 1 5/8" wide just behind the bolster measured roughly with a ruler and not calipers and is 1 5/16" at the ring on the Bhojpure, wood part of handle length is 3 5/8 inches. Bolster and wood is just shy of 4 inches long.

The WW I handle is also 1 5/8" wide just behind the bolster and is 1 1/4" just behind the ring and wood part is 3 3/4" long. Bolster and wood is 4 1/4" long

The WW I is 1 3/4" shorter in the blade when laid on top of the Bhojpure and has a definite angle compared to the gentle complete arc of the Bhojpure.
Photos will come as soon as I can borrow a dig camera or I can take pictures and afford to have them developed. Laid out just like the pic you posted they look almost identical, less the missing pieces of handle etc.

If what I don't have is a true Bhojpure then that's alright and I will make a decision to send it back or not, but what I'm saying is that the kukris fit the description as far as length, width and photo in the AC Catalog and look just like this pic as far as I can tell.
The handle may be fatter on my Bhojpure but isn't any hand made object subject to some deviation?

compare.jpg
 
YVSA,
I just want you to get what you ordered. There is some confusion because they are sending out what they've been told w/o realizing there may be subtleties. As SPIRAL says and I have mentioned there are variants.

Look again at my criteria and you'll see how I judge these. The bhojpure grips have all been very slender compared to the D models, but if you are happy, that's all that counts.
 
AAAAAAhhhhhhhhhh I see! Perhaps part of the difference here in perception of styles comes from the fact that the WW1 is meant to be 17.5 in. long ! A full half inch longer than a bhojpure!
If as you state the blade is 1.75 inches shorter than the bhoj , That will make it feel & look quite different from an original one, I guess that at least explains all the hammer marks on the WW1, It must have been broken & re forged & tempered by a kami! Wow! there cant be many of those about! A genuine Gurkha kami reforge!

I wonder what past historical incident caused it?
A kuk with a story!

Spiral
 
I sent back my "WWI" and am waiting for a bhojpure. You pays your monies and you takes your chances.

Steve
 
Two more sets of data. I ordered a B and a D. They arived today - unlabeled of course.
No. 1 (type D?):
HANDLE: looks like illustation of D except only slight swell at butt. Script on butt. Looks like the fancy "E" in ddean's post of hand drawing in this thread. But it's only 3 5/8" from butt to distal end of bolster.
CHO: looks like one in illustation of type D but large uvula is less pointed.
BLADE: 12.75" x 3/8" thick. 1 3/8" at waist and 2.5" at max. Blade is slightly wider than bolster at top edge.

No. 2 (type B?)
HANDLE: much slimmer than No. 1 and looks like illustration of B. 4.5" from butt to distal end of bolster.
CHO: pretty much identical to No. 1 except even blunter.
BLADE: 12.625" x 3/8" thick. 1 5/16" at waist and 2 7/16" at max.

BOTH have some slight shallow pitting but No. 2 has a significant chip (3/32") and four small chip - all on wider part of blade.

BOTTOM LINE: I have three AC khukuris, all said to be made in Napal. One is from India (but in very nice shape indeed); one is 1.25" shorter than advertised, one is 3/8" short and badly chipped.

OPINIONS???????????????
TAL
 
Originally posted by spiraltwista
AAAAAAhhhhhhhhhh I see! Perhaps part of the difference here in perception of styles comes from the fact that the WW1 is meant to be 17.5 in. long ! A full half inch longer than a bhojpure!
If as you state the blade is 1.75 inches shorter than the bhoj , That will make it feel & look quite different from an original one, I guess that at least explains all the hammer marks on the WW1, It must have been broken & re forged & tempered by a kami! Wow! there cant be many of those about! A genuine Gurkha kami reforge!

I wonder what past historical incident caused it?
A kuk with a story!

Spiral
Click to expand...

Spiral I think you've hit upon the really true problem. My Bhojpure may be a variant with it's fatter handle, but the true problem lays with my WW I.
It's only 15 3/8" overall as my first post about it says, see below!!!!

So now the question is not so much what I do with the Bhojpure, but What I do with my WW I? It is Definitely Not up to Specs!!!!
But is it worth having a WW I Kukri perhaps as you've said it might be or should I send it back and get a 17 inch model? John what's your opinion?

Now I have to make two decisions.:grumpy:

Originally posted by spiraltwista
A full half inch longer than a bhojpure!
Click to expand...


Originally posted by Yvsa
Okay. I did a really quick cleanup to get the worse part of the gunk off the old war horse and here are the specs the best I can do tonight.

