Real or copy? (Montante, Bastard, Claymore)

celtan · 7th December 2008, 02:40 AM

What do you think, real McCoy or victorian copy?

Manuel Luis

katana · 7th December 2008, 01:55 PM

Hi Manuel,
my first reaction is that it is a Victorian copy....the blade looks very similar to the trade blades that reached North Africa and ended up hilted as Takouba. Understandably it is difficult to be sure from a photograph....so I could be totally wrong.

Do you have access to the sword ?

Regards David

celtan · 7th December 2008, 02:48 PM

Yep! I'm considering buying it. But I need an idea of what's worth, if anything.

Merry Xmas!

M

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Manuel,
my first reaction is that it is a Victorian copy....the blade looks very similar to the trade blades that reached North Africa and ended up hilted as Takouba. Understandably it is difficult to be sure from a photograph....so I could be totally wrong.

Do you have access to the sword ?

Regards David

kisak · 7th December 2008, 02:53 PM

I'd guess Victorian. The tip looks a bit too "flat" to me, and the bits on the ends of the crossguard looks rather disproportional.

broadaxe · 8th December 2008, 01:14 PM

I would like to support the points brought up by katana & kisak. The crossguard is somehow out of proportions: the cross bars are thin comparing the terminals which look too large at their own. The crossguard is very wide comparing the grip.
An almost identical sword (probably the original, dated to the early 16th century) can be seen in Edged Weapons by Wilkinson, p. 31.

Paul Macdonald · 9th December 2008, 02:06 AM

Hi Folks,

Just to present my own wee observations...the pommel form is very unusual, not what you would expect to see on an original C16th sword (but not so difficult to manufacture with an C18th or C19th metal lathe

)

The grip has a top ring which meets the pommel base, and the grip top diameter is less than the pommel base diameter, where pommels stretching towards the grip invariably meet the grip flush for smoother handling.

The quillions appear to be too thin to be practical for this sword type.

The blade type is unusual for a two handed sword of C16th style. It would not be usual for central fullering to run for the full length of the blade, as a two handed sword blade of this type (long and with a very shallow width taper) should have a good distal taper, which should preclude the need for central fullering after about half the blade length.

This would suggest that this piece would not handle too lightly in the hands and cast a questionable shadow over its practicality.

The blade form (shallow width taper, central triple fullering) and makers mark is identical to a single handed blade that I bought some years ago and hilted as a German Katzbalger. This was a C19th blade made to an earlier style.

I would suggest that this sword is an example of the same.

As a C19th repro of this quality (not bad but not top), I would not suggest that it is too valuable. £150 - £200 tops maybe?

Hope that helps and all the best,

Macdonald

Ed · 9th December 2008, 02:20 AM

The blade looks decidedly African, I even have a mate to it. Altogether it appears too delicate to be authentic.

7th December 2008, 02:40 AM	#1
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	Real or copy? (Montante, Bastard, Claymore) What do you think, real McCoy or victorian copy? Manuel Luis

7th December 2008, 01:55 PM	#2
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Hi Manuel, my first reaction is that it is a Victorian copy....the blade looks very similar to the trade blades that reached North Africa and ended up hilted as Takouba. Understandably it is difficult to be sure from a photograph....so I could be totally wrong. Do you have access to the sword ? Regards David

7th December 2008, 02:53 PM	#4
kisak Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Stockholm Posts: 182	I'd guess Victorian. The tip looks a bit too "flat" to me, and the bits on the ends of the crossguard looks rather disproportional.

8th December 2008, 01:14 PM	#5
broadaxe Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 332	I would like to support the points brought up by katana & kisak. The crossguard is somehow out of proportions: the cross bars are thin comparing the terminals which look too large at their own. The crossguard is very wide comparing the grip. An almost identical sword (probably the original, dated to the early 16th century) can be seen in Edged Weapons by Wilkinson, p. 31.

9th December 2008, 02:06 AM	#6
Paul Macdonald Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 48	Hi Folks, Just to present my own wee observations...the pommel form is very unusual, not what you would expect to see on an original C16th sword (but not so difficult to manufacture with an C18th or C19th metal lathe ) The grip has a top ring which meets the pommel base, and the grip top diameter is less than the pommel base diameter, where pommels stretching towards the grip invariably meet the grip flush for smoother handling. The quillions appear to be too thin to be practical for this sword type. The blade type is unusual for a two handed sword of C16th style. It would not be usual for central fullering to run for the full length of the blade, as a two handed sword blade of this type (long and with a very shallow width taper) should have a good distal taper, which should preclude the need for central fullering after about half the blade length. This would suggest that this piece would not handle too lightly in the hands and cast a questionable shadow over its practicality. The blade form (shallow width taper, central triple fullering) and makers mark is identical to a single handed blade that I bought some years ago and hilted as a German Katzbalger. This was a C19th blade made to an earlier style. I would suggest that this sword is an example of the same. As a C19th repro of this quality (not bad but not top), I would not suggest that it is too valuable. £150 - £200 tops maybe? Hope that helps and all the best, Macdonald

9th December 2008, 02:20 AM	#7
Ed Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 237	The blade looks decidedly African, I even have a mate to it. Altogether it appears too delicate to be authentic.