Of course I respect everyones opinion.
Opinions are formed by background, experience, as we can read here in the reactions.
I have been collecting for more than 45 years now, had about 15 of these in my collection, handled
and studied them over the years.
From my background I was trained to see the smallest defects, this was my job.
When I look at the surface of this steel I see exactly what one needs to see on swords of this period.
I never saw a sword with these features on eBay and these are mostly of much simpler form, simpler meaning less cost to make and more profit.
As for fantasy, yes I agree, but people in the 16th and 17th c had fantasy too.
As Cornelis pointed out, the etching work, the brass parts as on the helmets of the period
and also the thicker midsection on the grip can be found on halberds of the 16th C.
I would like to add to that, the chiseling and engraving work, anybody here that has done hand work would realize that applying all these details would cost countless of hours.
As i pointed out before, it's the way as done on this sword, it is exactly as on swords of the period in museums.
More swords and helmets etc. made in this era are not in museums.
This is because there was no regulation pattern as in the 19 th C were you had reglementary types.
In the 16th and 17th century every blacksmith in every town did his own thing.
In all my years of collecting I handled a fair number 19th c and later copies to, as i believe its just as important to study these,but not one of them " not one!" ..... had good balance,they were all too heavy.
I can only say what I see based upon my education and years of experience and what I see a late 16th c sword
probably made for the field and perhaps later used as a bearing sword.
kind regards
Ulfberth
|