Quote:
Originally Posted by werecow
I can't comment on whether the sword "seems" authentic or not as I personally lack the necessary expertise, but just to put in my two cents, I would look at it this way: Given the prevalence of forgeries of swords from this era and the small number of surviving examples, the prior probability of the sword being fake far exceeds the prior probability of the sword being authentic. So, all other things being equal, from a scientific evidence, i.e. Bayesian point of view, the default hypothesis should be that it is most likely a fake, until strong evidence accumulates of its authenticity. That evidence can take many forms, but it should be strong and robust enough to cancel out the prior (and of course any evidence to the contrary).
I would not be so quick to dismiss Dirk, as he has a lot of experience with older swords.
|
As i said, i learned everything about wolfs in sheep skin, you will also when you conect the dots.
100% fake, demands 100% proofs, other way it is just childs talk to be easy.