Hussar saber, real or not?

[serdar]

Hussar saber, blade marked with some kind of marka de mosca or something that looks like a germ , and with crosses on both side, blade is heavily damaged from rust and cleaned, maybe even with grinder or some kind of electronic polish.
Crossguard steel, thumb ring coming from crossguard and copper soldered, leather on handle restored and covered in parafin?

Scabbard wood is old, leather restored? With something, steel mountings copper soldered, carry ring slight traces of wear, just slight.

Thru slight hole near rivet that holds crossguard with magnifier and light i can se thorn of the blade and it is shinny, it reflects light better than the blade, i expected it to be rusty, hmm.

Aaaand thats it, if someone knows, is it genuine, or ?.

Thanx, Serdar.

[serdar]

P

[serdar]

So to conclude, after museum expert examined saber, it is genuine, but heavily cleaned and leather repaired and retouched.
So thanx.

[Pertinax]

[QUOTE=serdar;297348]Hussar saber, blade marked with some kind of marka de mosca or something that looks like a germ

Hi serdar!

I recently exhibited a nimcha, there is a similar mark on the blade.

Respectfully,
Yuri

[ulfberth]

well if this is true who is this expert?
How many years of experience does he have and in what field?
How did he gain his experience and how many swords has he held in his hands during that period?
Some people don't realize when they are being spared.

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=Pertinax;297381]

Originally Posted by serdar

Hussar saber, blade marked with some kind of marka de mosca or something that looks like a germ

Hi serdar!

I recently exhibited a nimcha, there is a similar mark on the blade.

Respectfully,
Yuri

Thank you for adding this Yuri, excellent and most salient comparison.
Here I will note that these obviously spurious markings on a European blade imported into the centers in the Maghreb, and ambitiously applied by a native trader, less than skillfully are understandably so. . What is important here is that native armorers often applied copies of European markings for their perceived 'magic' and the quality artistically was less important than the presence of the mark itself. On the blades of Eastern European sabers the markings are typically more well executed and follow certain conventions in application.

It is noted in Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962, p.274, (A535, p.692) that this marking, which seems distinctive from the twig type, is often found in conjunction with the familiar 'sickle' dentated arcs, and "sometimes found on European blades mounted in the East". Here the sword associated is German c. 1560-1600.

In the case of this saber (original post) which appears to be an example in the manner of Polish sabers of 17th century, the clearly spurious markings are terribly executed and attempt to approximate marking groupings (x's) and a similar mark to that on the nimcha. FAR from being 'expert' ....these markings on the blade seem contrary to the others I have seen on similar examples, and applied in unusual configuration.

I like the 'germ' simile for this marking

[Jim McDougall]

As noted earlier, while I have been skeptical of this saber, probably as from many years experience the majority of these Eastern European sabers occurring outside museums have been modern replicas. While most are pretty embellished, there are some artificially aged, and these are intended to deceive. This example seems to follow known form (with exception of the terrible markings), so I have been trying to find material on these from years ago...I do recall the discussions, as well as talking with Iaroslav Lebedynsky, the prolific French-Ukrainian author on arms, and discussions about this type of saber.

Apparently these are noted as having been used in degree at the Battle of Beretschko in Ukraine in 1651, where forces of the Cossack Helmenate and Crimean Khanate fought against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

I was told this unique style of saber with L guard hilt is actually relatively rare. In "Cieca Prawdziwa Szabla" by Wojciech Zablonski he classifies this form as 'polzam kniety' (semi closed hilt).
The battlefield was excavated in the 1970s and discussed in "Muzealnictwo Wojskowe" (Tome 5, 1992)by Igor Svieschnokov, in his article, "Battle of Beretschko in 1651 in light of Historical and Archaeological Sources".

There were a total of 41 sabers found, but only 3 were of this type. This is remarkable considering the many thousands of combatants, but of course scavengers over years certainly took the rest.

There is another article "Analysis and Classification of Sabers Found Near Beretschko" by Stanislaw Pogorzelski.

I am just adding these for future reference but have not accessed them.

The question asked here is whether this saber is real or not, which is a fair question. I am not sure how accurate such an analysis can be made from photos alone, and pictures can be misleading in the character of the metal and elements with flash and lighting.

