Schiavona real or fake? 🧐
 

Hello, if someone has a knowledge about schiavona swords, especialy if someone ever saw this kind of agressive marking of a blade (for me it looks like false sword made to decieve someone) ?
Pomel looks wrong, basket looks crude and wrong and maker marks look like someone tryed to much…

Hi Serdar, can you post some detail pictures of the last 30 cm of the blade from both sides and some detailed pictures of the scabbard?
kind regards
Ulfberth

The anchor symbol is fairly common on mid C17th blades - though I've not seen it on a Schiavona - but is usually a single stamp. This appears to be from multiple tools.

The pommel seems weird, with the later basket. The type XIX blade. I guess might be age appropriate but I believe a late bird type 2b would be a backsword.

http://myarmoury.com/feature_spot_schia.html

Cheers
GC

After consideration, the more I look at this query in the OP, this seems like more of a test. It is unusual to see a weapon posted asking whether 'real or 'fake' seems provocative at face, so clearly doubt is already established.

Typically I try to avoid commenting on weapons of this kind as it has long been established, this forum is for the study of genuine historical arms, not reproductions (which do not have history, but tenuously might be deemed art).

However there has been a good discussion here, so I'd like to add my thoughts.

This 'schiavona' has the appearance of what may be considered (by most of the references) a fifth type (1640-1700) . The guard seems to me cut from sheet steel.....earlier this week I spent time in a welding shop having some work done, and observed just this kind of process. The guard follows 'generally' the structure and shapes in the bars of the trellis, but it is two dimensional, the inside of the guard seems unusually flat, but then my own example seems relatively flat as well. The point is the guard components should have been welded together, not cut out.

The pommel, is cast in a very loosely imagined image of the 'cats head' form, with rounded sides and a mound in place of the boss at center. There is of course no aperture in the upper corner.

The blade to me is entirely modern steel, and has been pointed out, typically would be a backsword. The 'markings' are quite crisp and almost bizarre interpretations of what might have been intended 'IHS'(?) and the others unclear.
Interesting however, on the block forte, there appears to be a stamped crescent as has been seen on some Italian blades. That mark would not be difficult to duplicate, but its placement suggests some key awareness by the maker.

I do not see an 'anchor' , which as noted would not appear on Italian blades. This was a Spanish device used 16th-17th c. on blades typically at the end of a name, motto or other inscription, and later used spuriously by Solingen makers.

I would not call this 'fake', which is a bit harsh, but an interpretation which took some research and effort. I doubt it would be intended to deceive as it is too obviously not authentic IMO.

Attached is my own example, which I would note is known to have had the grip professionally restored, but otherwise original. The blade appears to have been inscribed in the Napoleonic period (Ferdinand IV, c. 1805).
Note that the pommel has a depression rather than the usual boss...also the extended quillon. The guard itself appears to have been re-russeted as well.

I agree with Jim, the way the question is asked, "for me it looks like false sword made to decieve someone" it seems to me like the sword is not yours but for sale somewere .
Of course i could be wrong and in that case i apologise beforehand, but i asked for extra pictures and got no respons. If im not mistaken this forum is not for commenting on swords that are still on sale and-or waiting to be sold.
So my question to Serdar is : is this sword your own or is it for sale somewhere?
kind regards
Ulfberth

Well stated Ulfberth.................I guess we've been doing this so long here that postings in this demeanor seem rather out of character.
Stuff like this is pretty common on facebook, but here our objective is learning from actual historic examples in the main body of text. These kinds of questions are best handled privately.

No offense intended to Serdar, just clarifying the protocols that we try to maintain. It sounds as if he already had a good idea of the answers to questions.