Dilemma on a bilbo

[midelburgo]

I am just the winner in an online auction for a Spanish 1728 cavalry officer sword.
There was something strange at some points. Too perfect workmanship and an unusual blade model, marked X EN TOLEDO X. The sword has surface black spots, but no pitting. Price was slightly on the cheap.

I started looking through the picture collection until I found an identical one in pristine condition, sold 6 years ago. They seemed like the same sword, but in the older pictures it seemed newer, too incredible new, actually. The weathering on the auction sword maybe it is not 200 years old but it is consistent and not recent.

And then I found it. In 1910, The Toledo factory made a copy of the 1728 model that can be found at that year catalogue (number 83).
https://www.toledo.es/toledo-siempre...te-hacia-1920/

I am not sure what to do. Honour my bid or tell the auction house they are selling a replica as the real stuff.

The 1910 copy is extremely rare. And the workmanship the Factory put in these swords was amazing, nothing comparable to the usual Toledo wallhangers.

As I collect both, 1728s and Toledo factory products, the thing would not be out of place, actually. I already have another similar to number 86, but this one is marked as from the Toledo Factory and dated 1881. I have another, number 97, that is also properly marked with the factory stamp after 1943. But it seems those from 1910 can be deceiving, or the stamps have been erased.

I will hang the pictures of the sword when I have decided. I understand replicas shall not be the proper subject of the forum and I have not problem if this is moved.

[Helleri]

This is more of an ethical query than anything else. A good question here would be, could you have discovered all this prior to placing your winning bid? Another question would be, do you think the Auction House was acting earnestly in it's assessment or is there reason to believe that they were knowingly trying to pass it off as older than it is?

[Jim McDougall]

This is most interesting, and quite honestly I was unaware of the modern products replicating these early examples of 'bilbo' . I think your approach is pretty amazing in that you have recognized not only the original antiquities, but the modern productions in Toledo, which as noted have their own place as antiques, but of more recent times.

It would be hard to say what to think of the representation as presented in the auction, but one would hope that absence of notice of the condition and inconsistencies which seemed apparent were simply an oversight by the auctioneer. In your case, as clearly a well informed and astute collector, you have gained an item which fits well in the scope of your collection, but in more modern grouping.

I think it would be good to notify the auction house of your observations and alert them that including that information would be important in their 'accurate' description of that or similar items, and you wished to increase their awareness. It is better to approach as an oversight and whatever adjustments that result would ultimately become acceptable by both parties.

[midelburgo]

Originally Posted by Helleri

This is more of an ethical query than anything else. A good question here would be, could you have discovered all this prior to placing your winning bid? Another question would be, do you think the Auction House was acting earnestly in it's assessment or is there reason to believe that they were knowingly trying to pass it off as older than it is?

In fact I know from that catalog since some 13 years ago, but somehow I thought all those swords were marked revealing they were copies, as most are.

Spanish swords are usually copied only as wall hangers, and their copies do not suppose the problems some other nationalities have. But here is an exception.

At first impression the sword really looks alike all the other real 1728s we are used to see. Specially because of the surface toning.

I do not think the auction house tried to deceive me. I have seen often their "curator" making mistakes, not surprising, as his field of expertise shall cover any period and geography.

[Helleri]

Originally Posted by midelburgo

In fact I know from that catalog since some 13 years ago, but somehow I thought all those swords were marked revealing they were copies, as most are.

Spanish swords are usually copied only as wall hangers, and their copies do not suppose the problems some other nationalities have. But here is an exception.

At first impression the sword really looks alike all the other real 1728s we are used to see. Specially because of the surface toning.

I do not think the auction house tried to deceive me. I have seen often their "curator" making mistakes, not surprising, as his field of expertise shall cover any period and geography.

That answers one of the questions. But the other (to clarify) is could you have come to this realization about the nature of the piece prior to winning the bid had you a mind to investigate it then? Was it only some factor that came into play after winning the bid and only because of the way the bidding went that peaked your interest into taking a closer look. Or was it a lapse in your own due diligence into investigating the prospective purchase from the start?

[midelburgo]

Here there is an interesting psychological question. With the fact that bidding online is easy and covers the globe. I, and as I suppose, many of you, keep an eye on several auctions at the same time. If prices reaches above a threshold, you discard that piece. But you do not really became mentally involved in a piece until you see you can win it, and that is minutes before the auction end. This means I do not make a deep research of the item. There are many kinds of 1728,and this seemed another one of them. On the same day. There was a sword auctioned at Hermann Histórica that interested me more, but I did not win it, so I turned to the second choice.
Probably I will end taking the sword. I am curious to see how it handles.

[Helleri]

So it's down to the very nature of participating in an auction. Part of that nature being a degree of risk. A gamble on what you are paying for what you are getting.

There is another aspect to this however. If a piece sells for more than it is really worth, and if Auction house records go unchanged regarding the sale of that piece and remain inaccurate. That can harm the integrity of the system. It could with enough such small errors, artificially drive the price up on some items. So another question would be, do you have an onus to correct errors and receive fair pricing for the sake of preserving the integrity of the system?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by midelburgo

... I understand replicas shall not be the proper subject of the forum and I have not problem if this is moved.

Well, we may take it as 'within context'.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Well, we may take it as 'within context'.

Very much so, I agree.
I always think of the author who once told me, 'it is the responsibility of the author of a written work, to present other held views whether contrary or not in order that the reader be fully aware of 'all angles' (so to speak).

In this case, it is the examination of an item, or type, and the case is that it was presumed authentic despite not apparently being so. This deems the case being evidential and illustrating the character of the type is key to readers and collectors as 'need to know' information.

Context, absolutely!

[Dmitry]

Other than the new-ish grip wrap, what is the giveaway here? Looks like a nice period sword to me.

[M ELEY]

I concur with Dmitri. It looks of the period to me except for the wire wrap-

[midelburgo]

Originally Posted by Dmitry

Other than the new-ish grip wrap, what is the giveaway here? Looks like a nice period sword to me.

There are two problems here. The first one is that the cross is of the wrong shape and too perfectly executed. I have never seen a real XVIIIth century 1728 where the transition from the round quillion to the shields surrounding the cross are perfectly simetrical. Usually this is made by soldiering two shield-like pieces to the usual cross. Here, this has been made by adding the quillions to a slightly oval cylindrical piece. This can be seen at the 1910 catalog too.

The second problem is the blade motto. The blade shape is typical from the period shortly before the refoundation of Toledo, 1740-1760, or rather earlier. If the motto would have been x EN SOLINGEN X or X KEISER X or X ENRIQUE COEL X. But that is a blade (and hilt) typical from a time when Toledo was functionally dead.

I believe the 1910 Fabrica de Toledo replica was made copying from a real sword, but this sword sported a Solingen blade, and they wrote instead X EN TOLEDO X.

The only X EN TOLEDO X large cavalry blades I could find were copies of the 1796 model made at the end of the XIXth century and this other next sword, sold some 6 years ago.

It is so much similar to the sword auctioned this week that it could be the same sword, just before being forcibly antiquated. Or it is a twin of the 1910 replica. I repeat, I have not seen that X EN TOLEDO X blade on a 1728 outside these two (one). I do not believe this has 270 years.

I believe the now defunct Madrid Army Museum had a number of the 1910 replicas used to dress mannequins with period uniforms, but as I do not live in Madrid I was a bit unaware of the danger of these replicas. Specially if antiquated.

[midelburgo]

Just to show the point of shields at the cross.

Officers swords (and Guardias de Corps) have often a shield with a lyra like form. Troopers and some officers swords have just semicircles.