[C.L. Miller]

My apologies if this post violates forum rules... this is a link to a current auction on ebay, but it is my guess that the particulars of the sword being auctioned will be of great interest to many on this site - I personally have neither seen nor heard of its like before.
This appears to be something very, very special and I personally feel that it is a tragedy that this wonderful blade will soon disappear into a private collection, possibly never to be seen again.
http://cgi.ebay.com/EFTIS-HIGHLY-IMPORTANT-An...dZViewItem




edit: As this sword was reportedly found in near the Danube, it is not necessarily of Viking origin - the title of this thread was merely meant to indicate the era and "style" of the sword.

[Patrik Erik Lars Lindblom]

Oooh Man! i am lost

[E.B. Erickson]

Looking at the way the wave designs are deeply inset into the blade, I wonder if this originally had silver (or other soft metal) inlay in the pattern.

--ElJay

[C.L. Miller]

I was at first reminded of the "smith inlays" as seen on the reverse of the Ulfberht blades, where pattern welded rods are arranged in basic patterns, but this appears more detailed than any example of that I've yet seen, with the "waves" actually forming zoomorphic heads. A soft metal inlay would seem to be a definite possibility, although the relative plainess of the hilt may speak against it. Regardless, it must have been an astounding blade to behold.
Does anyone know anything more about the "cold-chiseled" method of engraving mentioned in the text?

-C.L.Miller

[Russ Thomas]

Well folks, call me old Mr. cynical, but sorry , this sword does not seem to ring true to me. For the level of overall pitting how come the lines and edges of the pattern along the blade are still so neat and clean ? Also the way the quillon is cut out to receive the blade, both on the bottom edge and the grip side, The one on the top edge looks very neat and tidy stilI , and as for the ones on the grip side....? I just don't like it. The overall pitting is extremely even , apart from where the decoration is, but this level of even pitting is possible. The other thing that I am not happy about is the edge - it is still looks extremely straight and even , apart from the last couple of inches or so.
This seller has some extremely 'rare' piece ,which have never been seen before and which all seem to have no verifiable provenence. The only person who has this many beautiful and rare items is Peter Finer, and they nearly all have virifiable provenances.
No, sorry, not for me ! All in all i am not happy about it. I would still have it as a wall hanger though It is pretty.

Perhaps Peter Johnsson will add a few remarks and thoughts, as he has handled quite a few genuine examples and I unfortunately have only ever actually handled one.

Regards as ever,

Russ

[Jesse Frank]

Does anyone know anything more about the "cold-chiseled" method of engraving mentioned in the text?



It's just engraving.


When you engrave something, you are basically cold chiseling a design

[Russ Ellis]

[Chad Arnow]

[Guy Thomas]

In an eBay auction the worry about fakes is always present. While an auction house might bring a higher price (eBay has had some very high auctions though) they also charge a hefty percentage of the sale I would imagine. I am of course as skeptical as the rest of you.

However, if it is a fake it seems to be an extremely well done fake made by a fairly knowledgeable individual. The blade and furniture seems to have been made from a "fibrous" iron or steel such as the average wrought iron would exibit. The overall shape and proportions are right including a rounded tip. The tang seems to have been welded together in the middle. The overall pitting/corrosion seems to my untrained eye fairly consistent with what might be associated with a well preserved river find and the depth and pattern of corrosion in the engraving seems similar to that of swords with a documented provenance. The time and energy involved to make a fake of this caliber seems more work than the return would warrant unless it did bring in possibly tens of thousands of dollars.

I am definitely interested in hearing what other members with actual museum artifact experience have to say about this sword! Unfortunately I believe an in person examination would be required to say for sure.

I do believe this might be my first post here, so I should introduce myself and say hello! I'm a 43 year old part time bladesmith living here in Tallahassee, Florida and have been fired up anew by the swords from the Viking Age by my friend and maker Jesse Frank who has been encouraging me to make forays into the world of swordmaking. I'm also the proud new owner of Alfred Geibig's book in German on swords from this time period and the following centuries. Man I wish I knew German, but learning will be fun too!

[Peter Johnsson]

First let me be first to welcome you Guy.
Hope you find this forum inspirational!

