Sword 12/13 century or not?

[serdar]

One collector from neighbour country has this sword, i like it very much, it has a great balance in the hand, but it is, or it is not, that is the question, an artefact or piece of trash, if someone could help.

[Ed]

It looks OK to me but but but fakers are fakers because they fake.

Any idea as to provenance?

[corrado26]

I'm not an expert on edged weapons, but the piece just looks too good for me! An iron object that is said to be 700 or 800 years old will certainly look different in terms of surface structure. My opinion.

[Radboud]

Too many fakers out there to risk it I'm afraid.

This one has a couple of red flags to me, not least that the corrosion looks too consistent and 'fresh'.

I would give it a wide bearth personally.

[serdar]

Originally Posted by Ed

It looks OK to me but but but fakers are fakers because they fake.

Any idea as to provenance?

Provenance, curent owner got it after old owner died, he got it fromriver near their town it was in a mud in the river.

As he stated.

[serdar]

It handles wery well in the hand, i was 50/50 on its originality, so i didnt take it.

But will examine it further on xrf and then i will compare with similar specimen allso localy found that is in museum.

[Bob A]

The uniformity of corrosion, and the apparent lack of actual use, push me to suspect its bona fides.

On the other hand, if it is offered at a reasonable price, a handsome, well-balanced fake has its own interest.

I don't know if analysis of the metal would be informative, but I suspect that it would tell the tale.

[Will M]

We have two problems here, one is we tend to assume it's fake and secondly using digital photos online cannot tell us everything one needs to make a good assessment. Corrosion levels are dependent on a number of factors and we don't know this either. Expert research may be required.

[ulfberth]

This sword is a fake there is absolutely no doubth about it, some may need further hands on research but not this one.
XRF examination can show the composition of the alloys used in steel but nothing more, it can not show you if its original or not, it shows the composition of the steel.

[Will M]

I agree this is likely a modern sword that has been corroded to fake age. Straight edges have not lost any material and overall corrosion is even. The metal impurities would cause some uneven corrosion and loss that is not seen here. However stating it's fake without providing proof/reference isn't very helpful, it's interesting to know what you see that leads you to your conclusion.

[ulfberth]

yes i understand it is interesting, but I will never tell the fine details on an open forum because it will teach people with certain intentions what to do better and different next time they want make something like this.
The question was : fake or not. the answer is : fake !

[serdar]

Thank you all on coments, metal can be tested both from this sword or another one and then compared with sword found in tje same area that is prowen original example.

Regarding claims someting is fake, every one has right to his opinion and to claim what ever, BUT i agree with Will M if someone says that something is a fake but wont say why, becouse of what and give me a 100% accurate proofs of that, i wont even speeak about that, nor take that in acount, there are too many wolfs in sheeps skin, even on this forum, i learned that hard way.

And fraze "i wont write becouse someone can use that" is for small children, forgers work with museum curators, and they allready know those details if they exist.

And please, dont make argument from this or go in discussion.

Point is simple, if something is 100% fake, write, say, and Prove that with 100% evidences, only that is straight game and fair, everything else is wolf in shhep skin.

Thank you.

[serdar]

Originally Posted by Bob A

The uniformity of corrosion, and the apparent lack of actual use, push me to suspect its bona fides.

On the other hand, if it is offered at a reasonable price, a handsome, well-balanced fake has its own interest.

I don't know if analysis of the metal would be informative, but I suspect that it would tell the tale.

Metal from 12 century from one foundry is diferent from fake, but if this is original it can have similar metal composition like 12 century known original.

Fake is never good, they are made for scaming people.
Its beter to buy cheap modern reproduction and hang, than to buy fake.

[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.

[Will M]

I think it is unscientific to assume such swords found are automatically labelled fakes, it's like being guilty before proven innocent. I do suggest due diligence and proper testing by recognized professionals.
Yes there are obvious fakes however when it's not obvious it does not help to label anything as a fake. Anything is only fake if it's not authentic and is being represented as being so.
I do not believe that online digital photos alone can decide the authenticity of a sword. You need it in hand. People that have handled many of these particular swords would have a better take on this sword. Not many people have the experience due to the rarity and locations of such swords.
When I know something is a reproduction or fake I will point out the details.
If I don't know I will depend on professionals and testing if required.
Providing an opinion is good but requires backup, otherwise it's not useful to the poster of this sword.

