I believe Jim has revealed the reason for the abundance on decoration on the blade.
Since the original question was mainly about the blade , that was the only part I chose to comment on.
Now after the discussion about the pommel and type of guard has begun, I will take the liberty to comment on this to.
The blade is clearly 16th C no doubts about that and although the pommel and guard have the correct style for the blade I believe them to be of a later date.
Im sorry but the guard is just not 16th C, at best 17th or even 18th C and indeed assembled with the fighting blade for further use as a ceremonial or a sword of justice.
If we look at the alloy and metal surface of the cross guard we see it is different than that of the blade, it is also forged in a different manner. The patina and oxidation clearly show a very different pattern, very visible on the blade in all places and absent on all parts of the guard, the guard has just some light orange rust which can be cleaned of with some steel wool 000 were using steel wool on the blade this would have zero effect. One could argue that the guard is cleaned, But this is not the case because all lines of the cross guard are still sharp and as fresh as the day they were made.
I hope I have not offended anyone by clearing this up, after all the sword is still a valuable historical piece with a prolonged use for a different function.
Kind regards
Ulfberth
|