Most interesting, and yet another stunning example of the kinds of staggering prices that seem to reflect a trend in auctions of arms and armour over the past about two years. My instincts would suggest that increased wealth in certain cultures in graduated degree as a result of geo economic issues might be supporting interest in antiquities as investments. However, I would think that buying these at such inflated prices would suggest more of a bubble than secure investment.
I dont personally participate in or deal with auctions as I have not collected in years, however it seems to me there are certain dynamics involved that are outside the perameters I used to know. I would not suggest foul play necessarily in any particular case, but do know that such things do happen.
Regarding this interesting sword, it is of a type that is indeed classified as 'rare' for lack of a better term, as they are certainly well represented in many collections, and are by no means unknown. It is often presumed by many that these are extremely rare, which may have lent to this high price, and an empassioned collector with such means might have exuberantly fallen to that impression.
What begs question is why is this identified as 16th century, and what would make it worth such an exorbitant price? I have never known a reputable house such as Sothebys to misrepresent items, certainly not intentionally, though things do happen. There is a makers name here Abdallah ibn Ghabish, perhaps there is something in that to declare this sword as this important.
If it is something that can firmly attribute this sword to 16th century, it is important indeed.
Elgood addresses these curious hilts in his "Arms and Armour of Arabia" (pp.17-18, figs. 2.13 and 2.15), where he describes them as usually classified as Omani, and notes that thier date cannot be accurately determined. Even the Omani attribution is questioned, and Persian origins suggested ,there is mention of a shamshir khwabandan (=broadsword) but clear substantiation inconclusive. It seems most likely these may derive from Omani outposts, and are typically thought of as 17th-18th century from the German and European blades found in original examples.
In the latter 18th and through the 19th at some point, the drooping quillons were eliminated bringing the well known cylindrical guardless hilt.
At a Sothebys sale in London, (24 April 1991, #1113) , a similar hilt of bronze was sold and was catalogued as early Arab sword 12-14th century, which Elgood (op.cit.) notes there did not appear to be grounds for such dating, and that gold metal covering stripped much as with most of these found.
Perhaps that precedent may have lent to the hubris of this sword, or possibly the medieval appearance suggesting the Nasrid forms of hilt.
There are certainly numerous reasons which plausibly could have motivated a buyer to purchase this sword at such a lofty sum, but more and more it seems weapons are attaining incredible prices. Maybe our empassioned hobby might be a lucrative venture more so than previously imagined
All the best,
Jim