[Caleb Cox]

Hi everyone. I’d love your input on this piece.
I was in conversations with an antique dealer and came across this piece.
I purchased it and they didn’t know whether it was authentic or not. I didn’t pay a terribly expensive price for it, so I’m ok if it’s reproduction.
I know there’s some expert eyes on this forum, so I’d appreciate any insight you can give.
The guard and pommel are ivory. The handle is bone. The fittings are snug. It measures 24” overall and the handle is 3.2”. Thanks

[Matthew Amt]

I'm afraid it's not an antique, at least it doesn't date to *ancient* times. It simply isn't in the right condition. The hilt would be shrunken and cracked and discolored--there *are* some artifacts which are amazingly preserved, but even they don't look like this. And this blade shows both bare metal and active rust, which isn't right, either. Other details nag at me, but are not as definitive.

Sorry about that!

Matthew

[Mark Millman]

Dear Caleb,

I strongly doubt that this is authentic.

In your photos, the peen looks absolutely fresh. It also doesn't seem to have been made over any sort of washer or nut, which makes this at least unusual.

The finish on the hilt is too smooth. The exposed grain of very old ivory opens slightly, like wood's grain; bone does the same. See the ivory Roman hilt in the British Museum for an example. Also, while ivory will yellow over time if it's exposed to sunlight (it stays white when protected from light), the brown color here seems too dark. This looks more like mineralized mammoth ivory, or modern ivory with a stain applied, than ancient elephant ivory. Finally, it's not clear why the guard and pommel would be ivory but the grip would be bone.

The blade has a flat triangular area where it joins the hilt, where the central ridge widens toward the blade's shoulders. No surviving Roman blade is known to have a similar feature.

The blade's profile isn't right. It looks as though the maker wanted to give it a waisted shape, but put the waist too close to the hilt. To be fair, this could be an illusion produced by loss of the edges to corrosion, with the blade intended to have straight edges.

Finally, it seems very unlikely that were it authentic you could have gotten it for a price that wouldn't make you cry (OK, it would make me cry; you may well be more stoic about such things) if it's not. I have difficulty imagining that an original gladius in this condition wouldn't be a famous piece, the highlight of a major museum's collection or of one of the great private collections (such as Axel Guttmann's). In either case it would have a strong provenance and a correspondingly high price.

I can't say this is actually a forgery. It's perfectly possible that this was never meant to be be anything other than a reproduction, even in its aged state; but that its history was at some point lost, leading to confusion.

I'm sorry for the unfavorable opinion, but I hope this proves helpful.

Best,

Mark Millman

[Caleb Cox]

[Tyler C.]

I recognize that blade shape. It looks very close to a french pattern 1831 artillery sword. They have slightly varying degrees of waist on the blade, but the shape is very very close to what you have. You could likely take some measurements to confirm.

Picture from: http://www.ambroseantiques.com/swords/1832.htm

[Caleb Cox]

[Tyler C.]

[Caleb Cox]

[Joe A]

[Joe A]

Looking at your picture of where the blade enters the guard. I note there is no bronze or brass plate present - just wood. That's actually pretty authentic even though most modern "Roman" reproduction swords have those plates.

[Dan Howard]

When I purchase these kinds of items, I ask myself what would it cost to buy a similar reproduction on today's market. If the price is less then I buy it. That way, it doesn't matter whether it is authentic or not, it is still a good deal.

[Caleb Cox]

[Caleb Cox]

The only thing I will add is this:
There are examples of Ivory from this period that are dark and comparable to my specimen.
And there are blade types that are similar. Here are examples:

[Mark Millman]

Dear Caleb,

Indeed there are relatively dark surviving ivories, but their color tends to be uniform, unlike that on your pommel but like the guard of the Nijmegen gladius. Also, I think your pommel and guard are darker than any other ivories I can recall, but it's hard to tell when relying on electronic reproduction of photographs--there are just too many chances for the images not to be calibrated to the same standards, not to mention poor color reproduction by the computer.

I do always forget that the guard and grip (no doubt you know that the pommel is a reconstruction) of that Nijmegen gladius are in such good condition. I imagine the fact that it's a river-find helps explain the preservation of their surfaces.

Reverting to an earlier topic: To me, the grip of your sword looks like bone rather than ivory. The grain is looser and it seems to have pores that I don't expect to see in ivory. But I could well be wrong, especially on the basis of only a couple of photos.

I think that the blade types in that illustration from Bishop and Coulston's Roman Military Equipment are only superficially similar to your sword's blade. For example, the way your edges taper to the point is much more curved than in any of the drawing's examples.

But hey--none of this should interfere with your pleasure in the sword. As you point out, it wasn't terribly expensive, you knew that its being an ancient gladius was too good to be true, and it was the form and composition of the ivory hilt that persuaded you to buy it--which now you have. I'd call that a win.

Best,

Mark