Hussar saber, real or not?

[serdar]

Thank you all!

As i said before im not by any means expert on antique weapons of any sort, i wouldnt claim that never becouse i meet a few very old collectors that local people think about them that they are "experts" but i was disapointed, they know a lot much more then i know, but are far from expert, on the end, nobody knows all, there is allways someone with higher knowledge in particular field.

My field of choice are yatagans swords, ottoman and balkan weapons, and especialy boka kotorska weapons, with little of schiavonesca and schiavona interest.

So hussar sabers to me is like a donkey looking at vermeer, i know when i see old sword, old leather, types, etc. But i dont know what im suposed to look for becouse i never had genuine example in my hands, like most of us here i presume, thats why i asked for opinion and posted, i hope nobody is angry becouse of that.

About this saber, i bought it at auction, on which i saw a few not genuine "polish" sabers that to me are 100% obvious they arent genuine and are put together in 19 st or newer, this one and other one i examined they looked genuine to me, enough to buy them, especialy when i have auction house guarantee if i prove that it isnt i can returne the saber.

Guy at auction house said saber is examined from two experts from their museum.

After i had fiasco with fringia saber and polish saber before, which i took to history museum to guy who is a curator of antique arms and armor/ and restaurator, he confirmed me that they are not genuine but made to scamm people, after which i destroyd them, took them apart, it was painful, to see all epoxy glue inside and new wood, but you learn and pay for your school.

So i took this saber to the same curator, he examined it and concluded, he doesent know the makers mark (aka germ), blade is heavily cleaned but to him a genuine 17 st blade, crossguard cleaned but cooper welded as it should be, we moved a scabbard end mounting a little about half a centimeter and beneth is a rust, old rust, old almost roten wood and leather, same as is on the handle, with my premision he took piece of wood near the tang and light inside it is old wood in acordance with color of saber from 17 st they have in deposit, leather is smeared eith parafin and some thing he didnt know what, mountings on the scabard are cooper soldered, and cleanede, beneth them is a old rust.

He said that to him saber is from 17 st in style, manufacture and age, latest end of 17 begining of 18 st.

So if it is not genuine, then it eas made around thst time, they have fev polish sabers, and karabelas frim that time, and it matches, wood age etc.

I think that it would be imppsible to make and age it in this way, i dont see how that would be posible.

Makers mark is very poorly struck, on other side even more, i never seen it before.

After his examination, fir now i decided to keep it as saber from 17 st with big question mark ?

But there is another thing i dont know about you guys but the feeling, when i was buyng that noblemans polish saber my feeling was off but i bought it, allso with fringia one, but with this one my feeling isnt off, so i think il listen to my feeling this time.
And as i said, guy examined it thouroghly and said there is no chance that someone made this now for scamm, that it is imposible to chemicaly age wood, leather and steel in that way (in steel in pits there is still rust, old rust genuine) and would be expensive several times price i paid for the sword just to produce that, and would show in examination.

Soooo as i said, for now it goes on the wall with big question mark.

P.s.
I forgot to ad, his only concern was a pomel cap, he said it looks like it was made from several pieces like it should be, but he wasnt sure, on the front end it is wear and lines of solder are visible but it is under question mark.

And carry ring wear, it is very small, i would expect more wear on the ring holders, but as i said before, i have several authentic 16, 17, 18 century kilij swords and shamshirs that i know 1 milion percent are authentic, few of them are family heirlom, and they got even smaller wear and tear there, so it is not always a sign of time and authenticity.

[serdar]

Sorry for writing mistakes, im on the move, and third language english.

[serdar]

As i noticed, there is a lot maybe 80% makers marks and blades unknown i mean italian and styrian, export ones, this and that.

They have karabela in museum that to me looks like tulwar/pulwar blade and it is italian!?

There is a lot to learn.

Il post a karabela later, i bought it on auction before, it should be 17 st, ottoman, but import italian or styer blade, but to me blade is very strange not very good for slicing (meat) more for slicing thru the armour, one guy from my town that has a collection of about 40 karabelas, said it is old blade from end of 16 st begining of 17st and handle and crossguard ottoman 18 st.

[Will M]

A very interesting sword that appears authentic. I know little about this type of sword as I mostly collect British. However age and corrosion I am good at determining whether aging is real or intentionally done. This sword appears correct, I am interested in the copper (brazing)? It would take less heat to accomplish the joining of the iron/steel parts. I would say yes that leather and wood can also be aged. Again I find this sword interesting and the only thing that has prevented me from acquiring one is my lack of knowledge in this area since there are convincing copies and photos alone I cannot determine authenticity.

[Jim McDougall]

I have honestly been pretty back and forth on this example of what is generally described as an open hilt (Lguard) saber, which for me had certain notoriety from study on the Battle of Beretschko in Ukraine in 1651 (as I described in my post #7).

As has been noted, the blade appears authentic, but there have been questions on the scabbard and mounts. There seems to have been efforts at restoration which have certain characteristics which can bring doubts, especially in wondering why, where and when would these have been carried out.

With the consternation on the mounts and scabbard, again it does seem the blade, as often the case as the primary and most durable element of the sword, is likely authentic...but questions (for me at least)were toward the markings.

In looking again, the curious oval with arcs at either end marking does seem to have been a known marking, though not as widely known as many others.
In Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962, p.274) it occurs on a German sword of c. 1560-1600, and in configuration bracketed by the familiar 'Genoan' sickle marks (dentated arcs in parallel).

While these 'sickle' marks were apparently widely known in North Italy, the Genoan eponym was leveled primarily as that was the port of export, and these marks used in many locations, As with many markings, there were notable variations and configurations and while perhaps some were favored more by one maker over another, it seems these typically had some sort of application with other meanings.

In looking at the markings on the subject blade discussed here, it does seem the 'germ' marking as we might call it, must have been placed in situ on the blade in original use, the duplicate mark on the other blade face is worn.
The 'x' markings seem spuriously applied later.

Though the sickle marks were originally Italian, and later widely copied especially in Germany, it seems likely this curious mark was also from Italy in its origins. These Italian markings were also notably copied in Styria at several blsde making centers, and these centers are known to be the most prevalent supplier for blades for Eastern Europe's cutlers (despite Poland having some as well).


Attached page from Wallace Coll.