Opinions needed about a schlachtschwert / zweihander

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.

.

21st June 2020, 11:38 AM	#4
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, 06:56 PM	#1
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	#2
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