Real or copy? Judge / Rule Sword

celtan · 7th December 2008, 01:45 AM

What do you think, real McCoy or victorian copy?

Manuel Luis

kisak · 7th December 2008, 02:02 PM

Odd looking pommel. Can't see anything I recognise as a "bad sign" with the blade, but then I have only seen a rare few executioner's swords (as I guess this is). Victorian rehilt perhaps?

katana · 7th December 2008, 06:01 PM

Hi Manuel,
kisek's idea of a rehilt may be right. The patination seems lacking near to the hilt ...perhaps cleaned (because of rust) whilst the blade was removed ???

Regards David

Jim McDougall · 7th December 2008, 06:51 PM

I agree with David and Kisak in that this sword with inscription seems to be 19th century refabrication of what may have been a trade blade. The bulb like pommel is unusual, the ferrules seem to correspond to late 18th to earlier 19th century forms (I've been under the impression these were usually wire wrapped with turks heads).I cant tell what the grip's composition is.

The inscription seems copied from extant known early examples, and looks added later, very artistic

Is this supposed to be an executioners sword? I cant see the blade tip.

celtan · 7th December 2008, 11:29 PM

Hi Guys,

This is the most interesting part of sword-collecting, the sleuthing, the consults, the brain gears moving...

: )

Yep, it's has the characteristic executioners/judge/sword-of-state's square tip.

So, Jim. You don't think the blade is legit?

Merry XMas!

Manolo

celtan · 19th December 2008, 06:05 PM

OTOS: JOHAN KNEGT

Jim McDougall · 20th December 2008, 01:56 PM

The rebated blade does appear to be one of the executioner type blades, and probably of age, but the inscription seems entirely spurious and not corresponding to period inscriptions that I am familiar with. It does seem to be an ambitious interpretation, but it seems that in the unusual instances where Solingen is noted ,the standard 'me fecit' prefix is present. When the term 'in' is seen it is usually spelled 'IHN' or even 'EN'.
It also seems that if the 18th century Iohann Peter Knecht actually was associated with this blade (the Knechts actually were dealers in blades rather than makers, 'Wallace Collection cat.' p.268) he would have spelled it correctly. There is always the question of literacy put forth in these kinds of situations, but by the 18th century this was typically not the case, especially with merchants.

I think what is most curious is why, with what appears to be an authentic, though remounted blade, would someone apply such a poorly done inscription.

All best regards,
Jim

katana · 20th December 2008, 04:20 PM

A true executioner's sword would tend to have two characteristics....usually the hilt would be two handed (for better control) and the blade 'tip heavy' to give the blade more momentum in a down ward stroke. You could also argue that the crossguard would be an unecessary addition.

I firmly believe that the blade has been re-mounted, the additional picture you have posted shows the cleaned area more clearly.(perhaps , also reworked to fit the crossguard ) Could this be another Victorian marriage

, but this does not necessarily mean that both blade and hilt are not pre-victorian though.

Regards David

7th December 2008, 01:45 AM	#1
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	Real or copy? Judge / Rule Sword What do you think, real McCoy or victorian copy? Manuel Luis

7th December 2008, 06:01 PM	#3
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Hi Manuel, kisek's idea of a rehilt may be right. The patination seems lacking near to the hilt ...perhaps cleaned (because of rust) whilst the blade was removed ??? Regards David Attached Images

20th December 2008, 04:20 PM	#8
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	A true executioner's sword would tend to have two characteristics....usually the hilt would be two handed (for better control) and the blade 'tip heavy' to give the blade more momentum in a down ward stroke. You could also argue that the crossguard would be an unecessary addition. I firmly believe that the blade has been re-mounted, the additional picture you have posted shows the cleaned area more clearly.(perhaps , also reworked to fit the crossguard ) Could this be another Victorian marriage , but this does not necessarily mean that both blade and hilt are not pre-victorian though. Regards David Attached Images

7th December 2008, 02:02 PM	#2
kisak Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Stockholm Posts: 182	Odd looking pommel. Can't see anything I recognise as a "bad sign" with the blade, but then I have only seen a rare few executioner's swords (as I guess this is). Victorian rehilt perhaps?

7th December 2008, 06:51 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,739	I agree with David and Kisak in that this sword with inscription seems to be 19th century refabrication of what may have been a trade blade. The bulb like pommel is unusual, the ferrules seem to correspond to late 18th to earlier 19th century forms (I've been under the impression these were usually wire wrapped with turks heads).I cant tell what the grip's composition is. The inscription seems copied from extant known early examples, and looks added later, very artistic Is this supposed to be an executioners sword? I cant see the blade tip.

7th December 2008, 11:29 PM	#5
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	Hi Guys, This is the most interesting part of sword-collecting, the sleuthing, the consults, the brain gears moving... : ) Yep, it's has the characteristic executioners/judge/sword-of-state's square tip. So, Jim. You don't think the blade is legit? Merry XMas! Manolo

19th December 2008, 06:05 PM	#6
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	OTOS: JOHAN KNEGT

20th December 2008, 01:56 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,739	The rebated blade does appear to be one of the executioner type blades, and probably of age, but the inscription seems entirely spurious and not corresponding to period inscriptions that I am familiar with. It does seem to be an ambitious interpretation, but it seems that in the unusual instances where Solingen is noted ,the standard 'me fecit' prefix is present. When the term 'in' is seen it is usually spelled 'IHN' or even 'EN'. It also seems that if the 18th century Iohann Peter Knecht actually was associated with this blade (the Knechts actually were dealers in blades rather than makers, 'Wallace Collection cat.' p.268) he would have spelled it correctly. There is always the question of literacy put forth in these kinds of situations, but by the 18th century this was typically not the case, especially with merchants. I think what is most curious is why, with what appears to be an authentic, though remounted blade, would someone apply such a poorly done inscription. All best regards, Jim