A GERMAN FIGHTING TWO HAND SWORD LATE 16 TH CENTURY

ulfberth · 8th January 2016, 09:32 AM

I believe Jim has revealed the reason for the abundance on decoration on the blade.
Since the original question was mainly about the blade , that was the only part I chose to comment on.
Now after the discussion about the pommel and type of guard has begun, I will take the liberty to comment on this to.
The blade is clearly 16th C no doubts about that and although the pommel and guard have the correct style for the blade I believe them to be of a later date.
Im sorry but the guard is just not 16th C, at best 17th or even 18th C and indeed assembled with the fighting blade for further use as a ceremonial or a sword of justice.
If we look at the alloy and metal surface of the cross guard we see it is different than that of the blade, it is also forged in a different manner. The patina and oxidation clearly show a very different pattern, very visible on the blade in all places and absent on all parts of the guard, the guard has just some light orange rust which can be cleaned of with some steel wool 000 were using steel wool on the blade this would have zero effect. One could argue that the guard is cleaned, But this is not the case because all lines of the cross guard are still sharp and as fresh as the day they were made.
I hope I have not offended anyone by clearing this up, after all the sword is still a valuable historical piece with a prolonged use for a different function.

Kind regards

Ulfberth

cornelistromp · 8th January 2016, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ulfberth

If we look at the alloy and metal surface of the cross guard we see it is different than that of the blade, it is also forged in a different manner.

Of course.

the composition of the steel is never matching between blade and hilt.
this is the case with virtually all the 16th century swords.
the blade and hilt come from different workshops, Passau and Solingen blades were exported national and to other countries where the hilt was made and mounted by a local blacksmith.

This is also the reason why we see beautiful blades in a coarser hilts and vice versa.

because the sword was obviously apart. the parts are probably cleaned separately.
so I would not worry about it, the type of pommel and guard are as you would expect here.

best,

ulfberth · 8th January 2016, 03:27 PM

Hello Jasper,

The blade usually has more hardness than the guard, the blade shows spots of oxidation all over as is to be expected and the guard almost none.
I have concerns when a sword that has supposedly been assembled for over 500 years with such a difference in patina, if that was the case the patina would be almost the same, the only exception would be if the guard has been blackened and this is not the case.
The style of the pommel and cross guard is indeed correct but that does not prove the are made in the same age.
I had many pictures of this sword from the recent auction, and the reason I chose not to bid was exactly that, it seems more people had the same thoughts because the price it sold for was less than half for a sword like this if all parts would belong together.
Of course I respect each and everyone's opinion, but lets just look at sword a bit more closer, the sword is the object of study, the books are the tool, have look at the evidence at hand and than form an opinion.

Kind regards

ulfberth

Cerjak · 8th January 2016, 04:55 PM

Thank you very much to all of you for your interest and input for this sword.
A special thank to Jim and Jasper, I did not expect so much!
Jim as usually you made a rigorous analysis very well documented to highlight a very interesting fact: This sword had two differents lives, I hope if possible that you could post some scans about your literature's Reference (particularly about double head eagle & walking lion)
Jasper very interesting link about the practice for such sword and of course all the time spend trying to figure out the words, tracing out the letters and of course the translation you made after.
Best

Jean-Luc

CSinTX · 8th January 2016, 06:28 PM

For what it’s worth, I’ll offer my opinion. First, what an impressive piece with such detail and character. I am jealous for sure and would love to have it in my collection.

In my somewhat uneducated opinion, I think the guard and blade have not spent their entire lives together. I know there can be differences in metals with blades often being made separate but there is just too much variation in wear and patina between the blade and the hilt. There is a good bit of deep pitting in the blade that just doesn’t show at all in the hilt. What a great piece though!

Jim McDougall · 8th January 2016, 08:08 PM

Thank you guys for all these responses, and I very much appreciate the kind recognition of the detail I added concerning these most unusual markings.
I will here note that as always my focus is typically toward the historical aspects of the weapons themselves and have always been particularly intrigued by markings as well known here.

I must however note that in the relatively limited experience I have had in handing arms physically, in the cases I have seen, the physical character of metals in corrosion and pitting in often markedly varying.

While all sources I checked in making my comments revealed that the components and features of this sword do seem of the proper period and seem to suggest a German zweihander of third quarter 16th c. However, I am very much inclined to agree that the nature of aging of the metal in the blade vs. the hilt do not seem commensurate.

