For me they are "definitely" the same.

As already mentioned quite frequently - they show identical battle damage/corrosion on the blade, identical flaking on the guard. The guard and pommel appear to be identical.

Even considering the poor photo quality (especially the slightly obscuring reflections on the glass in the second picture), all the perceptible features match 100%, from the overall design to the patterns of flaked gilding and the scant remains of cord on the grip. They're absolutely the same sword (unless one of them is an amazing, incredible, exquisite reproduction).

Hopefully people will simply look at the photos and vote in the poll. Where the photos come from or what baggage they have isn't the issue. Do the swords appear to be the same?

Whlie they do APPEAR the same, and I think that they are, I'm not 100% certain. Much of the wear/damage appears almost identical, however the pictures being at different angles makes it hard for me to be sure. Intriguing to say the least...

That's the same sword. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't have an eye for detail and is patently wrong.

Here's why:
1. The decay of the guard. Look at the bottom quillon on both swords. There are 3 sections of the gilding missing in the exact same spot and in the same pattern.
2. The nicks on the blade. There are two small nicks on the far edge of the blade. One small one closer to the guard, and another bigger one closer to the tip on both images.

The odds of 2 swords existing that are so similar and with the same wear and tear must be astronomical. I'm not a betting man, but I would bet against it.

Oh, I forgot one more reason. It's the same sword!

I'm squarely in the "I think so" camp. They appear to be nearly identical, but there are enough subtle differences to make me wonder if there isn't something else going on.

Already expressed my views on this. To me this should not even being up for debate.

Definitely the same sword. No question in my mind. Has anyone submitted enquiries to the museums to ask about the sword? I agree that if a company is going to cite an original sword as inspiration they should be more specific and reference an accession number.

I'd say they're the same.
Don't really understand why this is being debated, except to give DSA a little jostle.

The photo of the whole sword is a copy. If these are the same swords then the photo with the partial sword it has more of a patina all around or aged..

But...with crappy photos and not being able to hold it/then I'm probably 99.9% wrong either way...

Someone out there has that/these sword/s... Let's see some more photos..

1) In what I see the blade although the nicks are the same the blade, it almost seems they metal is more rough in those nicks by age or ageing ... again crappy photos

2)The pommel at center mass looks different , the one on the glass has a ring and maybe an recess half dome at center that I dont see in what I think is the copy of the whole sword photo...

3) The gold color flaking is also different more so on the pommel. The pommel at the base by the tang looks to be missing or patina, on thewhole sword photo it's gold colored suggesting newer to me, if it was cleaned why then just that one spot for example?

4) The whole sword photo, the fuller does not look right to me.

Pictures I took of the Sword in question. Actually this is a good excuse for me to go back there but full blade shots were difficult last I went. Too bad I let sand get into my cam lens and it's now stuck...

We can documents the Paris sword all we want, what's really needed here is more shots of the "ROM sword" but that won't be available, for obvious reasons.

pretty sure both photos are indicating the same sword. if they are two different swords, it might be a believe it or not moment for me.

for any matter, its pretty hard to make the same thing twice.

I've researched 3 swords (granted i wasn't able to get hands on) whose blades were nearly identical in measurements, distal taper, profile taper, fuller depth and length. yet, they all had minute differences, parrying lugs were different styles (yet in the same place if you overlay-ed the swords), quillons and guillion rings different styles (yet the same dimensions) pummel exactly the same sizes, and shapes, but different file work.

point I'm jabbing at, is that much like today's custom work, the same exact work does not seem to be seen in history. furthermore, no two swords would age the same unless they were kept in the exact same environment.

hopefully the museums that hold these 2 or 1 swords would be willing to co-operate and release some information about it.

Taken directly from the RMN - Grand Palais research pages:

Cote cliché: 07-515452
Inventory Number: PO 678, J
Fund: Militaria
Title: Sword
Description: Lettering in gilt brass, located on the central fuller: "Nulla de virtutibus tuis major clementia est" [Clemency is the greatest of your virtues].
Collection Georges Pauilhac
Photo credit: (C) Paris - Musée de l'Armée, Dist. RMN / Emilie Cambier
Period: Late Middle Ages (Western Europe)
Technique / Material: wood (material), rock crystal, leather (material), partially gilded, wrought iron (matter), brass
Production site: Europe (west) (source)
Overall length: 970 mm.
Location: Paris, Musée de l'Armé

If this sword is in the Royal Ontario Museum, then I'm a frenchman. (which, as Julien M could rapidly attest if he heard my terrible, terrible French, I'm clearly not.)

---

 Attachment: 17.51 KB



 Attachment: 19.45 KB



 Attachment: 20.13 KB



 Attachment: 12.27 KB



 Attachment: 28.71 KB



 Attachment: 27.64 KB

i think they look similar but because the angles are different to such a degree that im not so sure there seem to be more nicks on the bottom one that do not appear on the first one as well as so differences between the amount of flaking in the gilding so although its possible they are the same the pictures are to different to accurately tell. so just based on these pictures i would say they are not.