|
|
|
4th April 2012, 08:08 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 129
|
The description Templars Falchion is pure nonsense! The inlaid cross is a simple cross potent, which can be found on dozens of sword blades and pommels.
Falchions have not been so rare as you believe, see the dozens of depictions in illuminated manuscripts. Hundreds of medieval European swords in not excavated condition exist in Museums or private collections. Why should there be no Falchions? The blade of #3 has no fuller and is never too thick, the weight of the whole sword is 1.19 kg, which is relatively light for a sword with such a broad blade.The thickness of the blade of the Conyers Falchion is extremely thin. Nearly every sword blade I know has at least a thickness of ab.3 mm(not measured on corroded ones) at the center of percussion. A back edge is by no means unusual, see the attached photo with a blade without fuller and a back edge. The fact that three swords originate from the same source does not indicates that these are fakes. About 20 or more swords from the Alexandria Arsenal are known in western collections, many of them like peas in a pod, Oakeshott said. Are these therefore fakes? As I have pointed out in my last post, examining a sword on the basis of photos or specific dimensions is useless without having examined it in reality. Not only theory is essential, but experience, experience! As pointed out before, Falchion #3 is in the collection of an experienced collector of medieval arms and armour (all not excavated,except a few very early ones) who`s advice is asked around the world. If he is not able to discriminate genuine swords from fakes, no one would be able! Best Last edited by Swordfish; 4th April 2012 at 08:29 PM. |
|
|
|
4th April 2012, 10:35 PM
|
#2 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Inverness & Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 17
|
Quote:
I'd have used a phrase significantly more offensive than "nonsense" myself. But then I am scottish. But that's what the Reichsstadtmuseum Rothenburg one now has attributed to it on the information card beside it... (edit: And I've love to know where/who the idea that it identified it as such came from. and then slap them round the back of the head!) Quote:
Given that there was a slightly raised incidence of depiction of Goliath bearing a falchion among biblical or devotional illumination was a fairly common motif among those manuscripts, I'd say it was acceptable to say that a conservative estimate of incidence of depiction of the falchion ocurred in at least 1 in 20 manuscript images. Not common, but certainly not rare. Why should there be so few falchions in museums and collections today, if that ratio were accurate, is one of the real puzzles which I've been trying to look at and work out what's happened. What in the falchion's nature has made it less likely to survive, not just in terms of finely preserved specimens, but in terms of the archaeological record? Much like the munitions harness, it is horribly under-represented in the archaeological record, and therefore we need to look at working out what the cause for that is. That's a question that needs to be looked at in a great deal more detail. Quote:
Regarding #3, I have a dozen examples that spring to mind immediately that are much thinner than 3mm, some corroded, some not, including a pair of examples marked from alexandria (in the care of Dean Castle, the former collectin of Howard De Walden), whose distal profiles were quite astounding to me. So I'd say that is no proof whatsoever one way or the other... If it is indeed in the hands of a collector who is so experienced, the immediate question is, is this collector infalliable? Has he never made a mistake? I cant help but wonder what the opinion of that collector is on the odds of three samples all coming from one source, and particularly if he has any doubts about not only the one in his collection, but the other two. If you can show me one expert in any field who's never made an error, I'll show you an expert who's not done much work in thier lives. No-one should be afraid of making fools of ourselves by making errors, particularly in a field where such judgements are one of opinion. (and lets face it, by querying these three, I'm more than likely the one making the error! ). If #3 is absolutely watertight, on the weight of opinion of one individual, then that still leaves #2 and #1 open to debate. Furthermore, what are the opinions of other experts? is one person's opinion utterly infalliable and enough? I've handled enough swords in "records of the medieval sword" and been able to spot mistakes Oakeshott made. I've handled bits in glasgow museums and been able to spot that Tobias Capwell made a mistake in the cataloguing numbers in "The Real Fighting Stuff", for instance... We all make mistakes by being human. -- That said, I'm in absolute agreement, that to consider the provenance by photograph alone is entirely insufficient. But we have little record if its previous owners, its auction history, which collections it has passed through over time. Were #2 and #3 paired together 80-odd years ago by a collector? Were they paired together 90 years ago by an auction house and then sold together? Which auction house? Were they in the armoury of a castle, much as the Churburg harnesses were? did they just appear in the catalogues of a collector? We all know the story of the words of Louis Marcy in Paris, after all, and his workmanship still continues to appear in museums, auctions and collections - and often identified as genuine items. I dont know the details of origin. I'm fairly sure you dont have them. Who does? Anyone? Without this data to hand, we cannot even begin to make assumptions on origin of each one in turn. It is solely speculation, with no more academic worth than the Reichsstadtmuseum's 'templer'[sic] attibutation. We have no metalurgical analysis of blade or cross; nor do I expect we ever will get such a destructive analysis. we have no x-ray studies of these items, we have no neutron diffraction study of them, we have no carbon-dating of the organic components. we have virtually no actual evidence to corroborate their likely date. All we do have are photos that link it to a set of remarkably similar-proportioned items, in a field where finding one is rare enough. and all in excellent condition. and those co-incidences just seem a little to good to be true. Regarding the Alexandria swords - or the Castillon swords, for that matter - I do not doubt them, because their provenance is well-recorded. and while many are findamentally simiar, there's enough difference between them to make the clear distinctions. in the alexandria swords, a great many of them can be traced back not just through their inscriptions, but through photographic evidence of their storage in alexandria when they came to the attention of collectors. on the other hand if an identical alexandria or castillon sword arrived on my doorstep with absolutely no provenance attached to it... I'd be selling it fast, before any troublesome bugger like me starts asking where it came from, and the price dropped! 