I would note that this blade certainly does appear to have been a genuine combat blade, but as suggested likely has been refurbished and had some extensive embellishment which would suggest later use in a symbolic sense in the context I also described. This does not dismiss this sword in any way by its later use in such processional or bearing context, but adds most intriguing dimension to it. Rather than being stored away it plausibly continued on as a component of a very unusual and relatively little known organization in Germany.

As noted, the sword has certainly been apart at some point, also it is well known that blades were export items and typically the hilts came from other makers. It does seem unusual that the hilt components follow so closely the proper style of this type sword in its period. However, it does seem possible that other hilts of the form existed in static circumstances and would have been chosen for refurbishing.
That being the best case scenario, the possibility of later production in the case for reproducing similar components remains possible.

As noted the metal in hilts is of course much different than in blades, but still the degree of deterioration must resemble that relative to the blade.
As with all metal production, the composition of ingredients in the forging of these metals must vary according to regions and materials used, but still, corrosion and deterioration should be notably comparable to other parts.

The deterioration in this hilt shows only staining as opposed to the deep areas of pitting which have existed in the blade.

Getting back to the markings, the inscriptions in the fullering do seem commensurate with the blade as it would have been in its original state.
The deeper punzones on the blade with crowned lion and double head eagle with the crescent moon of 'espaderos del rey' on the other seem to have existed in place as well.

The mystical or magical embellishment seems added some time probably much later in the 17th or even perhaps 18th century, when these kinds of markings flourished. Note that the interesting surround of the crescent moon is added in a cosmological radiating fashion. Also the JESUS MARIA
inscription added at the forte seems far from the style of the earlier centuries and was usually placed on the blade...not the forte..
Also, it is noted that religious invocation was often added to that of magical nature to augment or accent the potency of these markings.

The blade itself seems likely a German product and as earlier noted, I have not yet found exact sources for these marks. This may be due to the fact that German makers often used spurious stamps or markings to imitate other centers products. The nature of the double headed eagle suggest somewhat Austrian or Italian character as does the lion with the five point crown which seems Italian. As previously noted the crescent moon of Spanish makers was often copied in Germany.

In all, a wonderfully fascinating sword!

Cerjak · 9th January 2016, 10:17 AM

There is a point not debated yet : the leather grip ,there is no doubt that grip it is an early grip and seems commensurate with the age from the blade.
I have well understood the opinion from ulfberth but I would like to remember to all how many swords were wrongly classified as 19 th century because of such details.
We have in this case the hilt ,grip & pommel who are correct model and patterns for the period ,so doubts persist .

8th January 2016, 09:32 AM	#1
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 434	I believe Jim has revealed the reason for the abundance on decoration on the blade. Since the original question was mainly about the blade , that was the only part I chose to comment on. Now after the discussion about the pommel and type of guard has begun, I will take the liberty to comment on this to. The blade is clearly 16th C no doubts about that and although the pommel and guard have the correct style for the blade I believe them to be of a later date. Im sorry but the guard is just not 16th C, at best 17th or even 18th C and indeed assembled with the fighting blade for further use as a ceremonial or a sword of justice. If we look at the alloy and metal surface of the cross guard we see it is different than that of the blade, it is also forged in a different manner. The patina and oxidation clearly show a very different pattern, very visible on the blade in all places and absent on all parts of the guard, the guard has just some light orange rust which can be cleaned of with some steel wool 000 were using steel wool on the blade this would have zero effect. One could argue that the guard is cleaned, But this is not the case because all lines of the cross guard are still sharp and as fresh as the day they were made. I hope I have not offended anyone by clearing this up, after all the sword is still a valuable historical piece with a prolonged use for a different function. Kind regards Ulfberth Attached Images

8th January 2016, 03:27 PM	#3
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 434	Hello Jasper, The blade usually has more hardness than the guard, the blade shows spots of oxidation all over as is to be expected and the guard almost none. I have concerns when a sword that has supposedly been assembled for over 500 years with such a difference in patina, if that was the case the patina would be almost the same, the only exception would be if the guard has been blackened and this is not the case. The style of the pommel and cross guard is indeed correct but that does not prove the are made in the same age. I had many pictures of this sword from the recent auction, and the reason I chose not to bid was exactly that, it seems more people had the same thoughts because the price it sold for was less than half for a sword like this if all parts would belong together. Of course I respect each and everyone's opinion, but lets just look at sword a bit more closer, the sword is the object of study, the books are the tool, have look at the evidence at hand and than form an opinion. Kind regards ulfberth Attached Images

