Main > The Armoury

Antique Sword or just a Good Copy?

<< < (2/3) > >>

Sir James A:
I'd feel rather safe in saying it's not a modern repro. It's really hard to tell from the pics, the slight waviness in the blade and blade edge, look to be hand-made. The pitting, as Sir Edward said, seems to look right in the pics.

The seller has a good number of antiques for sale (http://shop.ebay.com/sunnytampa/m.html?_trksid=p4340.l2562), but most of them seem to be the last ~200 years. If that sword IS indeed from 1300, it looks to be in very good shape for 800 years old, to be in the hands of a random seller/collector. It's possible, but I'd put my weight towards guessing a Victorian Era repro that was poorly cared for or specifically distressed.

That said, I'm in no way an expert, I just enjoy looking at pointy things.

Sir Edward:

Also, well preserved swords from that era sell for considerably more. The price is more appropriate to a Victorian reproduction as well.

Das Bill:
It's possibly a Victorian piece, at best. It could also very easily be a 20th century theater prop. While one can never fully judge based off of pictures (particularly slightly blurry pics like the seller has), I feel I can safely say it isn't medieval. The guard certainly isn't, that's for sure. The blade looks pretty shoddy, and is probably a boat anchor based on what I can see of the taper and shape (though it's hard to tell). The crescent moons are a European decoration, but much later period (I haven't seen them before the 18th century), and since they are stamped rather than engraved, that means they had to be put on before the blade was hardened (*if* it is hardened), so it means the blade can't be that old. And, as Ed points out, if it were the real deal, that sword would be selling well over the 10K mark, if not higher for it's condition.


--- Quote from: James Anderson III on 2011-06-22, 18:16:12 ---I'd feel rather safe in saying it's not a modern repro. It's really hard to tell from the pics, the slight waviness in the blade and blade edge, look to be hand-made. The pitting, as Sir Edward said, seems to look right in the pics.
--- End quote ---

I have to disagree. I've seen modern reproductions "aged" to look more authentic than this piece does. The pitting is very, very easy to fake. And the waviness only means that they did a bad job of grinding... you see the same thing in all of the cheap $20 decorator swords from Pakistan. If anything, the waviness makes it seem more likely to be closer to modern made than anything (though that alone isn't proof).

Das Bill:
Based on the description and the other items the seller is selling, I suspect the seller is pretty ignorant of medieval weapons, so it is easy for him to believe that this sword is from the 14th century. The more I look at it, though, the more I think it's a 20th century piece at the earliest. That blade looks like junk, but at least the maker got the overall proportions right. I don't think it's a "fake", per se, and I do think it's probably "antique" in the sense that it might be about a hundred years old. I just don't buy for a second that it's what the seller thinks it is.

Sir Edward:
Yeah, the more I looked at it, the more suspicious I got. The guard doesn't look historical to me, but I didn't want to dismiss it outright since there's a lot out there I haven't seen. The blade's geometry looks pretty poor, as does the grinding.

It could be a theater prop, but I don't think they'd have taken the time to put the crescents on if that was its intended use, since it wouldn't be visible from the audience. It could just be a repro.

Who knows, it could be a Victorian or 20th century repro that got thrown in a shed for a few decades.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page