zweihander!!!

bathala · 2nd April 2013, 03:40 PM

bought this last night in a drunken bravado. tis morning cheak it out and i think i bought a zweihander! my only concerns its that at 3 ft 10 inches its kind of short for a zweihander? plus there seem to be a mark of fo some sort that needs some identifying. can anybody commet or help?

bathala · 2nd April 2013, 05:00 PM

heres the pic of the mark

cornelistromp · 2nd April 2013, 06:16 PM

Hello,

I'm sorry to have to give this criticism.
I hope you have not purchased the sword as an original from the 16th or 17th century.

because it seems to me a newly/recently created fantasy sword, what has been treated to make it look old.
both the construction of the Hilt, pommel, Parier thorns and guards, as well the modern tool engraved "mark" do look extremely unusual.
(original marks are struck in the blade or hammered in, in another metal in thin lines.)

please see
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=twohander

best,

bathala · 4th April 2013, 02:22 AM

thanks for the honest opinion sir cornelis!
yes it is king of odd and uncommon the style of this one. i seen parts similar, but not really the same as the ones in you other link. what atrackted me th most on this one is the twisting quillion. never seen one like that. anyways this sword to me screams practical rather than ceremonial or show. at 2k with a length that is over sized at my height of 5'10 its not hard to swing around. could tis be earlier aroung the 1500? a real fighting sword? pittings seem natural to me. (don the muriatic acid wathering on a steel gate before didnt gothis deep) anyway thank you and i know we all want to know one thing. the truth about this sword. not worth to throw this one in the trash bin just yet.

2nd April 2013, 03:40 PM	#1
bathala Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 40	zweihander!!! bought this last night in a drunken bravado. tis morning cheak it out and i think i bought a zweihander! my only concerns its that at 3 ft 10 inches its kind of short for a zweihander? plus there seem to be a mark of fo some sort that needs some identifying. can anybody commet or help? Attached Images

2nd April 2013, 05:00 PM	#2
bathala Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 40	heres the pic of the mark Attached Images

2nd April 2013, 06:16 PM	#3
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,057	Hello, I'm sorry to have to give this criticism. I hope you have not purchased the sword as an original from the 16th or 17th century. because it seems to me a newly/recently created fantasy sword, what has been treated to make it look old. both the construction of the Hilt, pommel, Parier thorns and guards, as well the modern tool engraved "mark" do look extremely unusual. (original marks are struck in the blade or hammered in, in another metal in thin lines.) please see http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=twohander best, Last edited by cornelistromp; 2nd April 2013 at 06:27 PM.

4th April 2013, 02:22 AM	#4
bathala Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 40	thanks for the honest opinion sir cornelis! yes it is king of odd and uncommon the style of this one. i seen parts similar, but not really the same as the ones in you other link. what atrackted me th most on this one is the twisting quillion. never seen one like that. anyways this sword to me screams practical rather than ceremonial or show. at 2k with a length that is over sized at my height of 5'10 its not hard to swing around. could tis be earlier aroung the 1500? a real fighting sword? pittings seem natural to me. (don the muriatic acid wathering on a steel gate before didnt gothis deep) anyway thank you and i know we all want to know one thing. the truth about this sword. not worth to throw this one in the trash bin just yet.