anyone bid on this?

chevalier · 13th August 2008, 03:07 PM

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=140252711551

Atlantia · 13th August 2008, 05:31 PM

Well, it made reasonable money, but I have to say my first impression was 'victorian copy'.
Hope I haven't offended anyone.
I know its clearly been cleaned, but it just doesn't look like its got real age to me. Don't like the patina, the patterns of pitting, no evidence of ageing in recesses between shell bars and pierces sheets, the look of the metal seems newer than 17thC, the wire binding....
And the chiselled inscription looks completely out of place.
Sorry if anyone is involved, just my opinion.

What did you think Fernando?

Lee · 14th August 2008, 03:10 AM

The technical quality (or, rather, lack thereof) of the inscription is also very disturbing for me.

Andrew · 14th August 2008, 04:06 AM

Hammer and chisel from Home Depo on that inscription.

M ELEY · 14th August 2008, 04:11 AM

I agree, modern or LATE Victorian at best. Don't like the wiring on the hilt either. And that inscription? Yikes!!

Bill M · 14th August 2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Hammer and chisel from Home Depo on that inscription.

Well put!

Marc · 14th August 2008, 11:21 AM

Well... Ok, the inscription is horribly done... but that's it. Inscribed with a flat chisel and a round punch, probably. Plus the fleur-de-lis stamp, of course. It might be even period, done as an afterthought or by/for a Catholic user or who knows why. Or a sad atempt by a late dealer to add some kind of distinctive feature to a weapon of quite a common typology. And, yes, the wiring of the hilt is also probably a replacement (having it on hand would allow us to see how well the turk's heads fit, for example, as a gauge for this possibility).

But, to be frank, the rest of it looks fairly kosher to me. Central Europe, 17th or even 18th century, "Walloon"-type hilt.
Oh, and, of course, it isn't a rapier

Just another opinion, of course

fernando · 14th August 2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlantia

... What did you think Fernando?

I didn't open this thread on the first impulse ... i am not an eBayer, nor the bidding reference strikes me.
Anyhow i don't have mileage enough in this (any ?) specific field to judge by pictures; Marc knows more about these things, while he is sleeping, than me fully awake

.
I completely subscribe his coments ... if i am allowed. The inscription could either be a "modern" knock off or a crude period addition. Nothing (much) wrong with period additions; it happens a lot with weapons, finely or humbly done, i would say.
As Marc also says, the sword is a real one, despite rewiring and misplaced turk head/s ; they probably called it a rapier, due to the guard bars being a little intrincate.
However the price is some high, though ... specially from where it comes

.
Fernando

Atlantia · 14th August 2008, 07:18 PM

*phew*
I'm just glad you weren't the buyer/seller! lol

(Note to self: Don't always be the first to venture an opinion)

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.

Marc · 15th August 2008, 02:24 PM

I'm afraid that the final aspect of the patination/corrosion is an exclusive result of the unique environmental conditions under which that particular item has been. I've personally seen 17th c. rapier blades 100% mineralized, as well as Roman gladii ready to be hilted and used again. Environmental conditions and restoration processes are everything, in this regard.
Not to mention that patination is one of the first skills any arms & armour dealer, with any aspiration of success, acquires... as do collectors, as well

I don't mean that the state of the surface corrosion is, of course, something to be ignored, by any means, but it's just another of the tools we have to use when evaluating a piece, and must be approached with all the necessary cautions. It can also be among the hardest things to assess through the use of photographs...
By the way, I think David can be onto something very interesting... the part of the blade corresponding to the inscription is not only cleaner but it seems that it's also slightly "narrower", edge-to-edge wise, (“waisted”, if you want) as if it has been slightly ground down. That made me think that in fact this inscription can be a "creative reconstruction" of a previous one, partly erased due to the initial corrosion plus not having been struck too deeply to start with. After the clean-up, some "artistic license" may have been applied with the remaining "strokes". Following this line of thought, my candidate for the original inscription would be a perfectly common, given the period and the typology, "IN ALAMANIA" ("in Germany", as a reference of the place of production).

P.D. Fernando, you give too much credit to my knowledge and far too little to your own, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your kind words anyway. You're a Cabaleiro.

13th August 2008, 03:07 PM	#1
chevalier Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 119	anyone bid on this? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=140252711551

13th August 2008, 05:31 PM	#2
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	Well, it made reasonable money, but I have to say my first impression was 'victorian copy'. Hope I haven't offended anyone. I know its clearly been cleaned, but it just doesn't look like its got real age to me. Don't like the patina, the patterns of pitting, no evidence of ageing in recesses between shell bars and pierces sheets, the look of the metal seems newer than 17thC, the wire binding.... And the chiselled inscription looks completely out of place. Sorry if anyone is involved, just my opinion. What did you think Fernando? Last edited by Atlantia; 13th August 2008 at 07:10 PM.

14th August 2008, 07:18 PM	#9
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	phew I'm just glad you weren't the buyer/seller! lol (Note to self: Don't always be the first to venture an opinion) Last edited by Atlantia; 14th August 2008 at 10:16 PM.

14th August 2008, 10:13 PM	#10
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.

14th August 2008, 03:10 AM	#3
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 910	The technical quality (or, rather, lack thereof) of the inscription is also very disturbing for me.

14th August 2008, 04:06 AM	#4
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Hammer and chisel from Home Depo on that inscription.

14th August 2008, 04:11 AM	#5
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,087	I agree, modern or LATE Victorian at best. Don't like the wiring on the hilt either. And that inscription? Yikes!!

14th August 2008, 11:21 AM	#7
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Well... Ok, the inscription is horribly done... but that's it. Inscribed with a flat chisel and a round punch, probably. Plus the fleur-de-lis stamp, of course. It might be even period, done as an afterthought or by/for a Catholic user or who knows why. Or a sad atempt by a late dealer to add some kind of distinctive feature to a weapon of quite a common typology. And, yes, the wiring of the hilt is also probably a replacement (having it on hand would allow us to see how well the turk's heads fit, for example, as a gauge for this possibility). But, to be frank, the rest of it looks fairly kosher to me. Central Europe, 17th or even 18th century, "Walloon"-type hilt. Oh, and, of course, it isn't a rapier Just another opinion, of course

15th August 2008, 02:24 PM	#11
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	I'm afraid that the final aspect of the patination/corrosion is an exclusive result of the unique environmental conditions under which that particular item has been. I've personally seen 17th c. rapier blades 100% mineralized, as well as Roman gladii ready to be hilted and used again. Environmental conditions and restoration processes are everything, in this regard. Not to mention that patination is one of the first skills any arms & armour dealer, with any aspiration of success, acquires... as do collectors, as well I don't mean that the state of the surface corrosion is, of course, something to be ignored, by any means, but it's just another of the tools we have to use when evaluating a piece, and must be approached with all the necessary cautions. It can also be among the hardest things to assess through the use of photographs... By the way, I think David can be onto something very interesting... the part of the blade corresponding to the inscription is not only cleaner but it seems that it's also slightly "narrower", edge-to-edge wise, (“waisted”, if you want) as if it has been slightly ground down. That made me think that in fact this inscription can be a "creative reconstruction" of a previous one, partly erased due to the initial corrosion plus not having been struck too deeply to start with. After the clean-up, some "artistic license" may have been applied with the remaining "strokes". Following this line of thought, my candidate for the original inscription would be a perfectly common, given the period and the typology, "IN ALAMANIA" ("in Germany", as a reference of the place of production). P.D. Fernando, you give too much credit to my knowledge and far too little to your own, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your kind words anyway. You're a Cabaleiro.