Flamberg Two-hand Swords, late 16th-Early-17th Century

Dmitry · 23rd April 2012, 03:39 PM

What indicators are there that the swords in the Philadelphia Museum don't date to the late 16th-17th c., but are 19th-20th c. replicas?
I'm talking about the swords with the chamfron on the previous page of this thread.

Matchlock · 30th April 2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmitry

What indicators are there that the swords in the Philadelphia Museum don't date to the late 16th-17th c., but are 19th-20th c. replicas?
I'm talking about the swords with the chamfron on the previous page of this thread.

Hi Dmitry,

I realize you have been patiently waiting to receive a qualified answer. However I am afraid I am not the one to provide it. As you have noticed in the course of discussions, opinions tend to divert. What seems quite an evident feature to one person may be denied as irrelevant by another. Remember that this is not a firearms-related topic; if it were I guess I would not quit.

Moreover, decisive differences between 'genuine' and 'reproduction' may not be striking but quite delicate in some instances.

Anyway, I would have expected others here to readily reply to your important query ...

Best,
Michael

Matchlock · 30th April 2012, 04:50 PM

Attached are two characteristic two-hand 'great' swords in the Musée de l'Armée Paris, both interestingly dated 'early 16th c.' by the museum experts.

Of course, while this date is quite correct for the first item, a Late-Gothic Italian-style fighting sword, the second is a late-16th c. Renaissance bearing sword of Flamberg type made for processional purposes, as has been stated here before. Thus almost a century actually lies in between both swords, and only the first should be addressed as an actual weapon.

The grip of the first sword is stated to be a replacement, while the leather originally covering the long ricasso is missing from the second.

m

fernando · 30th April 2012, 04:59 PM

The first one, being called "bastard" by the museum, would be a hand and half sword ... also its grip looks long enough for a two hander.

Matchlock · 30th April 2012, 05:01 PM

Exactly, 'Nando,

And that's what troubled me ...

Michl

30th April 2012, 04:50 PM	#3
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Attached are two characteristic two-hand 'great' swords in the Musée de l'Armée Paris, both interestingly dated 'early 16th c.' by the museum experts. Of course, while this date is quite correct for the first item, a Late-Gothic Italian-style fighting sword, the second is a late-16th c. Renaissance bearing sword of Flamberg type made for processional purposes, as has been stated here before. Thus almost a century actually lies in between both swords, and only the first should be addressed as an actual weapon. The grip of the first sword is stated to be a replacement, while the leather originally covering the long ricasso is missing from the second. m Attached Images

23rd April 2012, 03:39 PM	#1
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	What indicators are there that the swords in the Philadelphia Museum don't date to the late 16th-17th c., but are 19th-20th c. replicas? I'm talking about the swords with the chamfron on the previous page of this thread.

30th April 2012, 04:59 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	The first one, being called "bastard" by the museum, would be a hand and half sword ... also its grip looks long enough for a two hander.

30th April 2012, 05:01 PM	#5
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Exactly, 'Nando, And that's what troubled me ... Michl