Thanks Glen, as I indicated, I did not suspect this was a decorator, or at least in later consideration. Photos are always difficult.
The dramatic point is unusual, but would be understandable if the blade is shortened as you say.
These blade devices were probably added later, with unclear association.

A 17th century Walloon with the 'Pappenheimer' pierced bilobate guard plates attached, may well have been the design sought in this one.

Sent some pictures off to a dealer pal of mine.

Looks like a decorator to me. Blade and application of the markings seem odd.

Respectfully who is the dealer?

Cheers
GC

Again, really hard to tell with pics, and this seems a fully serviceable sword by the physical description. Best discuss the second hand opinion of the dealer privately as far as his identity, but explanation of his analysis reasons would be interesting for those of us discussing this weapon.

Yes ... absolutely.

Point taken guys but Ed's comment could have been conveyed privately as well. I was simply curious as to whom he refers. It is a pretty small world. I'm not here for the politics.

That opinion aside, here are some resized images. All fittings are ferrous and imo, steel or iron. The plates do appear cast but I believe I may have mentioned cast steel was coming into vogue by the mid 17th century. I do not think the plates were cast together with the body of the roped guard but joined hot. I have done my best to show sections that were assembled. I have scrubbed a section of the blade and will be taking off the grunge/varnish, whatever that top coat is. You can somewhat see it had been sharp and then somewhat bated at some point. If I return with after photos, that will reinforce my take on a shortened or re-purposed blade. I could guess it might have been from an older broken estoc or rapier but that is just speculation.

As this venue is not an exclusive inquiry and presentation of this piece, I can hope that if I happen to cross post a name or few that some can understand it is, collectively, a pretty small world and we all should be able to discuss a given object. I'm done for now.

Cheers
GC

Three more in the next post

That's it for now. Have a great day.

Indeed.

I agree, it seems that common sense and courtesy would dictate certain matters and wording. While personally I have felt this sword is more likely an authentically intended weapon for actual wear and as much as with most weapons, possible use, my initial reaction was that it was a 'decorative' Victorian item.
An anonymous declaration by an unknown dealer without explanation for such assessment is less than helpful, and without detail, not salient to the discussion at hand. It is not politics, but simply trying to AVOID politics. Such comments typically lead to contention and unpleasant digression. That is why private messages are typically better for certain discourse.

More helpful would have been to note an assessment by a dealer suggests this sword is probably a decorator based on 'such and such' and explain the details.

As I said, my initial reaction was it was probably decorative Victorian, but seeing more detail, examination, discussion as better photos, I am inclined more toward Glen's views. It is amazing what sound discussion, supported observations and helpful evidence can give us in these kinds of exercises!

PS,I really like this sword !! especially seeing your excellent detailed photos!

Impactive paragraphs, Jim ...
... As if you were an actual moderator ;) .

Thanks Fernando, just expressing opinion, not direction.

Jesus Christ Jim. Please give me a little credit. With the photos the person has as much information as anyone here. If he had an opinion he would have provided a rationale which I would have shared. You don't care, great but it comes across like .. I don't know, jumping on me before anything actually happened.

Bad form folks.

My god, lighten up.

Pm sent

Ed, very sorry, I think my perspective was in retrospect out of line. My objective was to have more information on what details brought the 'decorator' designation so as to better understand what to look for. Actually, the identity of the guy is irrelevant so I should have ignored that.

My regrets to you and Glen, it was not my intent to cause this.

I remember I read some 12 years ago:

GOGAN, Art. Fighting Iron. A metals Handbook for Arms Collectors. Lincoln 1999, Andrew Mowbray. ISBN 0 917218 86 8.

SMITH, Cyril Stanley. A History of Metallography: The Development of Ideas on the Structure of Metals before 1890. Cambridge/ London 1988, The MIT Press. ISBN 0 262 69120 5.

And there was no cast steel used in weaponry before middle XVIIIth century. Cast iron was used in guns and cannonballs, but it was unreliable in this task until 1620s, and not used in swords. Too brittle.

Are you sure the piece is cast and not just carved and welded?
Now, my memory is worse by the day, so I could be remembering corrupted data.

I got myself entangled in a Victorian cast iron rapier hilt not long ago...

In receiving the piece and my following replies, I did see that some parts were certainly not cast. However if you look at the first set of photos regarding the plates, the face of it and openings sure do look cast to me and not cast iron (as we think of cast iron.

Bear with me as I have read differently and in regard to sword fittings. The following 17th century "chiseled" fittings, certainly beginning with castings. I will endeavor to dig up what I had read to confirm that. Cast steel for blade work, yes well noted and developed for cutlery in England. Then you have crucible steel (cast steel/wootz/bulat) going back many centuries.

fwiw, those images in my files and reworked regarding exactly the same topic in 2008 re cast steel objects The supporting text escapes me at the moment

Cheers
GC

Here is one but not what I was looking for

"The casting of iron artefacts also became common
during the 16th century, but in the initial period after the
introduction of the blast furnace in the late 15th century
artefacts were mainly cast directly from the melting
furnace. The first separate iron foundries probably
appeared by the mid-17th century. "

Keep in mind that modern cast iron goes way beyond the carbon footprint in blade steel.

http://hist-met.org/images/pdf/HMSdatasheet304.pdf

Huntsman, 1740 and Wilkinson patents entirely voluminous topics we could regard but look at the last photo (with the red background) showing the face of the plates. Much like those chased pommels shown in the last post, I see castings.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers
GC

Another
https://www.engr.psu.edu/mtah/timeli...compare_et.pdf

Is the grip material different from that of the rest of the hilt?

The color, texture and refinement of tooling seem different to me. As outlined earlier, the ferrules are separate but of the same finish as the grip itself.

Cheers
GC

While looking for something entirely different, I came across this old thread here that displays a lot of casting work.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18464

Cheers
GC