[Manuel Kernbeis]

Hello dear Members,im in desperate need of help
I´ve recently bought a Sword for my Collection,
to be said , that normally im very careful with buying Antiques , especially rare old Objects like this ,
but i cant help it,there is something " wrong" with this sword..
i dont know ,maybe im just going slightly mad..

now heres the deal , yesterday i stumbled via google on this forum´s thread about Fake Swords..
Catawiki and " Special" Sellers-..low priced swords claimed to be authentic.
well , i´ve bought this sword from one of those sellers.

here are some measurements and Infos from the lot :

Total length: about 920 mm
Blade width: 65 mm
Guard: approx. 210mm
Pommel: Diameter 60 cm
Weight: 1650 grams
claimed to be an Oakeshott Xa , riverfind , Provenance : Arttrade Lucern Switzerland, then Vinelz and germany..

thanks and Greetz
Manuel

[Michael Beeching]

Just a quip from me, because I am not an expert...

...That is not a Type X in any sense. It is a Type XV:

http://myArmoury.com/feature_spotxv.html

Note that there is no broad blade or even a fuller (at least what I can see from the images).

This is what a Type X would be:

http://myArmoury.com/feature_spotx.html

Is your sword real? It certainly exists, but it looks to be an older generation of weapon than a Type X. It certainly looks purposeful, or at least it used to.

[JG Elmslie]

Now, the disclaimer I must say is, I'm not holding the object, I only have your photos to go by, and as such, this is nothing more than my personal opinion.

I hate to be a naysayer and disappoint, but I would not put a bid on it if it were on auction, and I'm very suspect of its origin. I feel that your gut instinct, that there is something wrong with this is very accurate.


As has already been said, its not a Type Xa - its closest to Type XV, a sword from C. 1350-1500's in general form, there arent too many Type XVs that pre-date 1350. But that opens a number of question-marks, because the hilt is atypical for that sort of era, being very simple and dated for that period.
every period has particular fashions, and the flat Form G pommel I've seeing in the photos is one that's normally seen on earlier hilts. Its not a clear indicator, because you do get many later swords with that style still, but it is a warning symbol.
The same applies to the style 1 cross - its not in itself a clear identifier of date, you do find them later, but combined with the Form G pommel, it creates a dated style for that blade.

The big flashing warning sign really is the weight, 1.65kg. That is WAY too heavy for a real one of that length. You do get heavy examples, I've handled similarly weighted Type XV swords from the Castillon Hoard, but they have a 92cm blade, an overall length of about 110cm, but more importantly have far more structured geometry than this one, which is exceptionally vague in cross-section.
But that weight is about what you'd expect for something made of a bar of steel roughly chopped to shape, given a half-arsed grind to make it sort of slightly sharp-ish, and then dunked in acid to corrode down - the work of a lazy modern faker.

Combine the rather dated hilt form with the excessive mass, and it screams forgery to me.

There are a number of other details that I'm spotting too, but I'd rather not list them all. The makers of this one are probably reading these threads, and I'd rather not help them along with their next product.

In all, it could be real... but I suspect not. Sorry.

[J.D. Crawford]

IMHO, it looks like an early XV.

The simple type 1 cross / type G pommel combination may be typical of the earlier XVs (circa 1300).

See possible examples here: http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=27918

It's certainly on the heavy side. It looks like it might have a lenticular blade cross section (rather than the classic diamond cross section or hollow ground). A lenticular blade without a fuller will naturally tend to be heavy. This also may be a feature of some of the possible early XVs shown above, as well as a later heavy one shown in Oakeshott's 'Records'.

Not saying its real, just saying I don't think you can rule it out on form alone. What you need is some hands-on testing.

[Manuel Kernbeis]

Thank you for the effort ,Guys!
much appreciated-
i was curios about the weight because yet i did not weighed the Sword on my own , i posted the measurements and Informations that was used on the lot..
i was surprised by the result :
1360 gramms instead of the listed 1650 gramm..
not sure if this is a big game changer though^^

[J.D. Crawford]

[Alexander Ehlers]

Look for any signs of consistant wear. Something that's faked will be even throughout, and also look for any sharp edges on the 'wear' or corroded places.
I'm not a expert on vintage swords, so take my advice with a grain of salt. But the grip I'd imagine to be in much better shape than the rest of the sword, as it would've been wrapped in wood and leather originally. I could be wrong, but many antiques have the hidden areas typically in better shape than the rest, or vice versa; like a vintage musket where the bottom of the barrel is more worn than the outside, because moisture got in there. Or the other way around , where the exposed barrel is more worn than the underneath.

The other people are right, the weight is suspicious but that is not to say that some originals didn't get that heavy. If it's a reasonable weight, then that's still open possibility to being authentic.

[Alexander Ehlers]

I forgot to mention, if there's any way to see if the tang is made out of softer iron than the rest of the blade.
Vintage swords for centuries had wielded on tangs, of a softer metal than the rest of the sword. This made it more durable because there isn't as much force being exerted on the tang. Wheras if the tang was the same hardened steel, the tang would snap in half and the sword wouldn't be as repairable ; (problem that happens with repro swords).