Opinions needed about a schlachtschwert / zweihander

[mariusgmioc]

Fairly recent decorative sword.

[ulfberth]

I can see no traces on the blade that points to the 17th century, however the blade surface is that visible in the pictures.
If you think the blade could be 17th C please post pictures of the blade surface were the steel is visible so not were its totally black.
About the balance, the original swords of this type were not battle swords but processional swords and their balance was awful, that in a way that they could not be used in a fight, to clumsy. The fact that these two have a good balance could be mere coincidence. These swords might be a great opportunity to learn from.

[CSinTX]

Also pictures of the makers mark that you mentioned.

[Luka Borscak]

Originally Posted by CSinTX

Also pictures of the makers mark that you mentioned.

I forgot, here it is...

[corrado26]

This is what the catalogue of the Wallace Collection 1962 says to the mark in question

[Luka Borscak]

I also found this about the mark...

[ulfberth]

Thank you for the extra pictures, however the pictures of the surface of the metal are not clear enough. I will post some pictures of an original Stantler sword so you can see what I mean with surface of the metal visible , also now you can compare an original to the two you have and compare. The one I show also has the diamond shaped pommel as described in the Wallace collection, please notice that here the rust or black spots are in the metal not on top of it as it seems on yours, please compare the stamps although both Stantler stamps the one on your sword is in brand new condition or .... Perhaps if you post pictures like these we can say more of the swords are 16th century as the remarkable fresh stamp implies.

[Victrix]

I’m no expert on zweihänders but they were novelties even during their time, some more than others. Arms in Eastern Europe sometimes also appear outsized compared to Western Europe. Difficult to judge the swords from pictures but the one on the left looks more convincing to my novice eyes. I would take the swords to a museum or the like for a more expert opinion.

[Luka Borscak]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

I can see no traces on the blade that points to the 17th century, however the blade surface is that visible in the pictures.
If you think the blade could be 17th C please post pictures of the blade surface were the steel is visible so not were its totally black.
About the balance, the original swords of this type were not battle swords but processional swords and their balance was awful, that in a way that they could not be used in a fight, to clumsy. The fact that these two have a good balance could be mere coincidence. These swords might be a great opportunity to learn from.

I don't think goid balance is accidental when it's achieved with a distal taper from 10mm to 2.5mm. I'm not saying that means it's a 16th /17th century sword, but whoever made it kniws how to make a good blade, whatever it is going to be used for. Actually, being a 19th century replica would ease my dilemma and I would sharpen it and use it for cutting exercises.
The other one doesn't have good balance, it's horrible. And looks to have "fake black" patina. I didn't bought this one, it is for a friend...
The third picture is a best picture I can get of a surface of my sword...