If indeed this has been examined by a museum expert, it would be valued to know the individuals name and credentials. I am no expert but I will stand behind what I determine and say, and expect to make errors and learn from correction.

The images from a discussion in 2011 on what appears excavated or relic condition example of one of these actually found in Ukraine. The other image is one intact which seems slightly different but perhaps Hungarian?
Note on the exacavated example the cross pattee on guard and the curious cartouche in the blade forte. The cross was a popular Polish device, and the blade cartouche could be perhaps a tamga, a Tatar device but that seems unlikely.

[Pertinax]

[QUOTE=Jim McDougall;297386][QUOTE=Pertinax;297381]

Thank you for adding this Yuri, excellent and most salient comparison.
Here I will note that these obviously spurious markings on a European blade imported into the centers in the Maghreb, and ambitiously applied by a native trader, less than skillfully are understandably so. . What is important here is that native armorers often applied copies of European markings for their perceived 'magic' and the quality artistically was less important than the presence of the mark itself. On the blades of Eastern European sabers the markings are typically more well executed and follow certain conventions in application.

Jim, as I already wrote, I am not 100% sure that the blade on the nimche is European.

I have a version that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there could have been manufactures like Solingen and Klingenthal in the Maghreb countries. But I have no documentary evidence for this version.

A colleague from the Russian forum expressed the opinion that blades of Maghreb origin had two characteristic features (although imported European ones also began to be made in this style) - a thin dolik above the main wide dolik and a rounded tip.

So questions remain, nothing can be said with certainty.

Respectfully,
Yuri

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=Pertinax;297393][QUOTE=Jim McDougall;297386][QUOTE=Pertinax;297381]

Thank you for adding this Yuri, excellent and most salient comparison.
Here I will note that these obviously spurious markings on a European blade imported into the centers in the Maghreb, and ambitiously applied by a native trader, less than skillfully are understandably so. . What is important here is that native armorers often applied copies of European markings for their perceived 'magic' and the quality artistically was less important than the presence of the mark itself. On the blades of Eastern European sabers the markings are typically more well executed and follow certain conventions in application.

Jim, as I already wrote, I am not 100% sure that the blade on the nimche is European.









Hi Yuri,
As I have noted as well, in years I have found little evidence of sword blade manufacture in the Maghreb, however the exception would be the varied ranges of blades in the flyssa spectrum. These of course reflect the fact that armorers and smiths in North Africa certainly were capable of producing worthy blades, however typically, it is a matter of convenience and availability.

It seems that these circumstances had notable cases for example in Arabia where in earlier times the blades of Yemen were highly regarded, however those productions in later years seem to have focused on production of dagger blades. It seems likely it was much like this in the Maghreb.
Most references Ive seen note the import of various imports and volumes of blades from other sources.

Solingen and Klingenthal were export sources of large volume production, and I have never heard of such blade making centers anywhere in Africa. The closest thing would I imagine be the Hausa of Nigeria and Saharan regions who produced blades which diffused through trade networks. These are most familiar on takouba and kaskara and straight broadsword blades.

As always Im grateful for your valuable observations and great examples!
I will say that if such evidence of this type blade making existed, the Russian researchers have proven remarkable findings, and frankly I wish we had more access to their work.
Best regards
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by serdar

So to conclude, after museum expert examined saber, it is genuine, but heavily cleaned and leather repaired and retouched.
So thanx.

As this has been noted to have had the leather restored etc. it seems the rather rough condition of the metal might reflect the results of rough cleaning and sincere efforts at restoring it. There seems to be evidence of genuine age in the inaccessible areas of the metalwork.

I would welcome the observations of the museum authority who examined this sword as in my earlier post I noted I had found the historic importance of this type saber, and it would be good to know the perspective from an expert.

While we typically try to avoid posting and discussing reproduction swords, the case of either or is of course a reasonable approach. As perhaps the case here, there are many cases of examples which might be composite, or those that are badly restored thus damaged. In this case, the only exception to what appears reasonable effort at restoring are the unfortunate markings.
The hard part always remains artificial aging, but in my limited experience that seems to be overall more consistent without incidental flaws.

