German Executioner's sword Early 17TH century ?

Foxbat · 12th April 2017, 07:47 PM

I have to say that I had similar concerns, and I went back and forth a few times, trying to convince myself. Some elements look perfectly fine, but the sharp edges of the pits, especially coupled to the fairly intact decorations, do raise some questions.

However, on the plus side, considering these are not such scarce items, why would one go to this depth, when just a small amount of even patina (not hard to do) would bring it in line with what is more typically found?

At this point I am 70-30 in favor of giving it a pass.

Jim McDougall · 12th April 2017, 09:00 PM

This is an interesting development, and I am probably one of the worst at discerning these kinds of details in weapons posted. However, I think that it is always good to be guarded in authentication of weapons, and from photos it is by far the hardest.
I very much appreciate this attitude being in place, and agree with what CS notes. These notations not only keep our awareness in tune, but present instructional views which help all of us learn what to watch for...a most important factor for collectors especially.

I think Philip is probably one of the most discerning persons when it comes to evaluating and examining weapons, and by his omission of such concerns I would presume all to be well with this piece.

However, the character of the patination does seem unusual as noted in a number of areas. I am wondering if perhaps at some point in time there might have been some type of 'restoration' or preservation attempt which might lead to this character?
There seems to be good goethite presence on the pommel, and in noticing the latten markings on the blade......the 'chop' marks that are seen over the gibbet and other seem characteristic of authentic old markings. It does not seem this detail would be included in later applications.

12th April 2017, 07:47 PM	#1
Foxbat Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 69	I have to say that I had similar concerns, and I went back and forth a few times, trying to convince myself. Some elements look perfectly fine, but the sharp edges of the pits, especially coupled to the fairly intact decorations, do raise some questions. However, on the plus side, considering these are not such scarce items, why would one go to this depth, when just a small amount of even patina (not hard to do) would bring it in line with what is more typically found? At this point I am 70-30 in favor of giving it a pass.

12th April 2017, 09:00 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	This is an interesting development, and I am probably one of the worst at discerning these kinds of details in weapons posted. However, I think that it is always good to be guarded in authentication of weapons, and from photos it is by far the hardest. I very much appreciate this attitude being in place, and agree with what CS notes. These notations not only keep our awareness in tune, but present instructional views which help all of us learn what to watch for...a most important factor for collectors especially. I think Philip is probably one of the most discerning persons when it comes to evaluating and examining weapons, and by his omission of such concerns I would presume all to be well with this piece. However, the character of the patination does seem unusual as noted in a number of areas. I am wondering if perhaps at some point in time there might have been some type of 'restoration' or preservation attempt which might lead to this character? There seems to be good goethite presence on the pommel, and in noticing the latten markings on the blade......the 'chop' marks that are seen over the gibbet and other seem characteristic of authentic old markings. It does not seem this detail would be included in later applications.