On the sword above: I feel as guarded as many others about the authenticity.
To be really sure one would have to see it in person, I think.
There is something about it that does not quite ring true, but I find it diffucult to point out just what it is.
There is something about the evenness with how the iron inlay is rusted away. You see that effect, but it is normally not that uniform in wear. It also looks a bit like it has been selectively etched, rather than effect of an forge welded inlay has been rusted away. The strandiness of the pattern looks odd.
The Steel/iron of the blade is strandy in appearance, but you can mimic that even with modern 1050steel (at least the swedish version...)
What suggests something more authentic is that there seems to be a more homgenous surface layer that when rusted through shows a more stranded structure beneath. That is a tell tale sign of steel covering a softer core.
So far so good, but there is something about the wave patterns that feels a bit off.
Also something vaguely strange about the corrosion...
I am undecided but lean towards a contemporary piece.

EDIT:
I have now read the text on the eBay site.
I feel even more sceptical.
Especially this part (and I quote):
"The engraving itself is of Characteristic Viking "cold chiseled" form - a technique performed by the Ancient Smith when the blade was untempered (and thus not so hard). It left a characteristic jagged /coarse appearance, and is in stark contrast to later Swords of the High Medieval Period, where engraving and inlay techniques evolved into an fine precision artform."
This is total gibberish.
There is no example of cold-chiseled decoration in blades like the text implies. Complete fantasy.
I wonder if this is a kind of confession of how the pattern was made by the contemporary smith? A misunderstanding of the iron inlays forgewelded into the blade that you normally see? Originally these inlays would have been forge-welded into the blade without any previous grooving or chiselling: the pattern-welded strips were simply placed on top of the blade and hammered in place while at welding heat.

Another detail that strikes me as a bit strange is the proportions between the pommel and the guard: the pommel is markedly more fat that the guard. They should normally be more similar in charachter. If a pommel of this type (two part, and lobed) is this voluminous, then the guard typically is thicker across as well.
Of course it is possible to find exceptions to this as with everything, but it is just another thing with this sword that feels a bit off.

Again, to be really sure, one would have to see the sword first hand.
If it is a fake, it is made with great enthusiasm and quite a bit of skill.

[Alex Oster]

I guess, when I see something ~that~ intact, I have to be with everyone her in thinking something is off.

[Gene Davis]

This is a small point, but the seller is identifying this sword as an "Oakeshott type X, Wheeler type VII",
but in comparing it to a chart of Petersen's typology, and examples from "Swords of the Viking Age" by Ian Peirce, pp. 110-113, imo it clearly looks like a Petersen type U, Wheeler type VII. Perhaps this is due to limiting their reference to Oakeshott's "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry", which may or may not be the best source for i.d.-ing Viking Age swords. There may also be some confusion between Petersen' s type X (as in "A-Z"), and Oakeshott's type X (Roman numeral 10). Again, a small point, but I thought it worth mentioning.

[Patrick Kelly]

Welcome to myArmoury Guy.

Where did you find a copy of Geibig's book?

[Jesse Frank]

Heh Heh... I don't know where he found it, but it's sitting in my living room now.....


I want to clarify on the meaning of my earlier post, too. I didn't mean to suggest that engraving is the way that it was done, what I meant was that you are basically cold chiseling when you engrave, unless your using a rotory tool or laser or whatever

[C.L. Miller]

Too good to be true I guess... I suppose I need to work on being a bit less gullible, but it's awfully tough at 4am...
at anyrate, I'll make a point of doing a bit more research in the furture before wasting everyone's time.


http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index....;topicseen
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s...nextnewest

sorry everyone.

-C.L.Miller

[Patrick Kelly]

C.L.,

You aren't waisting anyones time so there's no need to apologize. Learning to spot a potential forgery is just as valuable as learning to recognize the real thing. No worries.

[Chad Arnow]

[Patrick Kelly]

[J. Padgett]

If this is such an important antique why is the person holding it in the pictures not wearing gloves? It looks nice, and I'm not qualified to judge its authenticity, but the idea of an authentic viking era sword showing up on ebay is patently ridiculous (at least to me).

[Guy Thomas]