again a little game. Real or Fake... That's the question!
Holly "Peter J" knows already the answer, but you?
https://ibb.co/nhA2CT
https://ibb.co/d7xXCT
https://ibb.co/jQRsCT
https://ibb.co/eCPvXT
https://ibb.co/bJADK8
https://ibb.co/ekr9sT
https://ibb.co/m73YK8
https://ibb.co/mo02CT
:D
The parallel sides of the tang, the tight tolerance with which the parts fit together and the lack of the fuller extending into the tang even a little bit leads me to think it's at least a bit fishy. Neither of those are enough to actually prove it's a fake IMO, but it feels a bit fishy to me. It would be useful to compare it's dimensions, proportions and details to the two others with this kind of pommel (at least there are two that I know of, could be more).
good remarks
can you put the pictures of the two that you know ...
can you put the pictures of the two that you know ...
Perfect fitting of roughly finished furniture? Uniform deterioration across the whole weapon? Count me in the NOPE column.
One thing with these..compare the thickness of the tangs and see just how close they are to modern day measurements. If they're close to todays standard measurements..I'd be very suspicious.
please ignore..duplicate post
Last edited by Ralph Grinly on Thu 12 Jul, 2018 4:51 am; edited 2 times in total
Here are the other two I know about. One looks real to me, one looks fake.
Tang has no distal taper, neither longitudinal nor cross section, which is pretty strange.
Fuller not extending into the tang is more the norm in originals, I have seen or handled several.
None devoid of distal taper, though (if I exclude an authentic, well documented river find from Legnago's Adige bottom, which exhibits extraordinary ugliness and unskilled hammering)
Patina looks strange but not so off the mark, it is not easy to reproduce original patina esp because of modern steels' characteristics.
I would ask for more data, especially about provenance.
Cross and blade have the right shape.
I really like it
Fuller not extending into the tang is more the norm in originals, I have seen or handled several.
None devoid of distal taper, though (if I exclude an authentic, well documented river find from Legnago's Adige bottom, which exhibits extraordinary ugliness and unskilled hammering)
Patina looks strange but not so off the mark, it is not easy to reproduce original patina esp because of modern steels' characteristics.
I would ask for more data, especially about provenance.
Cross and blade have the right shape.
I really like it
| J.D. Crawford wrote: |
| Here are the other two I know about. One looks real to me, one looks fake. |
Which? I am going around in circles, seeing either as real and either as fake from moment to moment.
| Chris Dayton wrote: | ||
Which? I am going around in circles, seeing either as real and either as fake from moment to moment. |
The lower one. A surviving grip on a sword like this is exceeding rare, especially one in such good condition. It's possible it could be a later grip added on, but it's still suspicious. Also, if you look at the blade, the look and feel is something similar to what you might see from a company like Albion, particularly the execution of the fuller. This doesn't condemn it automatically, but stylistically it feels a bit off from antique swords. Additionally, the sword's absence of patina is highly unusual, doubly so given that swords with lenticular cross sections were rarely maintained and kept in this good condition for centuries. All in all, it's unlikely to be real.
As for the original sword posted in this thread, my guess is fake. Given the unusual pommel form, which is seldom attested on surviving swords, one ought to be especially careful. My main reason for doubting the authenticity is that something about the proportions of the sword, blade and hilt feels more like a modern sword than a medieval one. I know red rust isn't a guaranteed indicator of a fake, but there seems to be a substantial amount on this sword. Also, it might just be the photo, but it looks as though someone deliberately tried to make the profile taper of the point section irregular, although I would be the first to admit that I could be wrong about the point. So I suspect it isn't real, but we'll see.
| J.D. Crawford wrote: |
| Here are the other two I know about. One looks real to me, one looks fake. |
About The lower one:
This sword is proposed by a vendor with nefarious reputation who regularly offers swords in exceptional conditions of conservation.
Each time its reproduction is of an extreme quality with certainly the use of old metal for the manufacture.
The budget at which these beautiful fake are sold allows the manufacture of models consistent with the originals but in this case it is the multitude of rare and exceptional pieces that must arouse the mistrust of buyers.
The subject is similar to the one I mentioned earlier about a group of helmet recently appeared on the market whose nobody does not know the previous origin…
https://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=36791
Best
Cerjak
Very interesting stuff, gents. Thanks for your insights.
| Craig Peters wrote: | ||||
The lower one. A surviving grip on a sword like this is exceeding rare, especially one in such good condition. It's possible it could be a later grip added on, but it's still suspicious. Also, if you look at the blade, the look and feel is something similar to what you might see from a company like Albion, particularly the execution of the fuller. This doesn't condemn it automatically, but stylistically it feels a bit off from antique swords. Additionally, the sword's absence of patina is highly unusual, doubly so given that swords with lenticular cross sections were rarely maintained and kept in this good condition for centuries. All in all, it's unlikely to be real. |
And certain subtle things, like the bottom one looks a bit overbuilt and chunky compared to the top one, lack of detail, symmetry, and overall elegance in the profile (at least suggesting it was not built by a true master), and an overall visual impression of whether the sword likely has proper harmonic balance (hard to explain or prove, but something one seems to pick up after years of study...perhaps it has something to do with PJ's system of geometric rules for swords).
I'd also put Xavier's sword in the 'suspicious' category, even more so after comparing it to one or more of the other swords he's posted, which seem to have certain similar characteristics even if the type is different.
[quote="J.D. Crawford"][quote="Craig Peters"]
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.... :p
| Chris Dayton wrote: | ||
Blablablablabla... :D And certain subtle things, like the bottom one looks a bit overbuilt and chunky compared to the top one, lack of detail, symmetry, and overall elegance in the profile (at least suggesting it was not built by a true master), and an overall visual impression of whether the sword likely has proper harmonic balance (hard to explain or prove, but something one seems to pick up after years of study...perhaps it has something to do with PJ's (my god you talk about Holly Peter. Do you know him? He is really nice system of geometric rules for swords). I'd also put Xavier's sword in the 'suspicious' category, even more so after comparing it to one or more of the other swords he's posted, which seem to have certain similar characteristics even if the type is different. |
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum