Styrian basket hilted sword and Styrian dusage
 

Styrian basket hilted sword, 16 century second half, with i presume italian blade marked with pi mark, very nice condition, and nice example, acquired from old collection.

Styrian dussage
 

Styrian dusaage or in Croatian Tesak, second half of 16 century, with Italyan blade of high quality, one side marked Genova with stars, other side moon with two square looking dots and two stars, those kind of stars i allready encountered on Italyan blades from 16 century.
Very good condition, and realy good battle blade, still sharp as razor.

I love those mulberry pommels on Styrian baskethilts. Sometimes the decorations are on the guard as well.

Me to, they are gorgeous, but i like this “ghotic” loking guard better, so in this case, im glad they arent here. 😁

Pictures from one of museum exibition cataloge with that dussage, there are few others, and book.

Wow! Previously I did not want to comment on the Styrian dusägge because the handguard and the pommel looked strange to me. I think partly because of the way the photos were made but also because the shapes are unusual. Also it doesn’t help that I view the photos on my personal iPhone 12 mini! My eyes are not as good as they once were. Now I see the sword illustrated in my own copy of the catalogue and the blade especially is simply stunning. I wish I had known these swords were for sale!

In one of his books Ewart Oakeshott argues that many medieaval swords which were dismissed as fakes are in fact original! ItÂ’s a risk investors face, dismissing unusual items as fakes when they are not. It must be remembered that older items are individually handmade and were not standardized so they are all different. With that said itÂ’s also important to beware of modern copies and fraud, not an easy task for a collector. In many cases I guess we will never know the truth.

I believe the Styrian basket hilt is published in the catalogue as well. You are a very lucky man Mister Serdar. I’m intensely jealous! 😁

What Victrix says is very true, it is often the case where a weapon seems 'too good to be true', and inclinations are to declare them 'inauthentic' . However as well noted, most of these early weapons were indeed individually produced, and not always by the same maker, despite often in shops, so degrees of variation must be expected. These makers of course followed certain trends and conventions with the weapons they produced, but the execution and character of various elements of the weapons could vary in accord with the level of skill of the maker or his workers.

There remains the case where published weapons involving certain characteristic and highly desirable forms seem to appear offered in the arms dealers inventory or in auctions, which are an uncanny match to the published examples, following virtually every nuance of the published example.

With the very sparsity of surviving examples, coupled with the probability of such examples after centuries which do survive, coming from virtually the same shop or maker, the odds of authentic parity seem relativity unlikely, however certainly not impossible.

Only careful hands on examination by those with forensic expertise and considerable experience with these forms can truly scrutinize the example in question. Simply 'matching' items with examples in references and from photos, while offering plausibility, cannot be the final word without more professional examining.

As noted, even by true experts such as Mr. Oakeshott, there are many instances where much later productions of early weapons stood for years in museums and important collections as originals. The most well known artisan of these kinds of reproductions was Ernst Schmitt of Munich, in the late 19th century into early 20th whose works indeed often were among these cases.

The best we can do here is responsibly acknowledge the recognized character of the weapon discussed as 'appearing' to be such and such, without harsh declaration of less than authentic character (inflammatory terms such as fake are hardly necessary). Constructive discussion should note the differences between the example being discussed and known examples published or with notable provenance, leaving the potential for the variations of the period recognized but not further evaluated.

I would add that personally, I also am very impressed by these examples shown and my caveat comments are meant in a general context.

Two beautiful swords Serdar, thanks for sharing.

On the first, possibly the mark of Christophe Stantler of Passau/Munich?

Jerry

Thank you. 😃
Yes, they are both published, in several museum books from exibitions in Croatia, Austria, Italy, so is venetian rapier and Austrian basket hilted sword corben degen, i bought those four from old old very old Croatian collection, i dont doubt in their originality 1%, if taken in count how many exibitoons they were and museum experts etc.
Disage or Tesak is extraordinaly well made, so i get that to people it looks too good, but im glad that it is 😁.

Il post better pictures outside shoot, it is very dificult to capture photos.
He was definetly cleaned from rust on flag of the blade and surounding area, maybe in 18/19 ct.

Thank you sir! 😃👍🏻

Outside, better shots of Tesak
 

Better shots

P2

.[/QUOTE jim mcdougall]
Thank you! ��

I agree, to autenticate something it is necesary to be examined by expert that have expertise in that field, even they can get wrong, and they do.
Errare humanum est.

Thank you 👍🏻

About mark, you will need to ask someone with more knowledge about makers marks, i realy dont know, it is pi mark as i know, stantler used ST under crown?
I realy dont know.

I think the crowned ST mark was used by Wolfgang Stantler. Attached entry in the Wallace Collection catalogue 1962.



Christophe I and II apparently used forms of this other mark - attached entry for another sword from the same catalogue. The mark on your first blade looks very similar. However researching these old marks is quite difficult and not always very definite. Would be interesting if experts on this forum have a view.

I have been digging into this as I have a similar mark on one of my swords.

Jerry

Thank you for posting these pictures that much better show the patina of the item. Wonderful sword. The unusual details which confused me at first is the pommel where dussägge typically have pommels with rectangular pyramidical forms whereas this pommel is quite flattened so it almost forms an inverted pyramid. But I suppose it might offer a better grip for a big hand. Also dusägge often have more more pyramid shaped half basket guards whereas this sword has a more rectangular shaped guard, which is joined to the knuckle guard by an S shaped diagonal bar as is quite normal. I love the blade.

In statistics there is something called the Null hypothesis H0 which you then try to find sufficient evidence to reject. But failure to reject H0 doesnÂ’t necessarily mean itÂ’s true. We could call H0 the hypothesis that a sword is genuine. The alternative hypothesis would be that itÂ’s a fake. We would be hard pressed to know 100% a sword is genuine if we did not find it in an undisturbed tomb or castle or something like that. A Type I Error is when you reject the Null hypothesis when in fact itÂ’s true. So this would be rejecting the sword as a fake when in fact itÂ’s genuine. The cost would be missing out on acquiring a genuine sword. Ewart Oakeshott argued this is quite common for medieval swords where people write off swords with any unusual details. You can lower the odds or probability of doing this by acquiring a sword from an old respectable collection. You may not know for certain that itÂ’s totally genuine but the probability is high and if the collection was published you know for certain that the sword was not produced by some crook yesterday at least. A Type II Error is when you buy the sword which is then fake, i.e. you fail to reject the alternative hypothesis that the sword is a fake. That could be a situation where you get hoodwinked by a disreputable dealer who tells you a tale. Your final decision would probably be influenced by degree of aversion to fakes, the condition of the sword, its provenance, and the price. If the price was right you might risk buying a sword with some uncertain provenance if its condition was attractive and you were not fanatic that the sword absolutely must be genuine. If the latter is of outmost importance you would be prepared to pay up for that certainty or accept relic items in poor condition.