[ulfberth]

you will get there to it will just take some more time and making mistakes

[ulfberth]

Originally Posted by Will M

I think it is unscientific to assume such swords found are automatically labelled fakes, it's like being guilty before proven innocent. I do suggest due diligence and proper testing by recognized professionals.
Yes there are obvious fakes however when it's not obvious it does not help to label anything as a fake. Anything is only fake if it's not authentic and is being represented as being so.
I do not believe that online digital photos alone can decide the authenticity of a sword. You need it in hand. People that have handled many of these particular swords would have a better take on this sword. Not many people have the experience due to the rarity and locations of such swords.
When I know something is a reproduction or fake I will point out the details.
If I don't know I will depend on professionals and testing if required.
Providing an opinion is good but requires backup, otherwise it's not useful to the poster of this sword.

It is not an opninion , it is the truth

[serdar]

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.

[serdar]

Originally Posted by Will M

I think it is unscientific to assume such swords found are automatically labelled fakes, it's like being guilty before proven innocent. I do suggest due diligence and proper testing by recognized professionals.
Yes there are obvious fakes however when it's not obvious it does not help to label anything as a fake. Anything is only fake if it's not authentic and is being represented as being so.
I do not believe that online digital photos alone can decide the authenticity of a sword. You need it in hand. People that have handled many of these particular swords would have a better take on this sword. Not many people have the experience due to the rarity and locations of such swords.
When I know something is a reproduction or fake I will point out the details.
If I don't know I will depend on professionals and testing if required.
Providing an opinion is good but requires backup, otherwise it's not useful to the poster of this sword.

Exactly.
Even museum experts sometimes get wrong or collectors with few decades of collecting who have swords in their hands, and to say someting if 100% fake online is hilarious, only if that person made it and she recognised her own work...

If something dont seems righ it can only be pointed this, that, becouse of that, but to claim it is fake from picture i mean realy...

I seen few posts on this forum where that person claimed it is fake sword from 19 century, and few pictures latter it was real sword from 17 century, one only needs to read and understand, lotts of people have superioriti complexes i unddrstand that, but i allso understand that collector with few decades of collecting, who is "expert" wont send you pm with words "that is fake" without explanation, the offer you to sell you his own 100% original swords, and get angry when you ask him to elaborate why it is fake.
As i said, plenty of wolfs in sheeps skin.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Will M

I think it is unscientific to assume such swords found are automatically labelled fakes, it's like being guilty before proven innocent.

Except law is not science. We work from the presumption of innocence in law but that is not the case in science. Ideas are very often immediately suspect and will even be discarded without consideration because they lack evidence and plausibility and are simply not worth our time and money. They are guilty of being inconsistent with science and we don't bother trying to prove their innocence.

It's simply about which option is more likely a priori. Failing to take that prior plausibility into account is a problem you see a lot of in pseudoscience and fringe science. It is what distinguishes "science based" approaches from "evidence based" approaches (see here for a discussion; in this case pertaining to medicine, but the same principle applies to all fields of scientific knowledge). Basically, science has the additional requirement that the hypothesis has to be consistent with a hard won and strongly supported theoretical framework that is based on years or even centuries of rigorous work and evidence gathering. If it doesn't, then it must have exceptionally strong evidence in its favor, or else the more likely explanation is that the hypothesis is in error since it goes against an extremely robust body of established knowledge.

To come back to swords: If we know that there are many more artificially aged reproductions out there than real examples and that it is exceedingly rare for unseen specimens to pop up out of nowhere, then the default assumption should be that what we have is a reproduction, because that is statistically the most likely. That's a major reason why we want provenance dating back to before the 2000s.

