Sword 12/13 century or not?

[Bob A]

The uniformity of corrosion, and the apparent lack of actual use, push me to suspect its bona fides.

On the other hand, if it is offered at a reasonable price, a handsome, well-balanced fake has its own interest.

I don't know if analysis of the metal would be informative, but I suspect that it would tell the tale.

[serdar]

Originally Posted by Bob A

The uniformity of corrosion, and the apparent lack of actual use, push me to suspect its bona fides.

On the other hand, if it is offered at a reasonable price, a handsome, well-balanced fake has its own interest.

I don't know if analysis of the metal would be informative, but I suspect that it would tell the tale.

Metal from 12 century from one foundry is diferent from fake, but if this is original it can have similar metal composition like 12 century known original.

Fake is never good, they are made for scaming people.
Its beter to buy cheap modern reproduction and hang, than to buy fake.

[werecow]

I can't comment on whether the sword "seems" authentic or not as I personally lack the necessary expertise, but just to put in my two cents, I would look at it this way: Given the prevalence of forgeries of swords from this era and the small number of surviving examples, the prior probability of the sword being fake far exceeds the prior probability of the sword being authentic. So, all other things being equal, from a scientific evidence, i.e. Bayesian point of view, the default hypothesis should be that it is most likely a fake, until strong evidence accumulates of its authenticity. That evidence can take many forms, but it should be strong and robust enough to cancel out the prior (and of course any evidence to the contrary).

I would not be so quick to dismiss Dirk, as he has a lot of experience with older swords.

[Will M]

I think it is unscientific to assume such swords found are automatically labelled fakes, it's like being guilty before proven innocent. I do suggest due diligence and proper testing by recognized professionals.
Yes there are obvious fakes however when it's not obvious it does not help to label anything as a fake. Anything is only fake if it's not authentic and is being represented as being so.
I do not believe that online digital photos alone can decide the authenticity of a sword. You need it in hand. People that have handled many of these particular swords would have a better take on this sword. Not many people have the experience due to the rarity and locations of such swords.
When I know something is a reproduction or fake I will point out the details.
If I don't know I will depend on professionals and testing if required.
Providing an opinion is good but requires backup, otherwise it's not useful to the poster of this sword.

[ulfberth]

you will get there to it will just take some more time and making mistakes

[ulfberth]

Originally Posted by Will M

I think it is unscientific to assume such swords found are automatically labelled fakes, it's like being guilty before proven innocent. I do suggest due diligence and proper testing by recognized professionals.
Yes there are obvious fakes however when it's not obvious it does not help to label anything as a fake. Anything is only fake if it's not authentic and is being represented as being so.
I do not believe that online digital photos alone can decide the authenticity of a sword. You need it in hand. People that have handled many of these particular swords would have a better take on this sword. Not many people have the experience due to the rarity and locations of such swords.
When I know something is a reproduction or fake I will point out the details.
If I don't know I will depend on professionals and testing if required.
Providing an opinion is good but requires backup, otherwise it's not useful to the poster of this sword.

It is not an opninion , it is the truth

[serdar]

Originally Posted by Will M

I think it is unscientific to assume such swords found are automatically labelled fakes, it's like being guilty before proven innocent. I do suggest due diligence and proper testing by recognized professionals.
Yes there are obvious fakes however when it's not obvious it does not help to label anything as a fake. Anything is only fake if it's not authentic and is being represented as being so.
I do not believe that online digital photos alone can decide the authenticity of a sword. You need it in hand. People that have handled many of these particular swords would have a better take on this sword. Not many people have the experience due to the rarity and locations of such swords.
When I know something is a reproduction or fake I will point out the details.
If I don't know I will depend on professionals and testing if required.
Providing an opinion is good but requires backup, otherwise it's not useful to the poster of this sword.

Exactly.
Even museum experts sometimes get wrong or collectors with few decades of collecting who have swords in their hands, and to say someting if 100% fake online is hilarious, only if that person made it and she recognised her own work...

If something dont seems righ it can only be pointed this, that, becouse of that, but to claim it is fake from picture i mean realy...

I seen few posts on this forum where that person claimed it is fake sword from 19 century, and few pictures latter it was real sword from 17 century, one only needs to read and understand, lotts of people have superioriti complexes i unddrstand that, but i allso understand that collector with few decades of collecting, who is "expert" wont send you pm with words "that is fake" without explanation, the offer you to sell you his own 100% original swords, and get angry when you ask him to elaborate why it is fake.
As i said, plenty of wolfs in sheeps skin.

[ulfberth]

Originally Posted by serdar

Exactly.
Even museum experts sometimes get wrong or collectors with few decades of collecting who have swords in their hands, and to say someting if 100% fake online is hilarious, only if that person made it and she recognised her own work...

If something dont seems righ it can only be pointed this, that, becouse of that, but to claim it is fake from picture i mean realy...

I seen few posts on this forum where that person claimed it is fake sword from 19 century, and few pictures latter it was real sword from 17 century, one only needs to read and understand, lotts of people have superioriti complexes i unddrstand that, but i allso understand that collector with few decades of collecting, who is "expert" wont send you pm with words "that is fake" without explanation, the offer you to sell you his own 100% original swords, and get angry when you ask him to elaborate why it is fake.
As i said, plenty of wolfs in sheeps skin.

"but to claim it is fake from picture i mean realy..." wo exactly did ask to make this claim from a picture ?

[serdar]

No one asked for 100% claim, it is impossible.

