Broad sword without apple, please help with attribution
 

good afternoon, please help in attributing the sword, length 107 cm width at the guard 5.3 cm. guard 19 cm, shank 1.0 / 1.3 cm. here are old photos that I wanted to show.
grateful for your opinions,
sorry for my google english
with respect .

Can you please post better quality photos?

Also some details of the tip would be nice.

Thank you for your interest,
of course, at the beginning of the topic there are old photos, almost 20 years have passed since that time,
I just wanted to show the first photos, the subject is almost cleared, now I will post a series of photos in different lighting,.
I got a few unusual items for my region that I want to show here,
Look here please .
respectfully

some more details

This is what one might expect to see on a 13/14 century sword in excavated condition. Note the way the corrosion has etched the steel revealing the pattern of the origional forging caused by impurities in the steel and resulting delamination. Also the characteristic poor fit of the cross guard. I dont see this in this example

Good afternoon, good example, thanks.
earlier I myself had to clean it from rust and it is equally difficult for me to recognize it as not real, as it is to be completely sure that it is ancient, so I am grateful for any opinions.
with respect .

thank you for the photo,
there were such opinions locally;
-that the sword is from the 14/15 century,.
-that it is a sword made in the 19th century, just for a wall or over a fireplace, .
- that in the 19th century it would have been made more technologically probably.
with respect

There are more issues wrong with this sword, beginning with the initial corrosion...

So I would say it may be a 19tc century historicism piece but I am more inclined to say that it is a modern fake artificially aged. :shrug:

thank you very much for your answer.
behold
that's why I showed it here.
with respect

Well, I will clear the sword to the end. I'll try to remove the guard.
with respect

I agree. The OP's sword looks like a fake made to look like a relic. There's a lot of that coming from the Eastern Europe these days. I wonder where he acquired the sword.

Thank you Dmitry for your opinion, there are enough absurdities in the subject, which of course are visible to me, which is why I showed it here.
with respect

however, there is something that makes you want to figure it out to the end,
At first ; the rust on it was a real, thick, strong crust, as in the first photos, and it was removed on its own.
Secondly; the blades on both sides are clogged, dull, but inside the cross-pieces they remain (seen in the photo).
third; I had previously thought that it was shortened, the longitudinal rib could not initially reach the tip.
fourthly; it is not completely cleaned, it must probably be soaked, different things can be seen at different angles of illumination, but they are partially still under a layer of unfinished substance,.
,,, But in general, yes, it does not look right, I agree.
with respect.

I wanted to add to the previous post,
in the structure itself there is so much unnecessary non-technological work, this is a stiffener, this crosspiece of the guard, everything is done difficult, if you look from today's time, I am very grateful for your attention to the topic
... with respect

You have posted four swords all of which look like ground finds. It would be good if you could say something about the context in which they were discovered.

good afternoon, within the framework of the forum, this is probably not entirely appropriate,
with respect .

In addition, from today's time such a thing may look rough and absurdly "barbaric" even, but only in comparison with exquisitely beautiful counterparts from developed centers.
But take a closer look at this (not ordinary / not correct at first glance) Scandinavian sword of the 13th century.
photo taken from the site
CZERNY'S INTERNATIONAL AUKTION HOUSE S.r. 1.
(in the context of the post).
with respect

good afternoon.
I want to thank everyone who expressed their opinion in this old topic.
Based on the material that I showed then, in general, the item was assessed exactly as it looks in the photos that were shown, adequately seen ..

I want to share in the continuation of this topic, the result of what eventually turned out after clearing, the surface has rather deep traces of damage and therefore it is rather difficult to choose the right angle of illumination, but in my opinion if you look closely you can see the remains of old letters, there are four such places,

the remnants of a long inscription are visible, the central part of which is specially damaged.

and I want to show another crosshair, judging by the remnants of what is visible in the photo, it was probably clad in a notch, with floral ornaments, in the photo there may be remnants of the stigma at the base of the blade,

visually, while it looks like this, the pommel disc is selected, the total weight of the sword with the pommel is 1.77 kg, the disc weighs 250 gr

Onega region.
with respekt.

Your sword could very well be original. When keeping in mind that rust over centuries don't always look the same when taking metal surgical science into account. An item picked up from a river that has been encrusted in clay, or rusted in dirt were density, temperature and humidity has a lot to say on how old steel and iron corrodes and looks after 100 or over 1000 years.

Unfortunately this forum seems to have a "gang up" approach if one member out of the blue suggest "copy" based on nothing. Yes its harsh words but fact.

You have some very knowable members here but also "Trolls" that is not being moderated. My apology for speaking factual truth. But the truth matter.

Your sword is worth more research and you can have a test taken of the metal and have it dated.

Could you possibly come up with concrete arguments / examples?

It feels like it is needed.

These are very interesting pictures. The corrosion on the guard, in particular.

Normally, I am very sceptical of "clean" pitting, and the guard also has an unusual shape. But that doesnt necessarily make it bad.

The corrosion on the guard, in particular, with the "lines" makes me believe more in the object, and also the corrosion near the blade edge seems legit.

I'm 80/20 that its good, from the material shown.

It needs further examination though.

It seems to me that the material that I could then show, its quality is simple and itself, not quite correct, the presentation of the subject on my part, and there is a reason ..
it’s just that the item was being prepared for one exhibition, and since I did the initial clearing myself, I only had a question about the unusualness of the sword itself, the protection, the tip of the blade and the black, in general, in general, in type and appearance, and in the photo that turned out then he was so all flat and uncomplicated. therefore, so, but in general it was postponed, but I opened it gradually,
in the general photo, of course, it is not visible, but in fact it is all in caverns, there are still photos of places that attract attention

unfortunately, if something happened, then only a "shadow" trace remained, but even so

Tordenskiold, you are probably reflecting what goes on in other venues, when you brought here such bizarre perspective. That hat surely doesn't fit in this forum's head. Perhaps what you want is assure us that you don't include yourself in that "gang up" club :rolleyes:.