[Jim McDougall]

While your argument is understood, you must understand that blades were primarily a trade commodity, and were produced in blade making centers through Europe, with Solingen being one of the largest and most dynamic.

Blades were sent out to be traded, then were mounted by cutlers and armorers into hilts of local fashion. The blade itself can most often be identified by its markings, but often by its character, fullering, point styles, ricasso etc.
The HISTORICITY of the blade begins, and often ends with its assembly of hilt and sword.......until then the blade is simply a component.

Once having been mounted, there are cases in the swords life, where it may have been taken in battle. In these cases, where the BLADE becomes a trophy and might be mounted in a locally favored hilt by the victor owning the trophy.
This has been seen in numbers of cases.

As you mention, many nimchas (as well as swords through west Africa) have French blades indeed, but these were most often traded into local centers where they circulated often for generations. The blades in nimcha and other African swords (takouba, kaskara, Manding, and others) are almost invariably European, but their CONTEXT is historically now AFRICAN.

In England, after the Sudan campaigns 1884-1898, many Sudanese kaskara were taken as trophies and souvenirs. Of these countless numbers, in later years, unscrupulous antique dealers saw the oft noted resemblance of these blades to Crusader broadswords.
As lamented by Ewart Oakeshott in his references, many of these valuable kaskaras were taken apart, the blades mounted in duplications of medieval swords, thus VALUABLE HISTORY OF THESE KASKARAS WAS LOST!

While these were typically Solingen made blades, they were actually made for export to North Africa......the same as Solingen and Wilkinson in England were making blades FOR export to Ethiopia.
So do you think these blades made for export in Germany and England should be returned to those places ?

Japanese katana are heirlooms, and passed down for generations. It is true the blade is the key component, and the mounts are simply dress for certain occasion or use. The blade is often kept in shira-saya mounts when not in use. The daisho of the Samurai included the Katana (large sword); wakizashi (medium) and tanto (dagger). Any number of reasons might account for the variation in the mounting holes in the tang over generations.
I can assure you that no Japanese Samurai blade would end up in other than Japanese mounts......these blades are sacred.
This is NOT the case with blades made for export and trade.

BTW, nice job on the hilt (handle as you say). Very convincing, but while this hilt form is of course in the manner of 17th century Polish sabers...........where does the 'Cossack' come in? While some Zaporoshian hilts (notably from Beretscko) had hilt with open 'L' guard, not sure they had this form . Mostly 'Cossacks' are of course associated with the shashka, they were known to also have Eastern type sabers such as shamshir.

Basically, a blade out of context does nothing to prove its historicity, it might have been used anywhere, any time, over generations if not centuries. Blades circulated in North Africa for centuries after arriving there from their European origin (one Tuareg blade was identified as 14th century European ). Who knows how may times it was remounted....IN THE SAHARA. So should it be sent back to Europe (unsure which center made it) to be mounted in a fake crusader hilt ? WHY?