Do you think this is a genuine 1600 AD Knight's sword??

Tim Simmons · 19th June 2006, 08:55 PM

There is indeed the likelihood that this is a complete fabrication. looking at the tang again, even if it had undergone professional conservation it is as fresh as yesterday. Look at the tang on my tombak, most certainly not 16th century

and has been in fruit acid for a week.

ariel · 19th June 2006, 09:13 PM

I think the blade is genuine ; the pommel is a big question mark; but the tang is new. A true "fusion" sword

katana · 19th June 2006, 09:43 PM

Just a possibillity...

I would assume that the handle would have been leather bound wood...on that assumption ..the handle would have been bonded to the tang using some form of resin. If this is the case, after the wood had rotted away.. it would expose the 'resin covered' tang ...which could have protected it from rusting.
I'm not saying that this is true for the sword which started the thread... but could it be possible for other 'drowned' swords???

katana · 19th June 2006, 09:53 PM

I've only just noticed this on the listing...

'Length of Pommel: 5.5 cm. The Sword is in excellent excavated condition with minimal pitting. The crossbar is missing but the original pommel is present.'

If the pommel is original and still fixed to the tang, the 'crossbar' would be captive between the pommel and blade, so should be present....or am I missing something....

Valjhun · 19th June 2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

The Sword is in excellent excavated condition.

What's that supposed to mean? A piece of iron/steel undergroun for 400 years cannot be in excellent condition in any way....

Mark · 20th June 2006, 03:31 AM

I think enough has been said about this sword, and I see the thread drifting in an unproductive direction.

If you have information or insight that might help date the blade, please do share this with the forum, but there is no good purpose to speculation, and even less to mockery.

Thank you.

Jeff D · 20th June 2006, 05:02 AM

Hi All,

My understanding is that GIO KNEGT stands for Johann Knecht a Solingen maker from the early to mid 18th century?

Hope this helps.
Jeff

Marc · 20th June 2006, 09:18 AM

Jeff, yes, that's him (see my post above, Johann <-> Giovanni /Gio, same name, different versions).

Just some quick clarifications:

Yes, words found underwater can be quite preserved from corrosion if the right conditions are met. For swords, specifically, there's, for example, the archaeological underwater finds of the Lake Neuchâtel in Switzerland that gave name to the whole La Tène period (450-50 BC), dated around the first part of it.

The state of preservation of this blade is consistent with the given date (late 17th- early 18th c.) for such an object preserved indoors under not too harsh conditions.

Goes without saying that this blade is, of course, NOT in excavated condition.

The pommel, although presumably genuine (and probably datable a bit earlier, also), is hardly belivable as original with this blade. The configuration of the tang just does not coincide with the use of the type of hilt that goes with this kind of pommel.

katana · 20th June 2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

I think enough has been said about this sword, and I see the thread drifting in an unproductive direction.

If you have information or insight that might help date the blade, please do share this with the forum, but there is no good purpose to speculation, and even less to mockery.

Thank you.

Point taken Mark.
However, with the increasing number of fraudulent and colourful listings put on eBay, discussions like this can be highly informative.
If the comments and ideas help members in spotting these listings and prevent mistakes being made then I feel its serving a purpose.

Lee · 20th June 2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

However, with the increasing number of fraudulent and colourful listings put on eBay, discussions like this can be highly informative. If the comments and ideas help members in spotting these listings and prevent mistakes being made then I feel its serving a purpose.

The trick, of course, is avoiding implied accusations against sellers who have been so identified. I suspect lack of specialized expertise compounded with wishful thinking is the most common cause of many of the 'colourful' descriptions. However, outright fraud is also entirely too prevalent these days.

I have dabbled in collecting European medieval swords for the last two decades. I have been fortunate to acquire a few genuine ones and have also been taken in by some fakes. I have had the opportunity to handle many more and to converse with collectors far more experienced than myself.

