[QUOTE=serdar;295201]I acquired a karabela sword from collection of one old collector, he described this sword like “turkish karabela 17. Century”.
What i can see is an old blade, wery high quality blade, with very good toughnes, and high quality of steel, blade that se lot of usage. Blade is similar to the shamshir blade, but it is not a shamshir blade, profile is diferent, and diferently angled, allso it has a markings on a both sides, something that resembles a crowns? Maybe?
And a 5 star mark that forms a cross, that is obstructed by the langets of crossguard but i tried to capture on photo.
Those stars i have on two more swords that i know 100% are genova made and from 15 century.
And i saw similar stars on mostly genova made blades.
Handle is replacement, but an old replacement maybe 17/18 century.
I thought perhaps responding directly to this original post best, as clearly discussion is not possible and what is sought is a direct answer, no less.
As far as can be found thus far, no IDENTICAL cross configuration of these stars can compare. It is noted that these star stamps are seen on various north Italian blades. As far as known, like many such markings on blades, these are not directly associated to certain makers, though on occasions they do occur with actual makers punzone.
There are of course speculations but it is dangerous to cite them at the risk of academic ire.
However I have found support for the fact that this MAY well be a SHAMSHIR LIKE blade of early 16th century from Italy. ...
A scimitar dated 1618 (Wallace Coll. , Mann, 1962, A713, p.363) shown from Italy.
In Mann (op.cit.p.361) it is noted:
:...this scimitar is an example of mingling of European and Asiatic styles in Venice".
It may be presumed that this practice likely existed prior to this and did not suddenly occur one day in 1618. Thus, it is quite possible that this shamshir like blade might be this early, made in Italy, thus marked using the same type stars in a locally peculiar configuration.......temptingly in accord with the Jerusalem cross.
The entire 'karabela' attribution is irrelevant and the present hilt on the blade appears much later addition, and cannot be properly or forensically classified from photos and physical handling. Thus, this hilt resembling karabela types does not necessarily bear on the identification of the blade (nor for that matter the guard).
I hope these comments might be perceived as objectively presented and my opinions are in accord.
|