The Falchion or Malchus, the rarest medieval sword

cornelistromp · 5th April 2012, 01:29 PM

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,

Swordfish · 5th April 2012, 03:42 PM

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

fearn · 5th April 2012, 03:56 PM

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

cornelistromp · 5th April 2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordfish

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

it is not solely the 19th century reproductions but the recently made forgeries which are auctioned off as original which can represent a problem.
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,

J.G.Elmslie · 6th April 2012, 02:26 AM

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.

Swordfish · 6th April 2012, 01:13 PM

For friends of provenance!

Here are two photos from an excavated sword (no Falchion), which speaks for its own provenance. It was sold some years ago by a London dealer. The sword is of the same type as the Castillon group A swords. It was also found in France. The disc pommel is enamelled and bears an inscripion and arms, which give us a name and a date. The arms are those of Pierre de Cros, Archbishop of Arles, and the sword can not date later than 1383, where he was appointed as a Cardinal.

Comments welcome!

Best

cornelistromp · 6th April 2012, 02:14 PM

yes, Iam a friend of provenance

I expect that every serious sword enthusiast is familiar with this sword, a beautiful pommel formed outof 3 pieces and a unique Oakeshott type XVIII, " type? castillon G-A hoard blade".
The pommel is an absolutely beautiful work of art in itself with the legend Archiepiscopus and the arms of the cros family, possible to link direct to the cardinal/archbishop Pierre de Cros. the blade acts as a work of art not far behind.

If I may speak freely and open , and I sincerely hope I did not kick somebody against the sore leg.
If it would be in my possession, I would find out if the original pommel and original blade belong together or if it is later composed.
(I have no idea how to investigate this though, probably we now do need the expert eye here which you refered to in your previous post.)
Please do not get me wrong, it is only because the combination seems strange to me.
The blade seems to me outof the castillon hoard and I only would expect another pommel, as the known ones , not so exceptionally beautiful and unique.

best,

Swordfish · 9th April 2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

yes, Iam a friend of provenance

I expect that every serious sword enthusiast is familiar with this sword, a beautiful pommel formed outof 3 pieces and a unique Oakeshott type XVIII, " type? castillon G-A hoard blade".
The pommel is an absolutely beautiful work of art in itself with the legend Archiepiscopus and the arms of the cros family, possible to link direct to the cardinal/archbishop Pierre de Cros. the blade acts as a work of art not far behind.

If I may speak freely and open , and I sincerely hope I did not kick somebody against the sore leg.
If it would be in my possession, I would find out if the original pommel and original blade belong together or if it is later composed.
(I have no idea how to investigate this though, probably we now do need the expert eye here which you refered to in your previous post.)
Please do not get me wrong, it is only because the combination seems strange to me.
The blade seems to me outof the castillon hoard and I only would expect another pommel, as the known ones , not so exceptionally beautiful and unique.

best,

Well observed !

The blade, cross and pommel are surely genuine, but do they belong together? In this case no scientific test can ever help you, only your eye can help you.

When I saw the photo for the first time, the first that struck me, were the unbalanced proportions. The pommel is too large for a single hand sword. The blade and the remains of the cross show a close resemblance to the Castillon swords, including the patination and the corroded spots. For a single hand sword of this type I would also expect a pommel of wheel type and a tang button.

Pierre de Cros was appointed as Archbishop of Arles in 1374. If we assume that the pommel was not made much later, we have a date of c.1375. If we further assume, that the sword was not the first of its type, but in fashion ab. ten or twenty years before, we have a date for this sword type c. 1355-1365.

The Castillon swords are generally dated c.1410-1450. Is it likely that half of the swords from Castillon were of a nearly one hundred years old type? I don`t think so. I believe that the pommel was assembled to a cheap Castillon sword, to increase its value. I therefore would never acquire this sword.

But an assumption is no proof. Under usual circumstances, it would not be possible to proof that the pommel was added later.

But contacts to other collectors are allways helpfull. A collecting colleague of me saw this pommel many years ago as a single item in an antigue shop in Italy. He did not acquired it, because it was too expensive. I fully trust this collector. Then this is the proof for me.

Best

cornelistromp · 9th April 2012, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.G.Elmslie

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.

@JG Elmslie
the catalog from 1952 I have somewhere, I'll search.
I also have the index of 1939 but unfortunately only the index.

@Swordfish
I am also very curious about falchion # 3, is here a little more known about it than just the collection of a capable collector. Do you know when he acquired it, auction? collection?
Can you please reveal something about it?

best,

5th April 2012, 01:29 PM	#1
cornelistromp 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.

6th April 2012, 01:13 PM	#6
Swordfish Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 129	For friends of provenance! Here are two photos from an excavated sword (no Falchion), which speaks for its own provenance. It was sold some years ago by a London dealer. The sword is of the same type as the Castillon group A swords. It was also found in France. The disc pommel is enamelled and bears an inscripion and arms, which give us a name and a date. The arms are those of Pierre de Cros, Archbishop of Arles, and the sword can not date later than 1383, where he was appointed as a Cardinal. Comments welcome! Best Attached Images

6th April 2012, 02:14 PM	#7
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,060	yes, Iam a friend of provenance I expect that every serious sword enthusiast is familiar with this sword, a beautiful pommel formed outof 3 pieces and a unique Oakeshott type XVIII, " type? castillon G-A hoard blade". The pommel is an absolutely beautiful work of art in itself with the legend Archiepiscopus and the arms of the cros family, possible to link direct to the cardinal/archbishop Pierre de Cros. the blade acts as a work of art not far behind. If I may speak freely and open , and I sincerely hope I did not kick somebody against the sore leg. If it would be in my possession, I would find out if the original pommel and original blade belong together or if it is later composed. (I have no idea how to investigate this though, probably we now do need the expert eye here which you refered to in your previous post.) Please do not get me wrong, it is only because the combination seems strange to me. The blade seems to me outof the castillon hoard and I only would expect another pommel, as the known ones , not so exceptionally beautiful and unique. best, Last edited by cornelistromp; 6th April 2012 at 07:26 PM.

5th April 2012, 03:42 PM	#2
Swordfish 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	#3
fearn 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

6th April 2012, 02:26 AM	#5
J.G.Elmslie 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.