Opinions needed about a schlachtschwert / zweihander

Luka Borscak · 13th June 2020, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSinTX

If you would like, email them to me at toledo321 at aol.com

I'll try to resize them in a way that will preserve the quality. Also, outside pictures under natural light will help.

Thanks! I will take some good ones tomorrow morning and mail them to you!

CSinTX · 14th June 2020, 05:16 PM

Better pictures of Luka's sword. My take is the blade is old and good. Pommel newer. Undecided on the hilt.

CSinTX · 14th June 2020, 06:12 PM

more pics

Luka Borscak · 14th June 2020, 06:21 PM

CSinTX, thank you very much!

Luka Borscak · 14th June 2020, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSinTX

Better pictures of Luka's sword. My take is the blade is old and good. Pommel newer. Undecided on the hilt.

Thanks for your opinion! I also am quite confident the blade is old, hilt probably not...

ulfberth · 14th June 2020, 06:56 PM

Casey is right , the blade is indeed good no doubt , it was good to send better pictures, it dit had recent surface rust that's all.
The pommel I can't say for sure but it could be good , the same for the crossguard that has to much paint on it to be sure but its made in the 17th c manner. the crossguard is made crude, but with this type of sword the originals always are, to refined would be suspicious. At auction the description would be : a 17th C two handed sword in good condition.
I would be interesting to see the same detailed pics of the other sword if you would like to share them.

NeilUK · 15th June 2020, 04:37 PM

I agree with Casey and Ulfberth. The blade looks right and the mark is correct for Christoph Stantler - being well-struck is not cause for suspicion. The guard is of the correct style for a Munich two-hander of 1580-1600 though it looks a bit more crudely fashioned than some I have seen (and I have examined dozens of this period), so there might be some doubt still attached to it but not enough to condemn it out of hand. In my opinion Luka has got a bargain.
Neil

Luka Borscak · 16th June 2020, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ulfberth

Casey is right , the blade is indeed good no doubt , it was good to send better pictures, it dit had recent surface rust that's all.
The pommel I can't say for sure but it could be good , the same for the crossguard that has to much paint on it to be sure but its made in the 17th c manner. the crossguard is made crude, but with this type of sword the originals always are, to refined would be suspicious. At auction the description would be : a 17th C two handed sword in good condition.
I would be interesting to see the same detailed pics of the other sword if you would like to share them.

The other sword is not mine, I'm sending to a friend soon, so I dont feel comfortable sharing pictures if it...

fernando · 21st June 2020, 11:38 AM

Just showing this other example by Stantler, to ponder on how (master) smiths chose different options to mark their blades; either punching their personal symbol or signing their actual name.
Such a pity that this catalogue of the Schweizerischen Landesmuseum doesn't show the swords entire blades.

.

14th June 2020, 05:16 PM	#2
CSinTX Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 233	Better pictures of Luka's sword. My take is the blade is old and good. Pommel newer. Undecided on the hilt. Attached Images Last edited by CSinTX; 14th June 2020 at 05:37 PM.

14th June 2020, 06:12 PM	#3
CSinTX Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 233	more pics Attached Images

21st June 2020, 11:38 AM	#9
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	If i may ... Just showing this other example by Stantler, to ponder on how (master) smiths chose different options to mark their blades; either punching their personal symbol or signing their actual name. Such a pity that this catalogue of the Schweizerischen Landesmuseum doesn't show the swords entire blades. . Attached Images

14th June 2020, 06:21 PM	#4
Luka Borscak Member Join Date: Apr 2020 Posts: 15	CSinTX, thank you very much!

14th June 2020, 06:56 PM	#6
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 412	Casey is right , the blade is indeed good no doubt , it was good to send better pictures, it dit had recent surface rust that's all. The pommel I can't say for sure but it could be good , the same for the crossguard that has to much paint on it to be sure but its made in the 17th c manner. the crossguard is made crude, but with this type of sword the originals always are, to refined would be suspicious. At auction the description would be : a 17th C two handed sword in good condition. I would be interesting to see the same detailed pics of the other sword if you would like to share them.

15th June 2020, 04:37 PM	#7
NeilUK Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Scotland Posts: 126	I agree with Casey and Ulfberth. The blade looks right and the mark is correct for Christoph Stantler - being well-struck is not cause for suspicion. The guard is of the correct style for a Munich two-hander of 1580-1600 though it looks a bit more crudely fashioned than some I have seen (and I have examined dozens of this period), so there might be some doubt still attached to it but not enough to condemn it out of hand. In my opinion Luka has got a bargain. Neil