Opinions needed about a schlachtschwert / zweihander

[Luka Borscak]

Hello people! Few days ago I bought this sword and I would like your opinion on it... Overall it's 163cm long, 118cm blade and 95cm from the end of the ricasso to the tip. Ricasso tapers from 10 to 8mm and the blade is 10mm at the end of the ricasso, 5mm in the middle and 2.5 - 3mm last 10cm of the blade. Ricasso is only 37mm wide at the base and the blade is 6cm wide at the widest at the tip. The sword weighs about 3.7kg. The blade is very flexible and I think well tempered. Mark looks like one of the Stantlers of Munich marks.

[fernando]

...And the pictures, Luka ... .

[Luka Borscak]

Oh, the pictures, yes.

[corrado26]

I am no expert on this kind of swords but I think this is a piece of pure historism. At least I cannot see any traces of age of the last 450 years.

[ulfberth]

its not 17th century but 19th or later and the other sword probably to.
This type with the knot at the end of the crossguard is a known reproduction, could you post some pictures of the other sword ?
kind regards
Ulfberth

[Luka Borscak]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

its not 17th century but 19th or later and the other sword probably to.
This type with the knot at the end of the crossguard is a known reproduction, could you post some pictures of the other sword ?
kind regards
Ulfberth

I will take some. Is it usual for 19th century blades to have such drastic distal taper and good balance? I think the hilt is 19th century but the blade is older...

[mariusgmioc]

Fairly recent decorative sword.

[ulfberth]

I can see no traces on the blade that points to the 17th century, however the blade surface is that visible in the pictures.
If you think the blade could be 17th C please post pictures of the blade surface were the steel is visible so not were its totally black.
About the balance, the original swords of this type were not battle swords but processional swords and their balance was awful, that in a way that they could not be used in a fight, to clumsy. The fact that these two have a good balance could be mere coincidence. These swords might be a great opportunity to learn from.

[CSinTX]

Also pictures of the makers mark that you mentioned.

[Luka Borscak]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

I can see no traces on the blade that points to the 17th century, however the blade surface is that visible in the pictures.
If you think the blade could be 17th C please post pictures of the blade surface were the steel is visible so not were its totally black.
About the balance, the original swords of this type were not battle swords but processional swords and their balance was awful, that in a way that they could not be used in a fight, to clumsy. The fact that these two have a good balance could be mere coincidence. These swords might be a great opportunity to learn from.

I don't think goid balance is accidental when it's achieved with a distal taper from 10mm to 2.5mm. I'm not saying that means it's a 16th /17th century sword, but whoever made it kniws how to make a good blade, whatever it is going to be used for. Actually, being a 19th century replica would ease my dilemma and I would sharpen it and use it for cutting exercises.
The other one doesn't have good balance, it's horrible. And looks to have "fake black" patina. I didn't bought this one, it is for a friend...
The third picture is a best picture I can get of a surface of my sword...

[Luka Borscak]

Originally Posted by CSinTX

Also pictures of the makers mark that you mentioned.

I forgot, here it is...

[corrado26]

This is what the catalogue of the Wallace Collection 1962 says to the mark in question

[Luka Borscak]

I also found this about the mark...

[ulfberth]

Thank you for the extra pictures, however the pictures of the surface of the metal are not clear enough. I will post some pictures of an original Stantler sword so you can see what I mean with surface of the metal visible , also now you can compare an original to the two you have and compare. The one I show also has the diamond shaped pommel as described in the Wallace collection, please notice that here the rust or black spots are in the metal not on top of it as it seems on yours, please compare the stamps although both Stantler stamps the one on your sword is in brand new condition or .... Perhaps if you post pictures like these we can say more of the swords are 16th century as the remarkable fresh stamp implies.

[Victrix]

I’m no expert on zweihänders but they were novelties even during their time, some more than others. Arms in Eastern Europe sometimes also appear outsized compared to Western Europe. Difficult to judge the swords from pictures but the one on the left looks more convincing to my novice eyes. I would take the swords to a museum or the like for a more expert opinion.

[ulfberth]

Well I don't want to rule out any possibilities, but I can say with one hundred percent certainty: if these two are original you have hit the jackpot ! Stantler swords are very valuable and the one with knots at the end of the crossguard is extremely rare as an original. Now you can compare and examine them on the spot.

[Victrix]

Must say Ulfberth’s zweihänder sword looks more slender (less thick) with obvious signs of wear and lack of sharp edges.

There’s a place called Golden Lane in Prague Castle which showcases modern replicas of medieval arms. Czech smiths seem very skilled at producing these for historical renactment etc. The items on display there are for sale.

[ulfberth]

here are some better close up detail pics, have a look at the leather , reproductions never have leather like this.
Please post some similar pictures including the grips, it seems they are plain wood.

[Luka Borscak]

The problem is that for higher quality pictures the forum says they are too big...

[CSinTX]

Originally Posted by Luka Borscak

The problem is that for higher quality pictures the forum says they are too big...

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.

[Luka Borscak]

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]

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

[CSinTX]

more pics

[Luka Borscak]

CSinTX, thank you very much!

[Luka Borscak]

Originally Posted by Victrix

Must say Ulfberth’s zweihänder sword looks more slender (less thick) with obvious signs of wear and lack of sharp edges.

There’s a place called Golden Lane in Prague Castle which showcases modern replicas of medieval arms. Czech smiths seem very skilled at producing these for historical renactment etc. The items on display there are for sale.

You mean thickness or width? Mine is thick at the base, but tapers quickly. In the top third of the blade it is very thin and flexible.

[Luka Borscak]

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]

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]

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

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by Luka Borscak

You mean thickness or width? Mine is thick at the base, but tapers quickly. In the top third of the blade it is very thin and flexible.

I meant the guard. It’s thick and crude compared to Ulberth’s example. But maybe yours is more meant for business! Hard to tell. As stated earlier I’m not an expert. Great to see the more detailed pics and they look much more convincing. I really think you should ask an expert to examine them.

[Luka Borscak]

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...