Anyone contemplating collecting European medieval swords these days needs to realize the perils. It is my observation and opinion that the majority of swords of this style in the marketplace today are younger than I am. I am also of the opinion that the fakes are getting more sophisticated and also that they are creeping into and contaminating the best venues. If you aspire to collect these things, see as many genuine examples as possible, never spend significant money without a 'hands-on' examination and, if you have the least suspicion you are in over your head, seek independent expert advice before commiting to a purchase.

Ian · 20th June 2006, 12:08 PM

Katana -- you have a PM

Ian (two of three)

Mark · 20th June 2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Point taken Mark.
However, with the increasing number of fraudulent and colourful listings put on eBay, discussions like this can be highly informative.
If the comments and ideas help members in spotting these listings and prevent mistakes being made then I feel its serving a purpose.

You are correct, Katana, which is why the I encouraged people to offer constructive comments about the blade, condition, perhaps warning signs, etc. What should be left out are comments that may be interpreted as being directed to the honesty, integrity, etc. of particular sellers. We are a scholarly forum, not an investigative watchdog.

Speaking from the point of view of a personal collector, I am of two minds regarding pointing out specific ways that a reproduction, aged or not, does not match a genuine article. While it is very helpful in spotting a reproduction and avoiding a costly mistake, it also gives an unscrupulous person desiring to fake an antique exactly the information they need to perfect their products. There is no easy answer to this conflict, but personally I am falling on the side of keeping that sort of information in private communications.

19th June 2006, 08:55 PM	#1
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,844	There is indeed the likelihood that this is a complete fabrication. looking at the tang again, even if it had undergone professional conservation it is as fresh as yesterday. Look at the tang on my tombak, most certainly not 16th century and has been in fruit acid for a week. Attached Images Last edited by Tim Simmons; 19th June 2006 at 09:15 PM.

19th June 2006, 09:13 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I think the blade is genuine ; the pommel is a big question mark; but the tang is new. A true "fusion" sword

19th June 2006, 09:43 PM	#3
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Just a possibillity... I would assume that the handle would have been leather bound wood...on that assumption ..the handle would have been bonded to the tang using some form of resin. If this is the case, after the wood had rotted away.. it would expose the 'resin covered' tang ...which could have protected it from rusting. I'm not saying that this is true for the sword which started the thread... but could it be possible for other 'drowned' swords???

19th June 2006, 09:53 PM	#4
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	I've only just noticed this on the listing... 'Length of Pommel: 5.5 cm. The Sword is in excellent excavated condition with minimal pitting. The crossbar is missing but the original pommel is present.' If the pommel is original and still fixed to the tang, the 'crossbar' would be captive between the pommel and blade, so should be present....or am I missing something....

20th June 2006, 03:31 AM	#6
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	I think enough has been said about this sword, and I see the thread drifting in an unproductive direction. If you have information or insight that might help date the blade, please do share this with the forum, but there is no good purpose to speculation, and even less to mockery. Thank you.

20th June 2006, 05:02 AM	#7
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi All, My understanding is that GIO KNEGT stands for Johann Knecht a Solingen maker from the early to mid 18th century? Hope this helps. Jeff

20th June 2006, 09:18 AM	#8
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Jeff, yes, that's him (see my post above, Johann <-> Giovanni /Gio, same name, different versions). Just some quick clarifications: Yes, words found underwater can be quite preserved from corrosion if the right conditions are met. For swords, specifically, there's, for example, the archaeological underwater finds of the Lake Neuchâtel in Switzerland that gave name to the whole La Tène period (450-50 BC), dated around the first part of it. The state of preservation of this blade is consistent with the given date (late 17th- early 18th c.) for such an object preserved indoors under not too harsh conditions. Goes without saying that this blade is, of course, NOT in excavated condition. The pommel, although presumably genuine (and probably datable a bit earlier, also), is hardly belivable as original with this blade. The configuration of the tang just does not coincide with the use of the type of hilt that goes with this kind of pommel.

20th June 2006, 12:08 PM	#11
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,363	Katana -- you have a PM Ian (two of three)