[Jim McDougall]

What Victrix says is very true, it is often the case where a weapon seems 'too good to be true', and inclinations are to declare them 'inauthentic' . However as well noted, most of these early weapons were indeed individually produced, and not always by the same maker, despite often in shops, so degrees of variation must be expected. These makers of course followed certain trends and conventions with the weapons they produced, but the execution and character of various elements of the weapons could vary in accord with the level of skill of the maker or his workers.

There remains the case where published weapons involving certain characteristic and highly desirable forms seem to appear offered in the arms dealers inventory or in auctions, which are an uncanny match to the published examples, following virtually every nuance of the published example.

With the very sparsity of surviving examples, coupled with the probability of such examples after centuries which do survive, coming from virtually the same shop or maker, the odds of authentic parity seem relativity unlikely, however certainly not impossible.

Only careful hands on examination by those with forensic expertise and considerable experience with these forms can truly scrutinize the example in question. Simply 'matching' items with examples in references and from photos, while offering plausibility, cannot be the final word without more professional examining.

As noted, even by true experts such as Mr. Oakeshott, there are many instances where much later productions of early weapons stood for years in museums and important collections as originals. The most well known artisan of these kinds of reproductions was Ernst Schmitt of Munich, in the late 19th century into early 20th whose works indeed often were among these cases.

The best we can do here is responsibly acknowledge the recognized character of the weapon discussed as 'appearing' to be such and such, without harsh declaration of less than authentic character (inflammatory terms such as fake are hardly necessary). Constructive discussion should note the differences between the example being discussed and known examples published or with notable provenance, leaving the potential for the variations of the period recognized but not further evaluated.

I would add that personally, I also am very impressed by these examples shown and my caveat comments are meant in a general context.