Snip:

The kukri is 15 3/8" oal.
The blade is 11 3/8" long from center of bolster to point.
The handle is 3 3/4" without bolster
The handle is 4 1/4" including bolster and right to the edge of said bolster.

Weight is 22 ounces or 1 & 3/8 pound.
Click to expand...

Snip:
 
Yvsa,

Although this does make an interesting historical kukri, I doubt if its balance or power would ever duplicate that of the original model.
If it was mine personaly I think I would want a replacment.

Spiral
 
Thanks Spiral. I would like your opinion on what you would do with the Bhojpure as well. I sort of like the fat handle on it and the length fits me well even as short as it is. It's not like I'm going to make the knife a user although it could be mounted with the WW I on a wood shield and placed on my bedroom wall.:D
I'm convinced it's a Bhoj although being a variant. Variants aren't necessarily bad.:)
 
Okay!!!! I'll call AC tomorrow and see what the procedure is for returning a product for replacement.
And then pack up and send my WW I back in for the corerect model. I will say one thing, if this kukri did indeed break or was otherwise damaged and repaired the kami who did it was a master at hardening!!!!!:D
 
Here's an enhancement of the markings found on the butt of my type D Kukri from AC

d74d512a.jpg


Any translations ?

Thanks,
Warren
 
My AC blade:
OAL: 17 1/4"
Blade Thickness: 7/16"
Blade width at widest point of belly (spine to belly): 2 5/8"
Blade width at wasp waist: 1 3/8"
Blade width at bolster: 1 1/2"
Handle length (including bolster): 4 1/4"
Handle width (just behind bolster): 4 1/2"
Handle width (just behind step/ring): 3 3/4"

Bhojpure?
 
Yvsa,
You say,
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------Thanks Spiral. I would like your opinion on what you would do with the Bhojpure as well. I sort of like the fat handle on it and the length fits me well even as short as it is. It's not like I'm going to make the knife a user although it could be mounted with the WW I on a wood shield and placed on my bedroom wall.
I'm convinced it's a Bhoj although being a variant. Variants aren't necessarily bad.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If as you like it & as you say the blades in good condition & possibly a rather interesting varient 0r hybrid, & it fits your hand, then it sounds like you enjoy having it!
And thats what I think its all about realy! perhaps you paid a bit extra for it but obviously, you dont realy think so.

What does your heart say?

My Bhojpure is a varient but I decided to keep it, It might not have such delicate sexy curves as the "flagship" Bhojpure, But it has a lot of raw power & presence!

Spiral
 
This thread has helped me to understand these AC kukris much better. I've ordered a total of 5 of these antiques and have returned 2 of them.

My first order was for a Longleaf, a Bhojpure and WWI “D” model. I returned the "WWI" model because it had a badly bent tip, and because it was MUCH smaller and thinner than described in the catalog. I kept the Longleaf and Bhojpure.

My second order was for another Longleaf and Bhojpure. I returned the second Longleaf because there was a serious crack perpendicular to the edge right in the working area of the blade. It had very nice Devangari markings, though. I kept the second Bhojpure.

I have noticed some distinctive differences between my two Bhojpure. The first one “looks” older, with a darker patina and signs of real usage along the edge. It has a long, thin handle and narrow waist. It feels great in the hand.

The second Bhojpure has a much brighter finish, with a lovely concave “hollow ground” profile and very thick spine. The handle is much thicker and shorter. The edge is flawless, but there are some fine longitudinal cracks in the blade that appear to be from the forging process. It is a heavy-duty kukri, beautifully made.

After reviewing this thread with great interest and studying the AC catalog again, I’ve come to the conclusion that my second “Bhojpure” is really a WWI “D” model! The shape of the grip, blade profile and overall length match the catalog description exactly.

I am certainly not disappointed that this kukri is a WWI and not a Bhojpure, especially considering that I ordered a WWI in the first place. This WWI and the “WWI” I received in the first order are nothing alike. I really don’t know what that first “WWI” was.

I called Atlanta Cutlery to tell them about this and they cheerfully refunded me the $30 difference in price between the Bhojpure and the WWI model. AC might not be too good at identifying or correctly representing their various kukris, but you certainly can’t fault them on their willingness to make things right.

Thanks, everyone!

Geoffrey
 
I have e-mailed AC to report that my type C was not made in Nepal as they represent; that my type D is 1.25" short (mostly due to 3.25" handle); and that my type B is 1/2" short and has a BADLY shipped edge. I have proposed to return only the chipped-up type B if they can give me one in good condition. We shall see.

TAL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top