Another Katzbalger copy, 19th c., in North Italian early-16th c. style.

It is in the Tojhusmuseet Copenhagen, and an almost identical item is in a German private collection which has been published in a monography.

m

from the sale; the Karsten Klingbeil collection.
attributed to the 19thC.

to make life easy, a probably 19th century katzbalger sold as a 16th century one by Sothebys. and a probably 16th century katzbalger sold as 19th century by Czerny (black background).

Amazing :confused: .
If you haven't mentioned the black background detail, i would have inferred the other way round :o .
Not knowing is like not seeing :shrug: .

Actually, this one was found to be absolutely original by my friend. He had known it for more than twenty years when it was in a North German collection, still heavily patinated but not for sale, not even for 20,000 Deutschmark.

20 years later, he recognized it at once at Czerny's though it got cleaned meanwhile, and he got it extremely cheap because nobody would believe!

Best,
m

Now i remember you posting this sword and its episode.
I confess i find it quite bizarre that, having being in a collection with a 'priceless' status, it ended up being 'depromoted' and sold as a replica, to be 'promoted' back by a qualified collector ? :confused:
It sure is one of these things :shrug:

Yes, 'Nando,


It obviously is.

I have lived to see that happen way too often: you see a very good item in an otherwise uninteresting collection and make a gracious offer. What happens usually? The owner will think that you are trying to get the thing out "cheap" and that it is worth a whole lot more.

Of course, nobody ever will repeat that offer, or come near it.
Next the collector dies and the whole stuff, including that fine item, goes anonymously to a dealer or an auction because all the heirs want is quick money.

It happens all the time.


Best,
Michl

Yes, quite plausible.

I totally agree with you!! Does anybody know why Czerny mistakenly identified this 16th century sword as 19th century in terms of specifics, i.e. to Czerny's specialist the hilt appeared suspicious, the blade was uncharacteristic, etc.?

I think it is mostly because almost nobody believes that genuine Katzbalgers exist!

m

The sword in post #20 is indeed a replica, in my opinion.
Just my $.02

Quite right, Dmitry,

I would say the blade with its way too many nicks looks 'overaged', apart from the fact that the sectioning of the blade (lenticular cross section) is not corrrect and the overall length is too short.

Best,
Michael

Katzbalgers are not my special interest, but I know how old blades should look. I was present at the pre auction viewing of this sale and have examined this Katzbalger. This blade was never heavily patinated before it was cleaned. It shows no wear, no laminations and no areas of significant pitting. Quite the contrary, the very light pitting is extremely uniform, typical for not genuine corrosion. The blade of the Katzbalger in question in # 45 looks much more genuine, inspite of the unusual many nicks.

Best

Back to two handers
 

How about this one?
About 2 meters length.
Dated circa 1590; German origin.
Transitional ?

... (lousy) pictures allowed by owner.

.

Hi 'Nando,

Generally this looks fine to me although the form of the quillons seems somewhat unusual.

Best,
Michl

The crescents on the blade don't look to inspiring either. The dozens of nicks on the blade were supposed to make it look like a battle weapon, I guess. :rolleyes:

Exactly, Dmitry,

And to 'prove' the 'great age' of the piece! ;)

m

Gentlemen, a small side-note. stand apart from the weapon of course.

a lenticular cross section is possible on katzbalgers in the 16thC , it even came on early medieval swords.

best,

for more twohanders please see;
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=twohander

@Fernando beautiful sword, thanks.

there is a possibility that the pas d'ane/donkey hoof is removed, in it's working life?, see pictures of the 2-handed swords for an almost identical sword, image the sword in the bottom center.


@Michael, the quillon form is quite rare but not so unusual, see swords form Landeszeughaus graz for example.

best,

Hi Jasper,

I learned from my collector friend that original Katzbalgers never hat lenticular cross sections.

Of course I respect your differing opinion. Nobody's perfect, after all! ;)

m


.

Perfect instance, Jasper,

Thank you so much!

I almost ooverlooked those Styrian types.

Best,
Michael

Very good and attentive comparison, Jasper.
I will remember checking for any pas d'ane vestigial signs when i revisit the place where it is exposed.

Hi Michael,
such a statement has only value if he has seen them all, the katzbalgers ever made.
you're right nobody is perfect.

FE the two-hand Landsknecht Sword of katzbalger type, you posted before, has a lenticular blade

best,

Right, Jasper,


I guess I should have been more precise and added that 'lenticular baldes without any fullers' are basically suspect.
This fine hand-and-half sword has a central fuller.

