anyone bid on this?

Atlantia · 20th August 2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc

Ok, if it's a question "gut feeling", there's no discussion. You have yours, I have mine.

Just didn't want to leave without addressing a couple of points...

This sword looks to me as having been cleaned/tweaked/restored/"improved" some time ago. Also, this specific item has a typology that doesn't make cleaning it a really difficult task. As such, its condition doesn't seem to me to be particularly noteworthy. It is well conserved, yes, but, not astonishingly so, at least to my eye.
About having seen "almost completely (for its 'age') rust free 17th century swords"... yes. Dozens. Not accounting for the ones in museums. The vast majority of them having spent a good deal of their life in rather dry environments, and at some point "cleaned" in order to put them on the market, and more or less taken care of since then.

But I'm afraid that at the end it's a question of your experience ("gut feeling") and mine. And this is a game I don't want to go into, here

Do I think it's original? Well... quite. At least a good deal of it. To the point of putting money on it? Well, on the right circumstances... yes. But, again, this just means that you and I do disagree. And that's what makes life interesting, I guess

Best regards,

Marc

Of course Marc, disagreements are fine by me. We both make valid arguments, shame we cant sit down over a drink and examine it in person to put this discussion to bed.

Kind Regards
Gene

Jim McDougall · 20th August 2008, 11:45 PM

I think Marc's 'gut' opinion on this is well placed, and am inclined to agree. As he has noted, trying to offer observations or authenticating antique weapons from photos is hazardous, however if it is to be done, all one can do is call on experience and knowledge at hand. While it is well known that weapons can be artificially aged, familiarity with true patination is acquired much in the same way as the patination itself..seasoning through experience over time. The conditions and environment a weapon has experienced will entirely control the evidence of its age.

While Victorian copies of arms are certainly well known, particularly those of Ernst Schmidt and other ateliers, thier primary focus was on armour and weapons accompanying them. The common walloon type swords (of which this seems to be) and those of rank and file were easily available to any Victorian collector if they were so inclined, and to produce copies of weapons that could easily be found in heaps in junk shops seems unlikely.

For some time in recent years there seems to have been a trend with many European auctions and dealers to overclean and 'restore' antique weapons. Much of this I would suspect was to disguise or conceal 'reassembled' or composite pieces. In any case these often garishly shiny weapons are saddening to see. This sword seems to have been cleaned, possibly chemically with the dull grayish cast, but even with that the pits, shadows and imperfections can still be seen, especially in the photo of the knuckle guard junction (with the X) which seems to still have some patination.

The tragic attempt at bringing out the apparantly worn inscription that was probably stamped in the blade is truly a travesty, and the dot arrangement at fuller terminus looks machine drilled. As noted, the wire grip has been an attempt at rewrapping, and only skilled restorers are able to correctly accomplish this, especially with Turks heads properly aligned.

I also agree with Atlantia, it would be great if we could all get together over drinks and brainstorm this! as it seems all the observations have distinct merit. Not arguments, just well qualified opinions

All best regards,
Jim

20th August 2008, 11:45 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,295	I think Marc's 'gut' opinion on this is well placed, and am inclined to agree. As he has noted, trying to offer observations or authenticating antique weapons from photos is hazardous, however if it is to be done, all one can do is call on experience and knowledge at hand. While it is well known that weapons can be artificially aged, familiarity with true patination is acquired much in the same way as the patination itself..seasoning through experience over time. The conditions and environment a weapon has experienced will entirely control the evidence of its age. While Victorian copies of arms are certainly well known, particularly those of Ernst Schmidt and other ateliers, thier primary focus was on armour and weapons accompanying them. The common walloon type swords (of which this seems to be) and those of rank and file were easily available to any Victorian collector if they were so inclined, and to produce copies of weapons that could easily be found in heaps in junk shops seems unlikely. For some time in recent years there seems to have been a trend with many European auctions and dealers to overclean and 'restore' antique weapons. Much of this I would suspect was to disguise or conceal 'reassembled' or composite pieces. In any case these often garishly shiny weapons are saddening to see. This sword seems to have been cleaned, possibly chemically with the dull grayish cast, but even with that the pits, shadows and imperfections can still be seen, especially in the photo of the knuckle guard junction (with the X) which seems to still have some patination. The tragic attempt at bringing out the apparantly worn inscription that was probably stamped in the blade is truly a travesty, and the dot arrangement at fuller terminus looks machine drilled. As noted, the wire grip has been an attempt at rewrapping, and only skilled restorers are able to correctly accomplish this, especially with Turks heads properly aligned. I also agree with Atlantia, it would be great if we could all get together over drinks and brainstorm this! as it seems all the observations have distinct merit. Not arguments, just well qualified opinions All best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 22nd August 2008 at 02:23 PM.