[serdar]

Thank you all!

As i said before im not by any means expert on antique weapons of any sort, i wouldnt claim that never becouse i meet a few very old collectors that local people think about them that they are "experts" but i was disapointed, they know a lot much more then i know, but are far from expert, on the end, nobody knows all, there is allways someone with higher knowledge in particular field.

My field of choice are yatagans swords, ottoman and balkan weapons, and especialy boka kotorska weapons, with little of schiavonesca and schiavona interest.

So hussar sabers to me is like a donkey looking at vermeer, i know when i see old sword, old leather, types, etc. But i dont know what im suposed to look for becouse i never had genuine example in my hands, like most of us here i presume, thats why i asked for opinion and posted, i hope nobody is angry becouse of that.

About this saber, i bought it at auction, on which i saw a few not genuine "polish" sabers that to me are 100% obvious they arent genuine and are put together in 19 st or newer, this one and other one i examined they looked genuine to me, enough to buy them, especialy when i have auction house guarantee if i prove that it isnt i can returne the saber.

Guy at auction house said saber is examined from two experts from their museum.

After i had fiasco with fringia saber and polish saber before, which i took to history museum to guy who is a curator of antique arms and armor/ and restaurator, he confirmed me that they are not genuine but made to scamm people, after which i destroyd them, took them apart, it was painful, to see all epoxy glue inside and new wood, but you learn and pay for your school.

So i took this saber to the same curator, he examined it and concluded, he doesent know the makers mark (aka germ), blade is heavily cleaned but to him a genuine 17 st blade, crossguard cleaned but cooper welded as it should be, we moved a scabbard end mounting a little about half a centimeter and beneth is a rust, old rust, old almost roten wood and leather, same as is on the handle, with my premision he took piece of wood near the tang and light inside it is old wood in acordance with color of saber from 17 st they have in deposit, leather is smeared eith parafin and some thing he didnt know what, mountings on the scabard are cooper soldered, and cleanede, beneth them is a old rust.

He said that to him saber is from 17 st in style, manufacture and age, latest end of 17 begining of 18 st.

So if it is not genuine, then it eas made around thst time, they have fev polish sabers, and karabelas frim that time, and it matches, wood age etc.

I think that it would be imppsible to make and age it in this way, i dont see how that would be posible.

Makers mark is very poorly struck, on other side even more, i never seen it before.

After his examination, fir now i decided to keep it as saber from 17 st with big question mark ?

But there is another thing i dont know about you guys but the feeling, when i was buyng that noblemans polish saber my feeling was off but i bought it, allso with fringia one, but with this one my feeling isnt off, so i think il listen to my feeling this time.
And as i said, guy examined it thouroghly and said there is no chance that someone made this now for scamm, that it is imposible to chemicaly age wood, leather and steel in that way (in steel in pits there is still rust, old rust genuine) and would be expensive several times price i paid for the sword just to produce that, and would show in examination.

Soooo as i said, for now it goes on the wall with big question mark.

P.s.
I forgot to ad, his only concern was a pomel cap, he said it looks like it was made from several pieces like it should be, but he wasnt sure, on the front end it is wear and lines of solder are visible but it is under question mark.

And carry ring wear, it is very small, i would expect more wear on the ring holders, but as i said before, i have several authentic 16, 17, 18 century kilij swords and shamshirs that i know 1 milion percent are authentic, few of them are family heirlom, and they got even smaller wear and tear there, so it is not always a sign of time and authenticity.

[serdar]

Sorry for writing mistakes, im on the move, and third language english.

[serdar]

As i noticed, there is a lot maybe 80% makers marks and blades unknown i mean italian and styrian, export ones, this and that.

They have karabela in museum that to me looks like tulwar/pulwar blade and it is italian!?

There is a lot to learn.

Il post a karabela later, i bought it on auction before, it should be 17 st, ottoman, but import italian or styer blade, but to me blade is very strange not very good for slicing (meat) more for slicing thru the armour, one guy from my town that has a collection of about 40 karabelas, said it is old blade from end of 16 st begining of 17st and handle and crossguard ottoman 18 st.