anyone bid on this?

[chevalier]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=140252711551

[Atlantia]

Well, it made reasonable money, but I have to say my first impression was 'victorian copy'.
Hope I haven't offended anyone.
I know its clearly been cleaned, but it just doesn't look like its got real age to me. Don't like the patina, the patterns of pitting, no evidence of ageing in recesses between shell bars and pierces sheets, the look of the metal seems newer than 17thC, the wire binding....
And the chiselled inscription looks completely out of place.
Sorry if anyone is involved, just my opinion.

What did you think Fernando?

[Lee]

The technical quality (or, rather, lack thereof) of the inscription is also very disturbing for me.

[Andrew]

Hammer and chisel from Home Depo on that inscription.

[M ELEY]

I agree, modern or LATE Victorian at best. Don't like the wiring on the hilt either. And that inscription? Yikes!!

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Hammer and chisel from Home Depo on that inscription.

Well put!

[Marc]

Well... Ok, the inscription is horribly done... but that's it. Inscribed with a flat chisel and a round punch, probably. Plus the fleur-de-lis stamp, of course. It might be even period, done as an afterthought or by/for a Catholic user or who knows why. Or a sad atempt by a late dealer to add some kind of distinctive feature to a weapon of quite a common typology. And, yes, the wiring of the hilt is also probably a replacement (having it on hand would allow us to see how well the turk's heads fit, for example, as a gauge for this possibility).

But, to be frank, the rest of it looks fairly kosher to me. Central Europe, 17th or even 18th century, "Walloon"-type hilt.
Oh, and, of course, it isn't a rapier

Just another opinion, of course

[katana]

Originally Posted by Marc

Well... Ok, the inscription is horribly done... but that's it. Inscribed with a flat chisel and a round punch, probably. Plus the fleur-de-lis stamp, of course. It might be even period, done as an afterthought or by/for a Catholic user or who knows why. Or a sad atempt by a late dealer to add some kind of distinctive feature to a weapon of quite a common typology. And, yes, the wiring of the hilt is also probably a replacement (having it on hand would allow us to see how well the turk's heads fit, for example, as a gauge for this possibility).

But, to be frank, the rest of it looks fairly kosher to me. Central Europe, 17th or even 18th century, "Walloon"-type hilt.
Oh, and, of course, it isn't a rapier

Just another opinion, of course

I have to agree with Marc, personally I think the inscription was a fraudulent attempt to increase its value, but, that is just an opinion, its a shame that an antique is vandalised if this is the case.

If you look at the inscription, the first two letters are relatively 'clean' and evenly spaced....then suddenly it becomes a bit haphazard. Unless the 'engraver' had a very short attention span and lost 'interest' . Likely, it was thought 'too neat' and to try and make it look 'more period' the inscription was continued in a 'rougher' style Also the blade area around the inscription is much 'cleaner', near the hilt is untouched, as is the area just after it (inscription) (not so noticeable in the pic below) I think that more signs of corrosion within the 'troughs' of the lettering would also be apparent

Regards David

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Atlantia

... What did you think Fernando?

I didn't open this thread on the first impulse ... i am not an eBayer, nor the bidding reference strikes me.
Anyhow i don't have mileage enough in this (any ?) specific field to judge by pictures; Marc knows more about these things, while he is sleeping, than me fully awake .
I completely subscribe his coments ... if i am allowed. The inscription could either be a "modern" knock off or a crude period addition. Nothing (much) wrong with period additions; it happens a lot with weapons, finely or humbly done, i would say.
As Marc also says, the sword is a real one, despite rewiring and misplaced turk head/s ; they probably called it a rapier, due to the guard bars being a little intrincate.
However the price is some high, though ... specially from where it comes .
Fernando

[Atlantia]

*phew*
I'm just glad you weren't the buyer/seller! lol

(Note to self: Don't always be the first to venture an opinion)

[Atlantia]

I still don't think its old. In fact the more I look the newer it seems.

Look at the recesses in the shells and the perforations.
Also no difference in patination from the inside of the shells to the outside.
Its a 'wrong-un'.

Besides! When you list a sword, obviously you use the 'keyword' for its generic type, but why would anyone trust that much cash to a sellers opinion of authenticity when the seller can't tell a rapier from a broadsword?

In my humble opinion its a reasonably modern piece and he's dated it from 10 full seconds of 'ooh thats similar' google research.

I used to know some guys who played weekend-civil-war in the 'sealed knot' and they had better looking broadswords.
Which now 15 years later are probobly due to appear on ebay very soon as 17th century! LOL

I would post some pics of a Rapier of mine for comparison but the flash is making its old patination look ghastly.

