Two handed swords

[cornelistromp]

from the sale; the Karsten Klingbeil collection.
attributed to the 19thC.

[cornelistromp]

to make life easy, a probably 19th century katzbalger sold as a 16th century one by Sothebys. and a probably 16th century katzbalger sold as 19th century by Czerny (black background).

[fernando]

Amazing .
If you haven't mentioned the black background detail, i would have inferred the other way round .
Not knowing is like not seeing .

[Matchlock]

Actually, this one was found to be absolutely original by my friend. He had known it for more than twenty years when it was in a North German collection, still heavily patinated but not for sale, not even for 20,000 Deutschmark.

20 years later, he recognized it at once at Czerny's though it got cleaned meanwhile, and he got it extremely cheap because nobody would believe!

Best,
m

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Actually, this one was found to be absolutely original by my friend. He had known it for more than twenty years when it was in a North German collection, still heavily patinated but not for sale, not even for 20,000 Deutschmark.

Now he recognized at once at Czerny's though cleaned meanwhile, and got it extremely cheap because nobody would believe!

Best,
m

Now i remember you posting this sword and its episode.
I confess i find it quite bizarre that, having being in a collection with a 'priceless' status, it ended up being 'depromoted' and sold as a replica, to be 'promoted' back by a qualified collector ?
It sure is one of these things

[Matchlock]

Yes, 'Nando,


It obviously is.

I have lived to see that happen way too often: you see a very good item in an otherwise uninteresting collection and make a gracious offer. What happens usually? The owner will think that you are trying to get the thing out "cheap" and that it is worth a whole lot more.

Of course, nobody ever will repeat that offer, or come near it.
Next the collector dies and the whole stuff, including that fine item, goes anonymously to a dealer or an auction because all the heirs want is quick money.

It happens all the time.


Best,
Michl

[fernando]

Yes, quite plausible.

[Swordfish]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Actually, this one was found to be absolutely original by my friend. He had known it for more than twenty years when it was in a North German collection, still heavily patinated but not for sale, not even for 20,000 Deutschmark.

20 years later, he recognized it at once at Czerny's though it got cleaned meanwhile, and he got it extremely cheap because nobody would believe!

Best,
m

Katzbalgers are not my special interest, but I know how old blades should look. I was present at the pre auction viewing of this sale and have examined this Katzbalger. This blade was never heavily patinated before it was cleaned. It shows no wear, no laminations and no areas of significant pitting. Quite the contrary, the very light pitting is extremely uniform, typical for not genuine corrosion. The blade of the Katzbalger in question in # 45 looks much more genuine, inspite of the unusual many nicks.

Best

[fernando]

How about this one?
About 2 meters length.
Dated circa 1590; German origin.
Transitional ?

... (lousy) pictures allowed by owner.

.

[Matchlock]

Hi 'Nando,

Generally this looks fine to me although the form of the quillons seems somewhat unusual.

Best,
Michl

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by fernando

How about this one?
About 2 meters length.
Dated circa 1590; German origin.
Transitional ?

... (lousy) pictures allowed by owner.

.

@Fernando beautiful sword, thanks.

there is a possibility that the pas d'ane/donkey hoof is removed, in it's working life?, see pictures of the 2-handed swords for an almost identical sword, image the sword in the bottom center.


@Michael, the quillon form is quite rare but not so unusual, see swords form Landeszeughaus graz for example.

best,

[elfina]

Originally Posted by fernando

Amazing .
If you haven't mentioned the black background detail, i would have inferred the other way round .
Not knowing is like not seeing .

I totally agree with you!! Does anybody know why Czerny mistakenly identified this 16th century sword as 19th century in terms of specifics, i.e. to Czerny's specialist the hilt appeared suspicious, the blade was uncharacteristic, etc.?

[Matchlock]

I think it is mostly because almost nobody believes that genuine Katzbalgers exist!

m