Specifications
weight: 1.4 kg
length +/- 91 cm
length of the blade: +/- 75 cm
width of the blade: +/- 6 cm
length of the rocket: +/- 10 cm
head size: +/- 5 cm
The thickness of the blade, all along the central ridge, is :
- 7mm at the height of the guard,
- 5mm in the center
- 3 mm on the side of the thrust.

https://ibb.co/j8g3NJ
https://ibb.co/fjewbd
https://ibb.co/gKKjUy
https://ibb.co/cCZZUy
https://ibb.co/hnOTpy
https://ibb.co/eq1sGd
https://ibb.co/e6czwd
https://ibb.co/hetKUy
https://ibb.co/gMhXGd
https://ibb.co/g2gsGd
https://ibb.co/gVmW9y

No "Holly Peter", you can't play because like me you know... :lol:

Give us a clue : is this one of those swords that some maker, who will remain nameless, took forever to finish and deliver to a discouraged customer ?

Well if it's a fake someone took a nice sword reproduction and ruined it. It's got more distal taper than I'd expect from a repro you'd be willing to convert into a fake relic. I'm still more on the fake side of things.

The pommel shape does look somewhat modern... The perfectly rectangular socket of the pommel is kinda suspect to me as well.

The corrosion appears to be very even along the entirety of the sword, and for its colour I think it ought to be in worse shape overall, yet the crossguard seems to be absolutely snug to the blade.
Some of the edge damage also jars with the rest of the sword. Very pronounced and jagged. Kinda what I'd expect of a Del Tin that is used for forceful stage fights.

I'm going to go with a pretty decent quality replica that someone did a pretty decent job of aging, perhaps for decorative purposes. I agree with the previous comment that the edge damage looks like something that occurred during theatrical use (I have a friend who used a replica in that way during a high school play, and it looks similar). It also seems, well, recent. On a related note, there seems to be bare metal peeking out from the patina in several places, including on the nicks. I would not expect that on something that was really as old as this sword would be were it genuine.

I'm wanting to say it's an original. But, if it's a fake, it's a pretty damn good one. :wtf: .....McM

As others have observed, the pommel looks funny. The width of the inner circle pommel in proportion to the pommel as a whole looks more like something I have seen on modern swords. The mass of the sword at 1.4 kg seems a bit high. While not damning in itself, I notice the lack of inlay, which can still be seen on swords of this Type (XV.1, 5, 6 of Records, for instance). So I think it's a fake, too.

Looks like there's red rust present in some pictures. If so, I'd lean towards "good fake".

Hmmm Del Tin ... this sword model is not in their catalog. Another suggestion. Nobody has seen this model in a recent blacksmith?

Blows in the blade (weak parts) seem recent. Maybe a child who played?
The hits on the strong part are not similar ....

Exact pommel is abnormal. It does not match the type of blade and guard. He even seems to miss a rivet on the head of the pommel. It's as if we had reforged the pommel. But if it's a good fake reproduction why put an incoherent pommel?

Real, Historismus or fake ... You seem to say that it is still well done. Maybe other pictures ...?

There's no pinching of the tang where it inserts into the pommel. Also the tang looks too consistent in thickness to be a genuine antique.

Some more pictures

https://ibb.co/cedi7J
https://ibb.co/iGYBuy
https://ibb.co/mTSX1d
https://ibb.co/i9vKgd
https://ibb.co/nbx71d
https://ibb.co/kJRjgd

A good maker? :p

Eh eh!

No :mad: Great Peter you can't write anything here (for now ...)!

Real :D , Fake :eek: , or Real Fake :evil: .

Some more pictures taken with a microscope.

https://ibb.co/nxqKHJ
https://ibb.co/exSujy
https://ibb.co/haAKHJ
https://ibb.co/cWoH4y
https://ibb.co/cLw1xJ
https://ibb.co/dGiEHJ
https://ibb.co/jkp4HJ
https://ibb.co/bYFYBd
https://ibb.co/hkSVrd
https://ibb.co/dF8aPy

Ok Peter, if you want you can. But this is not an obligation... :p

Hmm, I think I would be wary of this for a couple of specifics reasons. I would not want to make a judgement until I had it in hand but definitely a couple of points for serious questions to be asked. What is the COG?

Craig

Pob approximatly 8cm from the guard

95% sure fake.

mainly because the edges look like damage from slamming that guy against another metal thing, not from corrosion. Organic erosion, even if it is sharp and V shaped in places usually feels organic. The few pics showing rolled dents are telling.

Real.

Red rust can come back into view on an old sword. The knicks, from striking a sharp object can be real. The edge looks like it was sharpened with a stone, rare on a fake. The cross is weird to be inlaid with a latten metal, but if you know enough to do all the other stuff, why would you chose to put something weird like that in, fakers go for normal?

It also is so correct, and perfect, and then the guard/pommel are off center, you see this on originals not good fakes. Im going with original!

Z

:p really funny and in the same time worrisome.

A little comparison between two swords from a different age can give an answer?

[ Linked Image ]

So what's the answer? I am not experienced enough with real medieval artifacts to be able to tell which of these (your first one or the two for comparison above) are real and which are fake. For my own education I would love to know, especially if there's proof such as demonstrated use of an identifiable modern repro.