There are a couple of threads about some of my objects that are pretty old (ca. 2000) yet have, I think some interest still.
This was my original post
Quote:
I recently purchased a sword at auction that belonged to Oakeshott. Rather than post pictures I direct you to the following reference: The Archaeology of Weapons, plate 20 b. This sword has been referenced many times in Oakeshotts works, generally dated to ca. 1450. (also Sword in the Age of Chivilry plate 43 b, and so on, I can provide other references for anyone interested).
Now, my question is this: I have had my dear friends at the Met in NY examine this sword and their position is that it is highly composite. The blade might be 1450 or so, but the assemblage' is later.
By their admission they LOOK for fakes and would rather let 10 good ones go by if they can kick out one bad one.
What do you folks think? Inquiring minds want to know.
|
I will re-post comments from Jim, Lee and Scott Bubar unless there are objections.
Ah, yes ... the original thread is here
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000018.html