Identification help?

[DaveA]

Hello,

A contact of mine is asking for help with ID on this sword. European swords are (mostly) not in my area of study. Any comments you have will be most helpful.
I'm sorry that I don't have dimensions to share, but the basket finger guard should give you some idea of the size.

Thank you.

Dave A.

[CSinTX]

Looks like a quality modern build to me. Curious to see what others think.

[corrado26]

After Norman Dixon, The Rapier and Small Sword 1460-1820 the pommel is from 1600-1630 but the style of the hilt with its guards 100 years earlier. Over that I think the blade is too short and so I take this for a modern fake.
corrado26

[DaveA]

Thank you very much for the frank comments. I thought that the condition of this sword looked too good for the age/type suggested by the overall design. I'm no expert so I am grateful that the EAA Forum certainly can bring it forward when called upon. My humble thanks.

Dave A.

[cornelistromp]

I prefer a picture of the guard and not the inner guard.
maybe you can post some more pictures or a link , so it is very poor material?

hilt is Norman type 43 1550-1630 and the egg-shaped pommel is a variation of type 20 again popular in the second quarter of the 17th century.
the inner guard is of an unusual type, a variation of type 22

The rapier has been over cleaned, especially the blade, but does not look bad.

I don't think it is a fake, my impression is that is a genuine sword from the second quarter of the 17th century ca 1630-1640
(not a rapier the ao length must be >112cm)

best,
jasper

[DaveA]

I have requested more pictures, especially close ups of hilt, guard, pommel and any markings on the blade. Stand by.

Dave A

[DaveA]

Colleagues,

I have received information privately from several trusted sources that compels me to conclude this sword is a recent and reasonably well executed forgery. I am posting this message in the public forum for the record with the hope that it helps prevent anyone from using the commentary in this thread as a basis for authentication. The details will remain private so as not to educate forgers.

Thank you every one for your public and private comments. I'm honored by your attention to my questions.

Kind Regards,

Dave A.

[cornelistromp]

@Dave
I would ask you to publish the reasons here in the post, the benefit to warn prospective buyers is larger than the benefit of a single forger.

except for the pitting that looks very artificial and new bonded grip nothing suspicious can be seen, I conclude.
Nevertheless pitting gives enough reason for doubt.So looking forward to the support of your claim given by your several trusted sources.


attached some recently made reproductions, very difficult to distinguish from the real thing, one of them was recently offered by a well-known auction house as original. After my notification this sword was withdrawn and re-offered as XXcentury.

best,
jasper

[ulfberth]

Dear LS,

Of all pictures posted in this thread there is only one sword Original , just one that's all, its actually sad but true.
From the pictures as posted here there is no problem to detect this and see the difference, sometimes this is not possible to tell from a picture.
If you want to take a guess or know you may PM me, I don't want to make the wrong people smarter.

kind regards

Ulfberth

[fernando]

This theme of swords for the left hand is most interesting. While those for the right hand were potentialy produced for "pre-sales stock", the ones for left handed owners would have to be ordered, hence the rarity of examples available.
I am pleased to have this basket sword, possibly Italian, end XVI century, inequivocally made for a left hander; something i only noticed when it arrived from the seller.

.

[CSinTX]

Originally Posted by fernando

I am pleased to have this basket sword, possibly Italian,
.

What a great looking piece! And look at that pommel! Built with just one quillon?

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

Dear LS,

Of all pictures posted in this thread there is only one sword Original , just one that's all, its actually sad but true.
From the pictures as posted here there is no problem to detect this and see the difference, sometimes this is not possible to tell from a picture.
If you want to take a guess or know you may PM me, I don't want to make the wrong people smarter.

kind regards

Ulfberth

mystery and riddles are not in place, actually transparency is always better.
everyone can declare his own opinion, there is nothing wrong with that.
if you believe that a sword can be fake, you can freely and simply say that, it's your opinion.


Besides there are only two swords in this thread where authenticity can be a question:
the two hander in Item 17 and Fernando's rapier (very, I mean extremely beautiful !!!!) are certainly good and the swords in post 26 are known to be reproductions.

so only two remain: the sword under discussion and the example of a German Dealer from post 18.The sword of the German dealer, I find "questionable" and I leave aside for now.

the sword under discussion;
Based on the style of hilt and pommel and blade,+ the poor pictures of post 1 , this sword looks right and genuine.

however after seeing the high res pictures of the later post 23 , the pitting looks artificially manipulated , because of that I have to adjust my opinion to unsure and doubtful.
I can not 100% say that it is a reproduction, for which I would need to see sword in hand. For me personally this sword with this kind of pitting would be less interesting.

CSinTX, Corrado26, DaveA and Ulfberth are firmer in their opinions and point/tend to recent reproduction. if you add my less positive opinion to it , I think you can get the picture.

best,
Jasper