Axehead for discussion

CutlassCollector · 23rd September 2017, 04:44 PM

Nice axe and a close match to Evgeny_K's example.

But I share the doubts about the age.
Apart from the lack of warts and wrinkles as has already been pointed out, the edges are too neat even chamfered in places. I'm unconvinced that any conservation would go that far or turn out that good on a roughly 800 year old axe.
CC

silberschatzimsee · 28th September 2017, 10:36 AM

Thanks for your input guys. I thrust the coinoirseurship of the previous owner that its a real one. It was not much money involved but still it would annoy me of course if its a piece of historism from the 19 century or so.

Neitherless i have noted to myself not to purchase overconserved items next time.

broadaxe · 29th September 2017, 07:27 PM

Sorry to say it looks like a good replica.

Kmaddock · 29th September 2017, 09:12 PM

Sorry, To me it looks like a modern piece,
if it was a conserved piece I do not think the angles would be so sharp, when removing the metal to bring the surface down to smooth all the definition of the piece would be lost
More pictures and angles of pictures would help define opinion though.

I have done a fair bit of restoration on items and to me to take a file or a grinder to a surface to remove blemishes would be many a bridge too far

Just my opinion we are all inviduals

Ken

silberschatzimsee · 29th September 2017, 09:38 PM

I will make some pictures tomorrow under daylight.

The contures of the axehead are indeed very clear after i looked at it again.

silberschatzimsee · 7th October 2017, 01:25 PM

Sorry for the delay guys. Here as promised more pictures from the replica? axe

vilhelmsson · 13th February 2019, 07:01 AM

I found this post while researching a Petersen type M axehead I received as a gift for Christmas this past year. It was purchased from the same place that your axehead was purchased.

Your axehead is really cool looking.

After further research, here are my findings.

TL;DR: It was treated with rust converter; it could be authentic or it could be a more modern reproduction. Very hard to more precisely date it without some surface destructive analysis.

The axehead has been conserved with rust converter; the eye is harder to apply the rust converter to. The most common rust converters use tannic acid to convert iron oxide (i.e., rust) into the bluish-black ferric tannate and simultaneously apply a protective primer layer. You can find more information on the wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_converter.

A bi-product of the process is that the rust converter fills in macroscopic pores (though it is generally microscopically porous as discussed in the articles I link to below) and pits, and smooths out the surface corrosion of the artifact. So there might have been warts and wrinkles before it was treated.

The US National Center for Preservation Technology & Training (NCPTT) calls rust converters "a reliable avenue for protection" of rusty fences, grates, car parts, artwork and collectibles. They are in the midst of a multi-year study, and here are links to the study initiation and their first round of results:
https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/blog/mater...nvertor-study/
https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/blog/compa...st-converters/

There is a lab that I like to send more expensive items to for XRF testing. I recently asked them about conducting XRF testing of items treated with rust converter. Here is an edited version of their response:

"We are happy to take a look, the rust converter (typically Paraloid B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraloid_B-72) I believe) should cause issues with the XRF process. We have had issues where the patina or some surface level incrustation causes issues getting good results. Typically if we own the piece we'll clean off a very small section to get better results."

7th October 2017, 01:25 PM	#6
silberschatzimsee Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 90	Sorry for the delay guys. Here as promised more pictures from the replica? axe Attached Images

23rd September 2017, 04:44 PM	#1
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 355	Nice axe and a close match to Evgeny_K's example. But I share the doubts about the age. Apart from the lack of warts and wrinkles as has already been pointed out, the edges are too neat even chamfered in places. I'm unconvinced that any conservation would go that far or turn out that good on a roughly 800 year old axe. CC

28th September 2017, 10:36 AM	#2
silberschatzimsee Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 90	Thanks for your input guys. I thrust the coinoirseurship of the previous owner that its a real one. It was not much money involved but still it would annoy me of course if its a piece of historism from the 19 century or so. Neitherless i have noted to myself not to purchase overconserved items next time.

29th September 2017, 07:27 PM	#3
broadaxe Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 334	Sorry to say it looks like a good replica.

29th September 2017, 09:12 PM	#4
Kmaddock Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Ireland Posts: 543	Sorry, To me it looks like a modern piece, if it was a conserved piece I do not think the angles would be so sharp, when removing the metal to bring the surface down to smooth all the definition of the piece would be lost More pictures and angles of pictures would help define opinion though. I have done a fair bit of restoration on items and to me to take a file or a grinder to a surface to remove blemishes would be many a bridge too far Just my opinion we are all inviduals Ken

29th September 2017, 09:38 PM	#5
silberschatzimsee Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 90	I will make some pictures tomorrow under daylight. The contures of the axehead are indeed very clear after i looked at it again.

13th February 2019, 07:01 AM	#7
vilhelmsson Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Location: Bay Area Posts: 57	I found this post while researching a Petersen type M axehead I received as a gift for Christmas this past year. It was purchased from the same place that your axehead was purchased. Your axehead is really cool looking. After further research, here are my findings. TL;DR: It was treated with rust converter; it could be authentic or it could be a more modern reproduction. Very hard to more precisely date it without some surface destructive analysis. The axehead has been conserved with rust converter; the eye is harder to apply the rust converter to. The most common rust converters use tannic acid to convert iron oxide (i.e., rust) into the bluish-black ferric tannate and simultaneously apply a protective primer layer. You can find more information on the wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_converter. A bi-product of the process is that the rust converter fills in macroscopic pores (though it is generally microscopically porous as discussed in the articles I link to below) and pits, and smooths out the surface corrosion of the artifact. So there might have been warts and wrinkles before it was treated. The US National Center for Preservation Technology & Training (NCPTT) calls rust converters "a reliable avenue for protection" of rusty fences, grates, car parts, artwork and collectibles. They are in the midst of a multi-year study, and here are links to the study initiation and their first round of results: https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/blog/mater...nvertor-study/ https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/blog/compa...st-converters/ There is a lab that I like to send more expensive items to for XRF testing. I recently asked them about conducting XRF testing of items treated with rust converter. Here is an edited version of their response: "We are happy to take a look, the rust converter (typically Paraloid B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraloid_B-72) I believe) should cause issues with the XRF process. We have had issues where the patina or some surface level incrustation causes issues getting good results. Typically if we own the piece we'll clean off a very small section to get better results."