Two handed swords

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi Jasper,

I learned from my collector friend that original Katzbalgers never hat lenticular cross sections.

Of course I respect your differing opinion. Nobody's perfect, after all!

m


.

Hi Michael,
such a statement has only value if he has seen them all, the katzbalgers ever made.
you're right nobody is perfect.

FE the two-hand Landsknecht Sword of katzbalger type, you posted before, has a lenticular blade

best,

[Matchlock]

Right, Jasper,


I guess I should have been more precise and added that 'lenticular baldes without any fullers' are basically suspect.
This fine hand-and-half sword has a central fuller.

I do not think one must have seen virtually all existing specimen in order to render a basic general statement. If this were so nobody could make any statement.
I have always believed that understanding the characteristic main basis of a certain style of arms should be sufficient to judge with a high degree of certainty what to declare to be 'characteristic' or 'typical' and what not.

Possible exceptions to any rule must be taken consideration though and for granted. Otherwise knowledge and any kind of expertise would be invaluable.

The main problem is that is virtually not possible to quote all these prerequisites each time when giving a statement; they should go without saying.


Best,
m

[cornelistromp]

Hi michael,

Thanks for the explanation, however Iam very sorry but I can not agree with the statement of your friend;
in post 37 of this thread , I placed some katzbalgers from various museums in Europe (the katzbalger of Lee disregarded for this moment).
They are all authentic, without fuller and without ricasso and of lenticular cross section.

The most attractive among them, I find the katzbalger in the Solingen klingen Museum.

best,

[Matchlock]

Hi Jasper,

I am sorry to say that since at least 1968, the weaponry community has agreed that both these Solingen 'Katzbalgers' are composite pieces.

The first, with a hilt of characterisic form, is clearly the better or the two and the blade, typically staged and fullered (one of the main criteria I pointed out) may have been shortened (overall length only 78 cm); the 1968 catalog by Dr. Heinz R. Uhlemann points out that this type of sword is commonly forged (top three attachments).

The second is commonly agreed to be a crude 19th/20th c. fake, way too short, but reusing an authentic and finely caved pommel of ca. 1520 in the shape of a bearded Landsknecht's head. Only the measurements of the pommel are given, the remainder is neglected.
I realize your command of German is good, so the translation of the description by Uhlemann is for the rest of the community:
'The original, archetypically iron-carved pommel is part of a Landsknecht sword which is suspicious in all its remaining parts.'
(Kostbare Blankwaffen aus dem Deutschen Klingenmuseum Solingen, 1968, p. 46.)

Best,
Michael

[cornelistromp]

Hi Michael,

yes I am familiar with this literature, the only DKM forgeries now with 100% certainty to be allotted,in this case to the workshop of Anton Konrad, are a dresden reiter degen and a medieval ceremonial sword.

The Katzbalger with the beautiful chiseled pommel is defined by Uhlemann as suspicious, but here the status left with the last publication before his retirement.
Both of them I've seen and both I find convincing enough, with the science of 1968 more atypical weapons were classified as fakes.

or you may have more recent results of research which I am not aware of?
I have no further written information about the other katzbalger, do you have something available? (from the weaponry community?)

kind regards,

[Matchlock]

Hi Jasper,


There seem to be diverting criteria of what to define as characteristic and original; this not a problem at all, just normal among experts and it makes discussions all the more worth while. Otherwise weaponry would come to standstill.

No, to my knowledge no other publiations have been dedicated to the Solingen Katzbalgers since the 1980's, the time when Haedecke was in charge.


Best,
m

[cornelistromp]

hi Michael,

the first Katzbalger is dated by Uhlemann 1530 in kosbare blankwaffen (1968), in 1991, this same katzbalger is dated by Haedeke around 1550 in "Fuhrer durch die Sammlungen DKM" ". there is no mentioning whatsoever in either publication of any composite piece or shortened blade.
furthermore the length of 78cm is very acceptable for a Katzbalger,fe compare JP Puype, Arms and Armour of knights and Landknechts, katzbalger no 39 and no 40, resp. 82 cm and 80cm.
This blade shape is so specific that it must be designed for a/this -balger,
where did you find the information that these katzbalger is either a composite or that the blade has been shortened?

best,