8th January 2016, 04:55 PM	#4
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	Thank you very much to all of you for your interest and input for this sword. A special thank to Jim and Jasper, I did not expect so much! Jim as usually you made a rigorous analysis very well documented to highlight a very interesting fact: This sword had two differents lives, I hope if possible that you could post some scans about your literature's Reference (particularly about double head eagle & walking lion) Jasper very interesting link about the practice for such sword and of course all the time spend trying to figure out the words, tracing out the letters and of course the translation you made after. Best Jean-Luc

8th January 2016, 06:28 PM	#5
CSinTX Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 233	For what it’s worth, I’ll offer my opinion. First, what an impressive piece with such detail and character. I am jealous for sure and would love to have it in my collection. In my somewhat uneducated opinion, I think the guard and blade have not spent their entire lives together. I know there can be differences in metals with blades often being made separate but there is just too much variation in wear and patina between the blade and the hilt. There is a good bit of deep pitting in the blade that just doesn’t show at all in the hilt. What a great piece though!

8th January 2016, 08:08 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,559	Thank you guys for all these responses, and I very much appreciate the kind recognition of the detail I added concerning these most unusual markings. I will here note that as always my focus is typically toward the historical aspects of the weapons themselves and have always been particularly intrigued by markings as well known here. I must however note that in the relatively limited experience I have had in handing arms physically, in the cases I have seen, the physical character of metals in corrosion and pitting in often markedly varying. While all sources I checked in making my comments revealed that the components and features of this sword do seem of the proper period and seem to suggest a German zweihander of third quarter 16th c. However, I am very much inclined to agree that the nature of aging of the metal in the blade vs. the hilt do not seem commensurate. I would note that this blade certainly does appear to have been a genuine combat blade, but as suggested likely has been refurbished and had some extensive embellishment which would suggest later use in a symbolic sense in the context I also described. This does not dismiss this sword in any way by its later use in such processional or bearing context, but adds most intriguing dimension to it. Rather than being stored away it plausibly continued on as a component of a very unusual and relatively little known organization in Germany. As noted, the sword has certainly been apart at some point, also it is well known that blades were export items and typically the hilts came from other makers. It does seem unusual that the hilt components follow so closely the proper style of this type sword in its period. However, it does seem possible that other hilts of the form existed in static circumstances and would have been chosen for refurbishing. That being the best case scenario, the possibility of later production in the case for reproducing similar components remains possible. As noted the metal in hilts is of course much different than in blades, but still the degree of deterioration must resemble that relative to the blade. As with all metal production, the composition of ingredients in the forging of these metals must vary according to regions and materials used, but still, corrosion and deterioration should be notably comparable to other parts. The deterioration in this hilt shows only staining as opposed to the deep areas of pitting which have existed in the blade. Getting back to the markings, the inscriptions in the fullering do seem commensurate with the blade as it would have been in its original state. The deeper punzones on the blade with crowned lion and double head eagle with the crescent moon of 'espaderos del rey' on the other seem to have existed in place as well. The mystical or magical embellishment seems added some time probably much later in the 17th or even perhaps 18th century, when these kinds of markings flourished. Note that the interesting surround of the crescent moon is added in a cosmological radiating fashion. Also the JESUS MARIA inscription added at the forte seems far from the style of the earlier centuries and was usually placed on the blade...not the forte.. Also, it is noted that religious invocation was often added to that of magical nature to augment or accent the potency of these markings. The blade itself seems likely a German product and as earlier noted, I have not yet found exact sources for these marks. This may be due to the fact that German makers often used spurious stamps or markings to imitate other centers products. The nature of the double headed eagle suggest somewhat Austrian or Italian character as does the lion with the five point crown which seems Italian. As previously noted the crescent moon of Spanish makers was often copied in Germany. In all, a wonderfully fascinating sword!

9th January 2016, 10:17 AM	#7
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	There is a point not debated yet : the leather grip ,there is no doubt that grip it is an early grip and seems commensurate with the age from the blade. I have well understood the opinion from ulfberth but I would like to remember to all how many swords were wrongly classified as 19 th century because of such details. We have in this case the hilt ,grip & pommel who are correct model and patterns for the period ,so doubts persist .