Last edited by J.G.Elmslie; 4th April 2012 at 11:12 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
5th April 2012, 10:04 AM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 129
|
If you want to acquire a not excavated medieval sword wit a provenance tracing back to medieval times, you will grow old before you get one.
Do you have not excavated medieval swords in your collection? If you have not at least a half dozen, you will never be able to discriminate genuine swords from fakes without scientific tests. Genuine swords are perfect, fakes are never perfect in all aspects. The collector mentioned above has more than 20 medieval swords in his collection, among them several from the Alexandria Arsenal. (the photos you mention were taken in the St. Irene Arsenal in Constantinople, not in Alexandria, the swords were captured in 1517 by the Ottomans. But even counterfeit medieval islamic swords stamped with a Tamga are on the market, though far away from beeing perfect). Best Last edited by Swordfish; 5th April 2012 at 03:26 PM. |
|
|
|
|
5th April 2012, 01:29 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,060
|
independently of an opinion on the authenticity of # 1 # 2 # 3. I do see the importance of provenance, forgeries have reached the last two decades such a high level that every specialist can be fooled.
Unfortunately without clear provenance laboratory research has become essential. A sword for example, that has been auctioned in the 30's at one of the famous auction houses gives me more confidence than one that just appears out of nowhere and where the origin is shrouded in mist, a so-called pop-up sword. Swords that do not come from the ground and must have been kept indoors somewhere for 600 years, any information older than 20 years must be found without great effort. I do not expect that any specialist whatsoever can give in all cases a definitive and infallible judgment, based on a visual inspection alone. Some swords in my collection have been published in ROMS and the dimensions or describtion do not correspond with reality. Furthermore, I know examples of original swords offered by famous auction houses as 19th century reproductions and, unfortunately also vice versa. Some kind of Provenance, how short or unimportant it may look, is not everything but it helps. best, Last edited by cornelistromp; 5th April 2012 at 02:27 PM. |
|
|
|
|
5th April 2012, 03:42 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 129
|
You are surely right, a proofed! provenance is always good. But how many medieval swords appear at auction with a provenance? Very very few!
The two swords in my thread: Early European arms captured by the Ottomans, were sold at auction without provenance. Are they therefore fakes? surely not! If genuine swords were catalogued as 19th century, the better it is for the experienced collector, to acquire swords for a moderate price. If a 19th century sword is catalogued as genuine, you can make no scientific test before you bit for it. Only your experienced eye can help you. Best |
|
|
|
|
5th April 2012, 03:56 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,247
|
Hi All,
Sorry for the late post. The thing that also fascinates me about falchions 2 and 3 is that they both show similar damage. Their hilts have split in the same place, and their blade edges both show similar wear/damage/cracking at about the mid-point. Fascinating. I'd expect to see different wear patterns on each blade. I'm trying to figure out identical wear patterns could happen, under normal use and aging. To be fair, this might be a stereotypical wear pattern for this blade shape, as the Hamburg Museum falchion shows a corrosion hole on the blade where the other two show wear, and it is missing a hilt. One could argue that this blade tends to go in the middle and lose the wood from its hilt. Still, similar wear patterns can be evidence of copying. My 0.0002 cents, F |
|
|
|
|
5th April 2012, 04:20 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,060
|
Quote:
These swords are without a provenance or have a faked non-verifiable provenance. The only way to deal with certainty about the authenticity is to show that the sword is or is not made out of bloomery steel, so steel with inclusions of slag FE2SIO4, the only ferrous material available in the middle ages, this can only be detected at the microscopic level and not with an experienced eye only. Luckily it does not happen on a large scale and of course the majority of the swords without provenance offered by renowned auction houses is OK. But each case is one too many. best, Last edited by cornelistromp; 5th April 2012 at 04:46 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
6th April 2012, 02:26 AM
|
#8 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Inverness & Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 17
|
Does anyone happen to have a copy of "European Arms and Armor of the XV-XIX Century from the William Randolph Hearst Collection"?
It might be a good starting point to start trying to ascertain when these were obtained by Hearst, and from where. It seems that Hearst Castle's collections registrar is unable to assist, as apparently when the castle was donated to the state of california in 1957, no documentation of the items was included. So all we know of thier provenance is that they are attributed to the Hearst collection, and predate 1957. Hardly the most solid of foundations yet, alas. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
