A GERMAN FIGHTING TWO HAND SWORD LATE 16 TH CENTURY

cornelistromp · 11th January 2016, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ulfberth

Jean Luc,

thank you for showing me the detail from up close, after being able to see the structure of the metal and the way it is forged I'm sure the guard is early 17th C or even late 16th C.

Kind regards

Ulfberth

this is 100% the opposite of your statement from post #20 and onwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ulfberth

Im sorry but the guard is just not 16th C, at best 17th or even 18th C and indeed assembled with the fighting blade for further use as a ceremonial or a sword of justice.
If we look at the alloy and metal surface of the cross guard we see it is different than that of the blade, it is also forged in a different manner.
Ulfberth

So from definitely a later applied hilt it's back to maybe the original hilt?

ulfberth · 11th January 2016, 04:30 PM

Hi Jasper,

Why do you get so defensive if anyone questions you're “knowledge” ?

I can ask you the same kind of questions, like you said the sword was homogeneous and later on you say : the composition of the steel is never matching between blade and hilt.this is the case with virtually all the 16th century swords.so they are never "homogeneous"
Ask yourself this , is this really the goal of this forum ?

I gave my opinion based on the info at hand and I adjusted my opinion after new and more detailed information.
You give me the impression you are not satisfied.
Do I have a say in this?
Are you asking me or telling me?
So, what do I get out of this?”
Are you really expecting me to....do Do what exactly ?

Kind regards

kind regards

Ulfberth

fernando · 11th January 2016, 04:53 PM

Maybe tossing some light discrepancies over the shoulders and get back to a path of harmony ...

ulfberth · 11th January 2016, 05:16 PM

Amen !

cornelistromp · 11th January 2016, 05:27 PM

@Ulfberth

homogeneous in arms means that all components, pommel grip guard and blade, from the very beginning have been together, it has nothing to do with the metal composition.

but let's shake hands because we both, very much, like antique swords.

in Holland we say; zand erover.

kind regards from Amsterdam,
Jasper

Jim McDougall · 11th January 2016, 09:36 PM

I would just like to say that the object of discussion is to do exactly what has been achieved here. We have the benefit of the knowledge and hands on expertise of both Ulfberth and Jasper, and while opposed at first, bringing in better discernible evidence aligned those opinions .
In my opinion an excellent outcome ( and very happy for Jean Luc)!

Best of all, in following the opposing views as these things unfolded gave me (and I hope others) a valuable lesson in the metallurgical aspects of observing these old swords.

Differences in opinion should not be taken personally, especially here where there are so many variables and many (like me) are actually students in varying degree. I know I never stop learning!!!

Thank you guys! Jean Luc for sharing this, and Ulfberth and Jasper for bringing forth so many factors for consideration

ulfberth · 12th January 2016, 06:51 AM

Hi Jim,

You bring us wise words, I think no one could have said it any better !

thanks

Ulfberth

11th January 2016, 04:30 PM	#2
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 424	Hi Jasper, Why do you get so defensive if anyone questions you're “knowledge” ? I can ask you the same kind of questions, like you said the sword was homogeneous and later on you say : the composition of the steel is never matching between blade and hilt.this is the case with virtually all the 16th century swords.so they are never "homogeneous" Ask yourself this , is this really the goal of this forum ? I gave my opinion based on the info at hand and I adjusted my opinion after new and more detailed information. You give me the impression you are not satisfied. Do I have a say in this? Are you asking me or telling me? So, what do I get out of this?” Are you really expecting me to....do Do what exactly ? Kind regards kind regards Ulfberth

11th January 2016, 04:53 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Maybe tossing some light discrepancies over the shoulders and get back to a path of harmony ...

11th January 2016, 05:16 PM	#4
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 424	Amen !

11th January 2016, 05:27 PM	#5
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,060	@Ulfberth homogeneous in arms means that all components, pommel grip guard and blade, from the very beginning have been together, it has nothing to do with the metal composition. but let's shake hands because we both, very much, like antique swords. in Holland we say; zand erover. kind regards from Amsterdam, Jasper

11th January 2016, 09:36 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	I would just like to say that the object of discussion is to do exactly what has been achieved here. We have the benefit of the knowledge and hands on expertise of both Ulfberth and Jasper, and while opposed at first, bringing in better discernible evidence aligned those opinions . In my opinion an excellent outcome ( and very happy for Jean Luc)! Best of all, in following the opposing views as these things unfolded gave me (and I hope others) a valuable lesson in the metallurgical aspects of observing these old swords. Differences in opinion should not be taken personally, especially here where there are so many variables and many (like me) are actually students in varying degree. I know I never stop learning!!! Thank you guys! Jean Luc for sharing this, and Ulfberth and Jasper for bringing forth so many factors for consideration

12th January 2016, 06:51 AM	#7
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 424	Hi Jim, You bring us wise words, I think no one could have said it any better ! thanks Ulfberth