[Marc]

I'm afraid that the final aspect of the patination/corrosion is an exclusive result of the unique environmental conditions under which that particular item has been. I've personally seen 17th c. rapier blades 100% mineralized, as well as Roman gladii ready to be hilted and used again. Environmental conditions and restoration processes are everything, in this regard.
Not to mention that patination is one of the first skills any arms & armour dealer, with any aspiration of success, acquires... as do collectors, as well
I don't mean that the state of the surface corrosion is, of course, something to be ignored, by any means, but it's just another of the tools we have to use when evaluating a piece, and must be approached with all the necessary cautions. It can also be among the hardest things to assess through the use of photographs...
By the way, I think David can be onto something very interesting... the part of the blade corresponding to the inscription is not only cleaner but it seems that it's also slightly "narrower", edge-to-edge wise, (“waisted”, if you want) as if it has been slightly ground down. That made me think that in fact this inscription can be a "creative reconstruction" of a previous one, partly erased due to the initial corrosion plus not having been struck too deeply to start with. After the clean-up, some "artistic license" may have been applied with the remaining "strokes". Following this line of thought, my candidate for the original inscription would be a perfectly common, given the period and the typology, "IN ALAMANIA" ("in Germany", as a reference of the place of production).

P.D. Fernando, you give too much credit to my knowledge and far too little to your own, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your kind words anyway. You're a Cabaleiro.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by Marc

I'm afraid that the final aspect of the patination/corrosion is an exclusive result of the unique environmental conditions under which that particular item has been. I've personally seen 17th c. rapier blades 100% mineralized, as well as Roman gladii ready to be hilted and used again. Environmental conditions and restoration processes are everything, in this regard.
Not to mention that patination is one of the first skills any arms & armour dealer, with any aspiration of success, acquires... as do collectors, as well
I don't mean that the state of the surface corrosion is, of course, something to be ignored, by any means, but it's just another of the tools we have to use when evaluating a piece, and must be approached with all the necessary cautions. It can also be among the hardest things to assess through the use of photographs...
By the way, I think David can be onto something very interesting... the part of the blade corresponding to the inscription is not only cleaner but it seems that it's also slightly "narrower", edge-to-edge wise, (“waisted”, if you want) as if it has been slightly ground down. That made me think that in fact this inscription can be a "creative reconstruction" of a previous one, partly erased due to the initial corrosion plus not having been struck too deeply to start with. After the clean-up, some "artistic license" may have been applied with the remaining "strokes". Following this line of thought, my candidate for the original inscription would be a perfectly common, given the period and the typology, "IN ALAMANIA" ("in Germany", as a reference of the place of production).

P.D. Fernando, you give too much credit to my knowledge and far too little to your own, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your kind words anyway. You're a Cabaleiro.

Of course I appreciate what you're saying, but experience also gives us a gut feeling, and mine is that its not anywhere near 17thC.
Having pondered it at possibly more length than I should, I am back at my Victorian date now.
Enviromental conditions are of course the cause of oxidisation, but lets look at this (if authentic) quite ordinary sword, and imagine the luck it must have had for 300 years to never encounter any adverse conditions, but need what looks to have been quite serious restoration.
Then to be sold to someone who knows virtually nothing about swords of that era who puts it on ebay.

Not to mention that every part has something 'not right' about it.

As you say, I've also seen very old blades in excellent condition. But almost completely (for its 'age') rust free 17th century swords sold by obvious novices on ebay?
Perhaps I'm not as trusting as I once was.

Two things spring to mind.

1/ If it smells like......... It probobly is...........

And, (pun intended) 'Ockham's razor'
2/ the simplest explanation is often the truth.

Of course I freely admit that without holding the thing in person and examining it, none of us can be sure either way.

Regards
Gene

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Atlantia

Of course I appreciate what you're saying, but experience also gives us a gut feeling, and mine is that its not anywhere near 17thC.
Having pondered it at possibly more length than I should, I am back at my Victorian date now.
Enviromental conditions are of course the cause of oxidisation, but lets look at this (if authentic) quite ordinary sword, and imagine the luck it must have had for 300 years to never encounter any adverse conditions, but need what looks to have been quite serious restoration.
Then to be sold to someone who knows virtually nothing about swords of that era who puts it on ebay.

Not to mention that every part has something 'not right' about it.

As you say, I've also seen very old blades in excellent condition. But almost completely (for its 'age') rust free 17th century swords sold by obvious novices on ebay?
Perhaps I'm not as trusting as I once was.

Two things spring to mind.

1/ If it smells like......... It probobly is...........

And, (pun intended) 'Ockham's razor'
2/ the simplest explanation is often the truth.

Of course I freely admit that without holding the thing in person and examining it, none of us can be sure either way.

Regards
Gene

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

[Atlantia]

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]

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