Opinions needed about a schlachtschwert / zweihander

[corrado26]

I am no expert on this kind of swords but I think this is a piece of pure historism. At least I cannot see any traces of age of the last 450 years.

[ulfberth]

its not 17th century but 19th or later and the other sword probably to.
This type with the knot at the end of the crossguard is a known reproduction, could you post some pictures of the other sword ?
kind regards
Ulfberth

[Luka Borscak]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

its not 17th century but 19th or later and the other sword probably to.
This type with the knot at the end of the crossguard is a known reproduction, could you post some pictures of the other sword ?
kind regards
Ulfberth

I will take some. Is it usual for 19th century blades to have such drastic distal taper and good balance? I think the hilt is 19th century but the blade is older...

[mariusgmioc]

Fairly recent decorative sword.

[ulfberth]

I can see no traces on the blade that points to the 17th century, however the blade surface is that visible in the pictures.
If you think the blade could be 17th C please post pictures of the blade surface were the steel is visible so not were its totally black.
About the balance, the original swords of this type were not battle swords but processional swords and their balance was awful, that in a way that they could not be used in a fight, to clumsy. The fact that these two have a good balance could be mere coincidence. These swords might be a great opportunity to learn from.

[CSinTX]

Also pictures of the makers mark that you mentioned.

[Luka Borscak]

Originally Posted by CSinTX

Also pictures of the makers mark that you mentioned.

I forgot, here it is...

[corrado26]

This is what the catalogue of the Wallace Collection 1962 says to the mark in question

[Luka Borscak]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

I can see no traces on the blade that points to the 17th century, however the blade surface is that visible in the pictures.
If you think the blade could be 17th C please post pictures of the blade surface were the steel is visible so not were its totally black.
About the balance, the original swords of this type were not battle swords but processional swords and their balance was awful, that in a way that they could not be used in a fight, to clumsy. The fact that these two have a good balance could be mere coincidence. These swords might be a great opportunity to learn from.

I don't think goid balance is accidental when it's achieved with a distal taper from 10mm to 2.5mm. I'm not saying that means it's a 16th /17th century sword, but whoever made it kniws how to make a good blade, whatever it is going to be used for. Actually, being a 19th century replica would ease my dilemma and I would sharpen it and use it for cutting exercises.
The other one doesn't have good balance, it's horrible. And looks to have "fake black" patina. I didn't bought this one, it is for a friend...
The third picture is a best picture I can get of a surface of my sword...