I asked for opinion 12/13 or trash, fair and honest people from this forum, what they think, not what they know, it is understandable and comon sense that no one in his right mind can tell 100% real or not.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Will M

I think it is unscientific to assume such swords found are automatically labelled fakes, it's like being guilty before proven innocent.

Except law is not science. We work from the presumption of innocence in law but that is not the case in science. In science, ideas are very often immediately suspect and will even be discarded without consideration because they lack evidence and plausibility and are simply not worth our time and money. They are "guilty" of being inconsistent with science and we don't bother trying to prove their innocence.

It's simply about which option is more likely a priori. Failing to take that prior plausibility into account is a problem you see a lot of in pseudoscience and fringe science. It is what distinguishes "science based" approaches from "evidence based" approaches (see here for a discussion; in this case pertaining to medicine, but the same principle applies to all fields of scientific knowledge). Basically, science has the additional requirement that the hypothesis has to be consistent with a hard won and strongly supported theoretical framework that is based on years or even centuries of rigorous work and evidence gathering. If it doesn't, then it must have exceptionally strong evidence in its favor, or else the more likely explanation is that the hypothesis is in error since it goes against an extremely robust body of established knowledge.

To come back to swords: If we know that there are many more artificially aged reproductions out there than real examples and that it is exceedingly rare for unseen specimens to pop up out of nowhere, then the default assumption should be that what we have is a reproduction, because that is statistically the most likely. That's a major reason why we want provenance dating back to before the 2000s.

To give a reductio ad absurdum example, suppose we knew of a single real example of a 12th century sword and a 999,999 fakes, then the a priori chance of a never before seen example being real is 1 in a million whereas the a priori chance of it being a fake is 999999 in a million. We could probably all agree what the default assumption should be in that case. It doesn't mean it never happens (it happened at least once, after all), but we better cross our t's and dot our i's if we want to make our case.

In real life we can of course only guess at the real numbers, but I don't think it's controversial to say that the forgeries significantly outnumber the real examples that have never been described before, and in the absence of strong evidence and well established provenance, the same principle applies.

Anyway, sorry to drone on but the science demarcation problem is my other hobby.

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting discussion of course, and most familiar, all views quite valid.

While I prefer to be optimistic, obviously there is more likelihood of weapons being presented as of this kind of antiquity being modern 'representations', and if an example is seriously being considered it is expected that expertise is required to properly authenticate.

One of the most common reasons noted by many dealers, experts in withholding descriptive detail here is of course that this information becomes important instruction to those engaged in deceptively intended examples.
This makes good sense, although it is good to bring awareness to those who may be exposed to fraudulent examples.

One thing I notice is, when these questionable examples are presented, seldom does the presenter offer observations on why the example should be deemed authentic. In other words, what research have they done to support authenticity, what sources, what comparative examples, what arguments FOR the authenticity of the example?

One of the most apparent characteristic features of genuinely excavated examples seems to me (very much a non expert) that they are almost invariably very rough with many inconsistent areas of decomposition, corrosion, and various areas missing.

The 'found in a river' apocrypha often employed comes from the case that many genuine examples have indeed been found in river beds, and well publicized. Many of these fortunately remain in recognized institutions and important collections after authentication by experts and scientific processes.
These are usually available through minimal research and seem like reasonable sources to properly evaluate examples in question.
It does not seem that the details given in these scientifically oriented reports have much benefitted the 'fakers', judging from the items they continue to produce and present.


First photo of a 13th century sword found in 1980s in a cave in Beckbury, Shropshire U.K. and authenticated through expert sources.

second, of the Linschoten sword in Netherlands from 1050-1150 and indeed found in a river bed.

It seems to me that the metals and impurities that existed in those days would be notably different than modern processing would produce and harmonize, and the chemical reactions that would occur based on the physical contexts in which the item was found would present dramatic inconsistencies especially over hundreds, nearly a thousand years.

[serdar]

Originally Posted by werecow

I can't comment on whether the sword "seems" authentic or not as I personally lack the necessary expertise, but just to put in my two cents, I would look at it this way: Given the prevalence of forgeries of swords from this era and the small number of surviving examples, the prior probability of the sword being fake far exceeds the prior probability of the sword being authentic. So, all other things being equal, from a scientific evidence, i.e. Bayesian point of view, the default hypothesis should be that it is most likely a fake, until strong evidence accumulates of its authenticity. That evidence can take many forms, but it should be strong and robust enough to cancel out the prior (and of course any evidence to the contrary).

I would not be so quick to dismiss Dirk, as he has a lot of experience with older swords.

As i said, i learned everything about wolfs in sheep skin, you will also when you conect the dots.

100% fake, demands 100% proofs, other way it is just childs talk to be easy.

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by serdar

Metal from 12 century from one foundry is diferent from fake, but if this is original it can have similar metal composition like 12 century known original.

Fake is never good, they are made for scaming people.
Its beter to buy cheap modern reproduction and hang, than to buy fake.

I suspect a sophisticated (and therefore expensive) analysis of the metallurgy involved in this sword might actually be determinative, though I admit a paucity of knowledge on the subject. A sword made a millennium ago would likely have indicators of its age. Perhaps modern forgers might go to the trouble of smelting and forging in a fashion to imitate the earlier processes, but it would be pretty troublesome to do so, done in the hope of a payoff equal to the effort involved.

Regarding the value of a forgery, I have no quibble with your ethical stance; my thought, which I ought to have qualified at the time of writing, concerned the educational value of demonstrating the process of fakery, and alerting the unwary.