Can some of you have a look at this 1804 cutlass and tellme if you this the age/pitting looks good or faked? The hilt has been repainted which has caused me some concern...

---

 Attachment: 71 KB



 Attachment: 40.74 KB



 Attachment: 77.24 KB



 Attachment: 48.9 KB



 Attachment: 42.41 KB



 Attachment: 60.2 KB



 Attachment: 68.51 KB



 Attachment: 54.02 KB

More pics of the hilt as well as other parts of this cutlass ....

---

 Attachment: 53.44 KB



 Attachment: 45.12 KB



 Attachment: 56.82 KB



 Attachment: 36.34 KB



 Attachment: 109.85 KB



 Attachment: 44.46 KB



 Attachment: 30.4 KB



 Attachment: 19.47 KB

and the rest of the pics are here for your comments....

---

 Attachment: 19.47 KB



 Attachment: 38.93 KB



 Attachment: 56.15 KB



 Attachment: 12.59 KB

These picks have been on another Forum open for discussion...I'm attemting to get a different perspective on this issue if you have read these posts somewhere else I appologize.


Brian

The blade marks, the degree and depth of pitting...it looks good to me. But this isn't my period of interest. I wish I knew more but I'm sure some other folks around here do.

I do not know whether this cutlass is real or fake. Unfortunately, I am no expert of both real and fake swords. Just ask anyone who knows about this.

While it appears to be "correct" pitting and corrosion, I guess I have to ask (although if you prefer not to answer that's okay, if it figures into negotiations, etc.) do you have any suspicion that it is not authentic?
Because a soak in a bucket of sea water or storage in a salt-fog atmosphere would certainly push something along pretty quickly.
If this is at hand, you could certainly look closely into crevices, etc. to see if that revealed any inconsistencies.

To me, it looks "right". I don't see anything to suggest that it is anything other than genuinely old.