Thank you all for your precious input, Gentlemen.
I confess i am somehow perplexed with the diverse opinions on this sword.
I have gone through a marathon like research on this Schiavona theme, with particular incidence in this specific example.
This now brings me a strong willing to post here what i have gathered, as a match or 'contradition' with what was already posted by you Gentlemen in this thread:
Starting by the origin
With all due great respect for Michl's friend Ottmar, after a struggling search and some phone calls i can not find any data appointing for Schiavonas having(also) been made in Portugal. As Jim quoted, these swords came down to Spain equiping mercenary troops (Schiavoni / Stradiots). We may even admit that, there is evidence of this type of swords having actually been made in Spain. Besides having been informed that, Schiavonas were used by Spaniards against the Portuguese during the Restoration War (1640-1668), in the Iberian exhibition held at the Portuguese Museum of Fine Arts in 1881, from the four Schiavonas present, example #298 had the inscription SAHAGUN on its wavy blade and example #333 had the inscription MIN SINAL ES EL SANTISIMO CRUCIFIO on its equaly wavy blade. The other two were apparently German. But no trace of Portuguese examples.
On the other hand, i have had an aledged connoisseur opinion that this Schiavona is likely Venetian.
The hilt
Band iron ? I see nothing abnormal with the way this basket is built, neither did someone whom i contacted, with a considerable knowledge on Schiavonas:
Baskets were made of various pieces and often “forge-welded” together. That is, heat is applied and then it is pounded, bonding the various pieces together. The various pieces were forged and shaped with grinding/sanding/etc. The rivet on yours found on the thumb ring is a very nice detail and good to see there.
The pommel.
Cast ... why not cast? After a primary statement from a local collector that these pommels were cast and not forged, i had a more extensive (and partly no coinciding) impression on the subject:
The pommel does not look cast to me. It being ornate does not indicate it being cast. It just indicates it’s ornate. Let’s remember that even cast elements have to come from a master. Often masters are made from tin, brass, copper or other ferrous materials. The pommels on my reproduction swords are not cast and were “carved” right out of a brass block. There are examples of very crude ones and very, very ornate ones from history. Yours looks crude, for sure, and perhaps is a replacement. Its shaping is nice, a factor often missed with replacements. The decoration is the weirdest part. The stippling and face are very odd in their application. I can’t imagine the pommel is original.
It is also interesting to quote the description of a Schiavona Sword with Accession number #1829 at the Higgins Museum:
Wooden leather-wrapped grip tapering to cast brass "cat's eye" pommel, carved with lion faces.
I would also consider Oakeshott's impressions:
Most of the Schiavona hilts are quite plain ... but in the quality of their pommels and blades they vary greatly. Some pommels are poorly-shaped, feble, flat iron things whereas others are splendid bronze ones ...
... followed by Nathan Robinson in his Schiavona article:
The study of this diversity can be observed in the pommel alone. Some examples are poorly executed hunks of metal: misshapen and lacking symmetry. Others are detailed and artistic sculptures in their own right, often featuring masks, faces, or elaborate rosette patterns. Pommels were made from iron, bronze or brass, and even solid silver
The blade
"Palach" is probably a term applied to cavalry swords in general and, in the context, a connotation that the blade is an atypical one when mounted in these swords. Not necessarily; this does not impeach the discussed example from being a Schiavona, blad included. 1730 would be a consensual date for the blade; would (should) the hilt be earlier? I personaly beleive so.
not-unexpected modern work
Maybe not. Its picture is included in a book published in 1950 and his author assures me that this sword was in his collection ten years before that ... untouched ever since.
Again i would like to transmit a specialist's impression:
The brass ferrule, as i’d call it, isn’t all that unusual on swords but is more common on Germanic examples. This is odd to see it here. I believe this means it’s a composite piece and was added to make it all fit together and be organic. Who knows when this was done, as it could very well have been in the 18th century.
Crudeness or lack of perfection
It is worthy of note that various authors mention the different finish and care taken by the arsenals with munitions grade swords for regimental ranks and that of fine specimens made by master smiths for officers, nobles and parade purposes.
If you don't mind, this is the end of this round
.