Two handed swords

[Matchlock]

Quite right, Dmitry,

I would say the blade with its way too many nicks looks 'overaged', apart from the fact that the sectioning of the blade (lenticular cross section) is not corrrect and the overall length is too short.

Best,
Michael

[Dmitry]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Quite right, Dmitry,

I would say the blade with its way too many nicks looks 'overaged', apart from the fact that the sectioning of the blade (lenticular cross section) is not corrrect and the overall length is too short.

Best,
Michael

The crescents on the blade don't look to inspiring either. The dozens of nicks on the blade were supposed to make it look like a battle weapon, I guess.

[Matchlock]

Exactly, Dmitry,

And to 'prove' the 'great age' of the piece!

m

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Quite right, Dmitry,

I would say the blade with its way too many nicks looks 'overaged', apart from the fact that the sectioning of the blade (lenticular cross section) is not corrrect and the overall length is too short.

Best,
Michael

Originally Posted by Dmitry

The crescents on the blade don't look to inspiring either. The dozens of nicks on the blade were supposed to make it look like a battle weapon, I guess.

Gentlemen, a small side-note. stand apart from the weapon of course.

a lenticular cross section is possible on katzbalgers in the 16thC , it even came on early medieval swords.

best,

for more twohanders please see;
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=twohander

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

a lenticular cross section is possible on katzbalgers in the 16thC , it even came on early medieval swords.

Hi Jasper,

I learned from my collector friend that original Katzbalgers never hat lenticular cross sections.

Of course I respect your differing opinion. Nobody's perfect, after all!

m


.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi Jasper,

I learned from my collector friend that original Katzbalgers never hat lenticular cross sections.

Of course I respect your differing opinion. Nobody's perfect, after all!

m


.

Hi Michael,
such a statement has only value if he has seen them all, the katzbalgers ever made.
you're right nobody is perfect.

FE the two-hand Landsknecht Sword of katzbalger type, you posted before, has a lenticular blade

best,

[Matchlock]

Right, Jasper,


I guess I should have been more precise and added that 'lenticular baldes without any fullers' are basically suspect.
This fine hand-and-half sword has a central fuller.

I do not think one must have seen virtually all existing specimen in order to render a basic general statement. If this were so nobody could make any statement.
I have always believed that understanding the characteristic main basis of a certain style of arms should be sufficient to judge with a high degree of certainty what to declare to be 'characteristic' or 'typical' and what not.

Possible exceptions to any rule must be taken consideration though and for granted. Otherwise knowledge and any kind of expertise would be invaluable.

The main problem is that is virtually not possible to quote all these prerequisites each time when giving a statement; they should go without saying.


Best,
m

[cornelistromp]

Hi michael,

Thanks for the explanation, however Iam very sorry but I can not agree with the statement of your friend;
in post 37 of this thread , I placed some katzbalgers from various museums in Europe (the katzbalger of Lee disregarded for this moment).
They are all authentic, without fuller and without ricasso and of lenticular cross section.

The most attractive among them, I find the katzbalger in the Solingen klingen Museum.

best,