Unique and Impressive Two Handed Sword

[Cathey]

Hi Guys

Sorry but I concur with Neil's view. Even if this was perhaps a bearing sword not meant for combat, I would have throught something similar would have surfaced in a museum by now.

Sadly, a large number of excellent copies of medieval swords were manufactured as decoration items in the Victorian period and now have age and patina makeing them difficult to spot.

It looks impressive and I hope Neil and I are wrong, but I share his view that this is a decorative piece, maybe late Victorian or even more recent.

The other issue hitting the medieval market now is the practice of smelting down old iron objects to make fake medieval swords that would pass an age test. I am told that this is why so many are now turning up on Ebay.

Naturally I would not expect the purchaser to reveal what was paid for this sword, however price plus the provenance can sometimes complete the picture when it comes to authenticity.

regards Cathey

[cornelistromp]

as in my previous post, I still leave open the possibility that it is a fantasy sword, however from the 16th century.

Of course if you only base on the style, I don't know anything from the 16th century that resembles it at all.

But,,,there are some small details that I really like, the wedge-shaped flexible blade, the technique of the etching, the brass decorations on the grip , are identical as on fe burgonet helmets.

so as explained in my previous post, I'll leave both, 16th century and 19th century, options open.

Of course I respect everyone's opinion, especially in the area of two-handers, Neil's opinion.
There are not many who have delved into this subject as much as he has. He is an authority in this field :-)

re: Provenance
Provenance says a lot about medieval swords because 99.9% of the fakes are made after 2000.
In this case 16th or 19th century, provenance says much less, if you can go back 100 years, you still have no clarity.

best
Jasper

[ulfberth]

Of course I respect everyones opinion.
Opinions are formed by background, experience, as we can read here in the reactions.
I have been collecting for more than 45 years now, had about 15 of these in my collection, handled
and studied them over the years.
From my background I was trained to see the smallest defects, this was my job.
When I look at the surface of this steel I see exactly what one needs to see on swords of this period.
I never saw a sword with these features on eBay and these are mostly of much simpler form, simpler meaning less cost to make and more profit.
As for fantasy, yes I agree, but people in the 16th and 17th c had fantasy too.
As Cornelis pointed out, the etching work, the brass parts as on the helmets of the period
and also the thicker midsection on the grip can be found on halberds of the 16th C.
I would like to add to that, the chiseling and engraving work, anybody here that has done hand work would realize that applying all these details would cost countless of hours.
As i pointed out before, it's the way as done on this sword, it is exactly as on swords of the period in museums.
More swords and helmets etc. made in this era are not in museums.
This is because there was no regulation pattern as in the 19 th C were you had reglementary types.
In the 16th and 17th century every blacksmith in every town did his own thing.
In all my years of collecting I handled a fair number 19th c and later copies to, as i believe its just as important to study these,but not one of them " not one!" ..... had good balance,they were all too heavy.
I can only say what I see based upon my education and years of experience and what I see a late 16th c sword
probably made for the field and perhaps later used as a bearing sword.
kind regards
Ulfberth

[Lee]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

...Provenance says a lot about medieval swords because 99.9% of the fakes are made after 2000...

Perhaps I'd roll this observation back about an order of magnitude, to 99%. On a couple of occasions I have had experienced museum curators confide to me that more than a few of the most iconic (and beloved) medieval swords in some very well regarded museum collections are, at the very best, 19th century enhancements and composites. (Technical examination has also raised concerns about some examples in my own collection with earlier reliable provenance.)

As to the subject of this thread, it is an amazingly proficient piece of work and the forging artifacts and patina are most convincing to me from looking at the photos, but I am not competent to judge as to whether 19th versus 16th century.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Lee

Perhaps I'd roll this observation back about an order of magnitude, to 99%. On a couple of occasions I have had experienced museum curators confide to me that more than a few of the most iconic (and beloved) medieval swords in some very well regarded museum collections are, at the very best, 19th century enhancements and composites. (Technical examination has also raised concerns about some examples in my own collection with earlier reliable provenance.)

Lee you are 99,9% right
on the other hand, a university study costs money.
The mistakes that every collector and researcher makes in his career also cost money. I have a separate exhibition bucket for this and classify it under the heading of learning money, and of course use it as explanation material for fellow collectors

Concerning the %, 99.9% might be a bit high.
but by this % I mean mainly the excavated swords and daggers. its value was relatively low in the 20th century that counterfeiting was of little use here. Now after +- 2000 that is unfortunately no longer the case.
There are now so many counterfeits in excavated swords on offer that the majority of collectors no longer know what a real excavated sword should look like. A verifiable provenance for 2000 gives a little more support.

best

[Lee]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

There are now so many counterfeits in excavated swords on offer that the majority of collectors no longer know what a real excavated sword should look like.

As to overall agreement about the current state of affairs, I would say that we are 100% in agreement.

I did a detailed XRF study of my collection and discovered many interesting things. I still am far from really understanding the data (COVID came along and killed interpretative progress!) but some items that had received a thumbs down from the "great denunciator" appear to have been vindicated, while questions were raised about other well regarded swords that had passed so many other hurdles. The technical examination conclusively 'killed' one Viking style sword that had come before 2000 from a most reliable dealer and embarrassingly I only recognized the anachronistic stylistic features after they were pointed out to me and this led to my review of the technical data and a horrible sinking feeling. I never had suspected that sword as it had come from a most reliable dealer before the preset scourge of forgeries became apparent. At least it was not a personal favorite.

I suspect that some of the recent fabrications from before around 2000 may have been what I will call exercises in "academic craftsmanship" and were not at the outset ever intended to deceive. Then the items fell into the wrong hands.

[cornelistromp]

It has become a strange reality, often the dealer does not know exactly whether the piece is right or not, but a reliable dealer will always have to find a solution instead of caveat emptor.
Some counterfeits are so well made that unfortunately they can fool authorities and sometimes are even published in a renowned highly regarded PL arms-armour catalogue. I unfortunately have a recent example of this.
This has also created great suspicion in the assessment of weapons and anything that looks just a little too good or looks different from the familiar is often dismissed as forgery.
I catch myself doing this too, nevertheless I try to remain as objective as possible at all times. Likewise with the sword under discussion, as strange as it may look, personally I keep open the small possibility of beeing a 16th century sword.

best,
Jasper