Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matchlock
Hi Carl M,
Even though you had the advantage of actually handling the sword I wonder how many doubtlessly genuine 500 year old two hand swords you have had the chance to handle. We have the privilege not only to do this regularly in museums, but in Ottmar's collection as well. And this invaluable practical experience, including 30 years of intense study of original surfaces, has enabled us to tell wrong from right and Victorian pieces from Renaissance.
Aboe, I mentioned the fact that originally there was a small brass plate riveted on top of the pommel which, together with the tang rivet, is now missing. Nobody repairing such a piece, be it in the 19th century or later, would just hammer the tang bluntly bent but would care to rivet it. The only possible explanation for that crudely bent tang is a working repair done on the battelfield in a hurry and probably with a stone - when all that mattered was that the pommel was fixed and the sword could be employed!  That fact that nobody had cared to embellish that work is the ultimate proof that this piece is completely original and in virtually untouched condition for almost 50 years! 
The decscription of both swords in the cataloge to have been mounted in the 19th c. actually amused us as it sure dumped the prices. They really are all original! 
And: the early 16th c. Landsknecht two hand swords were huge and heavy indeed! I attach an illustration by Sebald Beham, Nürnberg, ca. 1530. They should in no case be compared with the late 16th c. two hand swords that were never used for combat but just as bearing swords ( Vortrageschwerter).
Best,
Michael |
Hi Michael,
I hope you did not take offense at my post. I was not suggesting that you and your friend did not know what you were doing. I was hoping to make you feel better about not getting the sword.
As for my experience, I have held numerous originals in the years I have been collecting. I have had the had the privelege of being in the vaults in the Royal Armouries at Leeds and the Higgins museum in Massachussetts as well as numerous shows and auctions.
I have to respectfully disagree about the sword being untouched and the bent tang over the pommel being a battlefield repair. While such a story is wonderful to picture, there is no evidence of it here. Saying that "nobody" repairing a piece in the 19th c. or later would ever hammer the tang crudely like that just isn't true. I have seen all sorts of crude, amateur repairs over the years, including home-made pommels; wrong, composite pommels, spraypainted guards; destroyed, over polished, mirror bright pieces; and even bent and poorly smashed peens. I am sure your friend, Ottmar and yourself have seen such repairs on pieces in the past as well. I have never seen that guard typology on a genuine two hander. I have seen the double ring crossguard, but nothing like this. There just seems to be too much steel. I know that there were unique items made historically, but the guard on this one seems historically anacronistic. I have no doubt that the blade is genuine, but after handling it, I have to say that whomever put it together to restore it got the weight ratios of the mounts wrong. There was no way one could fight with this thing.
In my opinion, the more likely scenario for the bent tang/peen is perhaps someone took it apart 80 years ago and cut some small, rotted portion of the handle away, leaving too much tang and simply bent the tang over the pommel. Either that, or they hammered the pommel on, smashing some of the wooden handle, which exposed too much tang. Who knows?
As for the early 16th century swords being "heavy," well, heavy is a relative term. As I mentioned, I would put most early 16th century two handers in the 6-7 lb range, and well balanced. I do not have the exact weight of this particular one, but it certainly felt heavier than that, and the balance was astoundingly poor - more evidence that the restorer who made the mounts got the weight ratios and dimensions wrong. This is just my opinion, but it is backed up by evidence and expert opinion from the Higgins Armory Museum, and the Parke-Bernet Galleries who sold it in 1951. I am sure, had those two institutions thought the sword were all original, that Auctions Imperial would have listed it as so, and not as a composite with 19th century restored mounts.
Still a beautiful, piece though! No doubt!