[Jeff H.]

A few photos...Looking for help! Thanks!

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Jeff H.]

[Leo Todeschini]

My gut reaction is that they are not original pieces

They do not have the finesse that these pieces usually do.

The second piece has a tooled guard, but there is nothing on the pommel - doesn't look right to me.

Tod

[Nicholas A. Gaese]

I second that, they both look like reproductions from the same maker. They seem off and lack the form and detail of originals, especially the second piece for the reason Tod gave, but even the type of embelishment on the guard makes me wonder....



Regards.

[Sean Flynt]

It's hard to tell from the photos, but those blades have the look of some 19th c. pieces that were treated with acid to mimic the corrosion of centuries.

It's important to note that 19th c. arms and armour reproductions are collected for their own merits, and sometimes command high prices at auction. http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_schmidt.html

Those that are done well can still be used to represent the given type in exhibits as long as they are correctly identified and, ideally, if their variance from originals is pointed out. Many a fine museum has composite armour and arms, with original parts long ago married to 19th c. parts for aesthetic or commercial reasons. Wallace Collection, for one, still displays such but clearly describes these in published notes.

One of the shocking things about armour study is the realization that there are very few complete surviving harnesses. Of course, every great museum has many harnesses. They're composites--old matched to unrelated old, old matched to new, good restorations, bad restorations, significant repairs and replacements, etc.