Blades without a scabbard!

[sfenoid13]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi
The biggest problem for me is when the sword comes with an original and ugly scabbard...

Kubur

This is so true! Sometimes I wish some of my swords didn’t have that ugly old/damaged scabbard at all. It’s like I don’t know what to do with them. I don’t want to throw them away but I don’t want to display them either ... some swords have such nice scabbards that they outshine the sword itself , such as the silver Yatagans. They are amazing piece of work.

[Sajen]

I think it depend also from the weapons you collect. A keris for example isn't complete without a scabbard. But a kris I display also without a scabbard, it's the same with barongs. By gunongs I try to collect with scabbards but have a special one without. In general I can say that it's more desirable for my area of collecting to have a scabbard with the blade but I don't have problems when they come without.

Regards,
Detlef

[ariel]

There is an old saying that it is better to be young, healthy and rich than old, sick and dirt poor:-)

So it is with our sharpies: it is obviously better to get a sword with the original scabbard in a perfect shape than without a scabbard at all.
That being said, most of ( at least Oriental) swords dating 2-4 centuries had their scabbards changed not once and not twice.

Can’t remember the source, but Russian Cossacks had to get a new scabbard every 3 years. With all the Imperial Russian graft, theft and negligence this period might have been extended to 5 easily, to 10 likely and to 20 quite possibly. But they must have been changed at some stage of the game. Scabbards were deliberately exposed to all kinds of damage, - mechanical, climatic, just age related deterioration of organic components, etc,- to protect the blade.
Even assuming 20 years as a reasonable estimate, an 18 century Shamshir, kilij or tulwar by now is on its at least 5th scabbard of it’s working life only if it was out of military use around WWI.

In our ( collectors) case, storing swords within their scabbards invites rust.

It’s nice to have a scabbard, but it most likely will not be original and prudently stored separately.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by ariel

... It’s nice to have a scabbard, but it is most likely will not be original and prudently stored separately.

My thoughts exactly. Scabbards are purely for transporting the blade, and were replaced frequently in most areas of the world. In some cases they were intentionally disposable, and were often discarded in battle. I primarily collect the edged weapon and not the ensemble.


Ian

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I think I agree with most of what has been said here.. The question was quite specific however and not otherwise related...Thus I prefer to have the entire complete weapon and scabbard from the outset where possible.

... BUT ! since a lot of scabbards are either eaten by bugs or have simply fallen to bits in time...so there is nothing wrong with having a restored scabbard... Many Omani Khanjars have this happen. Perfectly reasonable to have a restored item so it is all complete... I mean how else can you either wear it or display it as the scabbards tell a story in support of the actual weapon … and I think this is the case in most bladed weapons.

As pointed out by Ariel the blade will rust if kept stored in the scabbard.

[Will M]

In regards to British pattern swords, scabbards can be as valuable as the sword itself. Swords are always priced lower when missing their scabbard.
I tend to pass on scabbard less swords and wait for a complete sword.
Only when the sword is rare, one of a kind do I consider collecting without its scabbard. Some scabbards are interchangeable but difference in manufacturer and time period makes it difficult to source a good fitting scabbard and inevitably can cost more to complete than purchasing a complete sword and scabbard.

[mross]

Blade and scabbard are preferred. However I will not turn down a nice blade just because it does not have a scabbard. I buy the blade, nice fittings are a bonus as is evidenced by my last two kaskaras. No scabbard and hilts in a less than optimal state.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by ariel

In our ( collectors) case, storing swords within their scabbards invites rust.

.

Hi, Ariel

A debatable point. You can't convince the Japanese sword crowd of that, haha.

In my experience, keeping blades clean and oiled inside well-fitted scabbards with clean interior channels (i.e. no accumulated gunk or even deposits of old rust) is the best.

It is important that if made of wood, that the body be made of a timber that is as acid-neutral as possible. No pine or coniferous timber (due to the acidity of sap which those woods are prone to holding in their cellular structure even after a long time) or oak (high in tannic acid). Deciduous woods of species along the lines of alder, poplar, magnolia, etc. are fine, and their relative softness will not scratch or dull the edge. It seems that a lot of traditional cultures realized this. Not only the Japanese, who came to regard the magnolia ( ho -no-ki ) as ideal.

Note that the Mughals also had the concept of a shirasaya or resting scabbard, as Stone comments on in his Glossary, and supported by the large number of Indian swords seen in cloth covered sheaths without metal fittings for wearing, or field use.

The one type of scabbard that seems to be an unfailing rust magnet for blades is the one made entirely of leather. The tannic acid used in the processing of hides in most cultures is responsible. I would not store blades for any extended period in such sheaths.

With any type of scabbard, a blade is best preserved with a protective coating. Some guys like Renaissance wax, which is fine. Others stick to oil (my preference are the Japanese magnolia or clove oils made specifically for blades, I use it on any blade that is "in polish" or etched to reveal watering, no matter what the culture). A little bit goes a long way, it it has a fragrant smell, and it protects for a long time without affecting the wood.