I do not think one must have seen virtually all existing specimen in order to render a basic general statement. If this were so nobody could make any statement.
I have always believed that understanding the characteristic main basis of a certain style of arms should be sufficient to judge with a high degree of certainty what to declare to be 'characteristic' or 'typical' and what not.

Possible exceptions to any rule must be taken consideration though and for granted. Otherwise knowledge and any kind of expertise would be invaluable.

The main problem is that is virtually not possible to quote all these prerequisites each time when giving a statement; they should go without saying.


Best,
m

Hi michael,

Thanks for the explanation, however Iam very sorry but I can not agree with the statement of your friend;
in post 37 of this thread , I placed some katzbalgers from various museums in Europe (the katzbalger of Lee disregarded for this moment).
They are all authentic, without fuller and without ricasso and of lenticular cross section.

The most attractive among them, I find the katzbalger in the Solingen klingen Museum.

best,

Hi Jasper,

I am sorry to say that since at least 1968, the weaponry community has agreed that both these Solingen 'Katzbalgers' are composite pieces.

The first, with a hilt of characterisic form, is clearly the better or the two and the blade, typically staged and fullered (one of the main criteria I pointed out) may have been shortened (overall length only 78 cm); the 1968 catalog by Dr. Heinz R. Uhlemann points out that this type of sword is commonly forged (top three attachments).

The second is commonly agreed to be a crude 19th/20th c. fake, way too short, but reusing an authentic and finely caved pommel of ca. 1520 in the shape of a bearded Landsknecht's head. Only the measurements of the pommel are given, the remainder is neglected.
I realize your command of German is good, so the translation of the description by Uhlemann is for the rest of the community:
'The original, archetypically iron-carved pommel is part of a Landsknecht sword which is suspicious in all its remaining parts.'
(Kostbare Blankwaffen aus dem Deutschen Klingenmuseum Solingen, 1968, p. 46.)

Best,
Michael

Hi Michael,

yes I am familiar with this literature, the only DKM forgeries now with 100% certainty to be allotted,in this case to the workshop of Anton Konrad, are a dresden reiter degen and a medieval ceremonial sword.

The Katzbalger with the beautiful chiseled pommel is defined by Uhlemann as suspicious, but here the status left with the last publication before his retirement.
Both of them I've seen and both I find convincing enough, with the science of 1968 more atypical weapons were classified as fakes.

or you may have more recent results of research which I am not aware of?
I have no further written information about the other katzbalger, do you have something available? (from the weaponry community?)

kind regards,

Hi Jasper,


There seem to be diverting criteria of what to define as characteristic and original; this not a problem at all, just normal among experts and it makes discussions all the more worth while. Otherwise weaponry would come to standstill.

No, to my knowledge no other publiations have been dedicated to the Solingen Katzbalgers since the 1980's, the time when Haedecke was in charge.


Best,
m

hi Michael,

the first Katzbalger is dated by Uhlemann 1530 in kosbare blankwaffen (1968), in 1991, this same katzbalger is dated by Haedeke around 1550 in "Fuhrer durch die Sammlungen DKM" ". there is no mentioning whatsoever in either publication of any composite piece or shortened blade.
furthermore the length of 78cm is very acceptable for a Katzbalger,fe compare JP Puype, Arms and Armour of knights and Landknechts, katzbalger no 39 and no 40, resp. 82 cm and 80cm.
This blade shape is so specific that it must be designed for a/this -balger,
where did you find the information that these katzbalger is either a composite or that the blade has been shortened?

best,

In general, weapons, like architecture and all kinds of artwork, followed the characteristic proportions of their respective period:

-Gothic period: long, 'tall' and slender, and fluted (like the lofty Gothic steeples)

- Renaissance: relatively short and 'stout', multi-staged and flued, like architectural columns and candlesticks; of a Katzbalger, an overall length of ca. 90-93 cm is typical and average. No staging at all in alledged 'period' barrels, grips or blades is highly unusual and suspect

- Baroque: in the early years of the period, notably longer and more slender than the Renaissance types, narrowing down from the 1630's


To my friend and me, the most typical Katzbalgers showing all characteristic criteria are the two Berlin samples attached. I have exerienced the same with early firearms, and almost without any exemption to the rule.
As I have stated several times, these criteria are hard to convey.
The got to be 'grasped'.


And believe me: there are discussions taking place between experts without being published.


Btw, I'afraid we're in the wrong thread ...


m