Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Verdict: I don't know
First, dralin23, your skepticism is justified. Only very rarely can I either denounce or confirm authenticity from pictures, and this is not one of those rare obvious exceptions. If this is a forgery, it will not date back to Victorian times, but will be from the last two or so decades and most likely from eastern Europe where the forgers are growing ever so more proficient.
The overall form and relative dimensions appear to be within authentic limits. Your concerns about traces of active (red) rust in concealed places are well founded, but not absolutely denunciatory. The long hollow in the last picture appears to be a typical inset for the blade (the lower guard being loose and having been slid up against the upper guard for the photo).
Often forgeries will be over-decorated in hopes of fetching a higher price, but this sword appears to lack such elaborations. However, usually a Peterson type K (5 lobed pommel with parallel lobes) will have added decoration.
So, in the end, I do not know and I am not even sure that I would know if it were before me in good light. Is there any evidence of an iron inlaid inscription in the blade or traces of perished hilt non-ferrous overlay?