I actually have that exhibit bookmarked and have relied upon it as a reference and resource on several occasions, even having referred to it in another thread here earlier in the year with regards to a Kalinga head axe. It is in my opinion a phenomenal online resource.
I had pulled up that exhibit on my phone from the store, but could not view the exhibit photographs at an adequate size to make them useful for my need at the time.
Anyway, later, when I was able to enlarge those photos and view the items up close, it became apparent that the pieces that were featured in the Macao collection exhibit the same mineral accretions and layered encrustation that occurs on Bronze Age pieces from the Near East, which as mentioned in the OP were conspicuously lacking from the sword I was considering.
When I returned to the shop, I did my level best to explain to the owner - who spoke no English (and my Mandarin, aside from "hello," "how are you," "thank you" and "you're welcome" is distinctly lacking) - that the sword lacked the layered accretions one expects from authentic Bronze Age work. He proceeded to show me a horse sculpture that had a better
applied patina than the sword. Lacking one of my Luristanian pieces to show him for comparison, I thanked his wife for the tea and was on my way.
While it the moment I let my enthusiasm take the wheel, all's well that ends well, as better judgement prevailed and I passed on what in retrospect I am (near mathematically) certain was a modern reproduction.