To give a reductio ad absurdum example, suppose we knew of a single real example of a 12th century sword and a 999,999 fakes, then the a priori chance of a never before seen example being real is 1 in a million whereas the a priori chance of it being a fake is 999999 in a million. We could probably all agree what the default assumption should be in that case. It doesn't mean it never happens (it happened at least once, after all), but we better cross our t's and dot our i's if we want to make our case.

In real life we can of course only guess at the real numbers, but I don't think it's controversial to say that the forgeries significantly outnumber the real examples that have never been described before, and in the absence of strong evidence and well established provenance, the same principle applies.

Anyway, sorry to drone on but the science demarcation problem is my other hobby.

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting discussion of course, and most familiar, all views quite valid.

While I prefer to be optimistic, obviously there is more likelihood of weapons being presented as of this kind of antiquity being modern 'representations', and if an example is seriously being considered it is expected that expertise is required to properly authenticate.

One of the most common reasons noted by many dealers, experts in withholding descriptive detail here is of course that this information becomes important instruction to those engaged in deceptively intended examples.
This makes good sense, although it is good to bring awareness to those who may be exposed to fraudulent examples.

One thing I notice is, when these questionable examples are presented, seldom does the presenter offer observations on why the example should be deemed authentic. In other words, what research have they done to support authenticity, what sources, what comparative examples, what arguments FOR the authenticity of the example?

One of the most apparent characteristic features of genuinely excavated examples seems to me (very much a non expert) that they are almost invariably very rough with many inconsistent areas of decomposition, corrosion, and various areas missing.

The 'found in a river' apocrypha often employed comes from the case that many genuine examples have indeed been found in river beds, and well publicized. Many of these fortunately remain in recognized institutions and important collections after authentication by experts and scientific processes.
These are usually available through minimal research and seem like reasonable sources to properly evaluate examples in question.
It does not seem that the details given in these scientifically oriented reports have much benefitted the 'fakers', judging from the items they continue to produce and present.


First photo of a 13th century sword found in 1980s in a cave in Beckbury, Shropshire U.K. and authenticated through expert sources.

second, of the Linschoten sword in Netherlands from 1050-1150 and indeed found in a river bed.

It seems to me that the metals and impurities that existed in those days would be notably different than modern processing would produce and harmonize, and the chemical reactions that would occur based on the physical contexts in which the item was found would present dramatic inconsistencies especially over hundreds, nearly a thousand years.

[Lee]

I collected these sort of things for about three decades. When I started in the 1980s, I only encountered examples in the market occasionally and although I was truly a noob, wet behind bat ears, I did well because the items in the market were almost always authentic antiques and because lesser examples in excavated condition were simply not in great demand.

I have been inactive in this market now for over a decade, though with very little trouble on the web I can find at least a dozen examples of objects on offer appearing to be European medieval swords - all in better condition and with finer decoration than what I have collected.

I occasionally get inquiries from aspiring collectors as to whether an example they are considering purchasing is "older than I am." For analogy, consider a stool with three legs: 1) connoisseurship - overall form and decoration, nature and quality of workmanship and patina; 2) objective technical data - XRF for surface and shallow elemental composition, X-ray and metallography; and 3) provenance - and here if there are no verifiable details be cynical. With only a set of images you are maintaining a very precarious balance.

I am a fairly unhelpful and useless consultant as I have only two unqualified responses as I gather in all the information presented. I am either "enthusiastic" meaning I'd strongly consider finding the cash to buy the item or I am "afraid" and would decline. If I could generate a score number for my overall impression it would rarely be 100% confident or a 0% condemnation. But probably my calibration would place a score less than 80% under 'afraid' and decline. This calibration should occasionally cause me to reject an important and authentic example. Such a failure in that direction has yet to be proven and a 95% threshold would likely have saved me money without significant lost opportunities.

So now, donning my moderator's hat, may I remind members that when they present an item to the membership for opinions, that is exactly what they are going to get - opinions from varying degrees of expertise based on incomplete and remote data. I have had items condemned here for which I remain confident. Search my history and you shall find that I have practiced what I preach - thank members for their opinions, as almost always these have been offered in good faith, even on those occasions when they may not be correct.