Sword 12/13 century or not?

[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]

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.

[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.

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by serdar

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.

I suspect a sophisticated (and therefore expensive) analysis of the metallurgy involved in this sword might actually be determinative, though I admit a paucity of knowledge on the subject. A sword made a millennium ago would likely have indicators of its age. Perhaps modern forgers might go to the trouble of smelting and forging in a fashion to imitate the earlier processes, but it would be pretty troublesome to do so, done in the hope of a payoff equal to the effort involved.

Regarding the value of a forgery, I have no quibble with your ethical stance; my thought, which I ought to have qualified at the time of writing, concerned the educational value of demonstrating the process of fakery, and alerting the unwary.

[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.