Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Atlantia · 14th August 2008, 10:13 PM

I still don't think its old. In fact the more I look the newer it seems.

Look at the recesses in the shells and the perforations.
Also no difference in patination from the inside of the shells to the outside.
Its a 'wrong-un'.

Besides! When you list a sword, obviously you use the 'keyword' for its generic type, but why would anyone trust that much cash to a sellers opinion of authenticity when the seller can't tell a rapier from a broadsword?

In my humble opinion its a reasonably modern piece and he's dated it from 10 full seconds of 'ooh thats similar' google research.

I used to know some guys who played weekend-civil-war in the 'sealed knot' and they had better looking broadswords.
Which now 15 years later are probobly due to appear on ebay very soon as 17th century! LOL

I would post some pics of a Rapier of mine for comparison but the flash is making its old patination look ghastly.

14th August 2008, 10:13 PM	#11
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	I still don't think its old. In fact the more I look the newer it seems. Look at the recesses in the shells and the perforations. Also no difference in patination from the inside of the shells to the outside. Its a 'wrong-un'. Besides! When you list a sword, obviously you use the 'keyword' for its generic type, but why would anyone trust that much cash to a sellers opinion of authenticity when the seller can't tell a rapier from a broadsword? In my humble opinion its a reasonably modern piece and he's dated it from 10 full seconds of 'ooh thats similar' google research. I used to know some guys who played weekend-civil-war in the 'sealed knot' and they had better looking broadswords. Which now 15 years later are probobly due to appear on ebay very soon as 17th century! LOL I would post some pics of a Rapier of mine for comparison but the flash is making its old patination look ghastly. Last edited by Atlantia; 14th August 2008 at 10:54 PM.