A STORTA for comments

Jim McDougall · 28th April 2014, 05:53 PM

Good points Alan. I wonder then if this sword might have indeed been in situ in a water oriented situation before excavation, and this rusty state been the result of not observing proper conservation processes?
In many cases I am sure, amateur finds end up in these circumstances and this reinforces all the fuss and painstaking process observed in the proper conservation and stabilizing of underwater discoveries.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 2nd May 2014, 04:11 PM

Salaams all... I think it shows how difficult it is...to avoid the fakes. As this sword was unfolding at #1, I said to myself...'acid ...false patina' etc as I am sure a few other members have done ... but then reading the posts there is always doubt...and as Senefelder notes that is what blades/metal looks like after being in the water for 100 years. Quicker processing in acid has a similar effect..though it would be useful to have a chart of corrosion of blades in various substances..earth, water , acid, sea water etc..maybe there is a metalurgist out there with some sort of chart?
Sometimes a good idea as to authenticity comes in the price... It costs money to process blades and usually forgeries demand high prices.
Just my few cents worth...
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

A Senefelder · 2nd May 2014, 05:07 PM

For what its worth, the quillions appear to be iron. I'm seeing the tennonish " woodlike " grain in the places where the material has perished that I see in the old wrought iron I get. Wrought iron stopped being made back in the early 1960's and was not of the same quality as older iron. Most folks who obtain wrought iron today get it from old sources, such as scraped wrought iron fence or like a I know fella who used to blade make in Nova Scotia who obtained a big old anchor dreged up out of a bay that was over 100 years old.

28th April 2014, 05:53 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Good points Alan. I wonder then if this sword might have indeed been in situ in a water oriented situation before excavation, and this rusty state been the result of not observing proper conservation processes? In many cases I am sure, amateur finds end up in these circumstances and this reinforces all the fuss and painstaking process observed in the proper conservation and stabilizing of underwater discoveries.

2nd May 2014, 04:11 PM	#2
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	Salaams all... I think it shows how difficult it is...to avoid the fakes. As this sword was unfolding at #1, I said to myself...'acid ...false patina' etc as I am sure a few other members have done ... but then reading the posts there is always doubt...and as Senefelder notes that is what blades/metal looks like after being in the water for 100 years. Quicker processing in acid has a similar effect..though it would be useful to have a chart of corrosion of blades in various substances..earth, water , acid, sea water etc..maybe there is a metalurgist out there with some sort of chart? Sometimes a good idea as to authenticity comes in the price... It costs money to process blades and usually forgeries demand high prices. Just my few cents worth... Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

2nd May 2014, 05:07 PM	#3
A Senefelder Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 214	For what its worth, the quillions appear to be iron. I'm seeing the tennonish " woodlike " grain in the places where the material has perished that I see in the old wrought iron I get. Wrought iron stopped being made back in the early 1960's and was not of the same quality as older iron. Most folks who obtain wrought iron today get it from old sources, such as scraped wrought iron fence or like a I know fella who used to blade make in Nova Scotia who obtained a big old anchor dreged up out of a bay that was over 100 years old.