Real or copy? Judge / Rule Sword

Jim McDougall · 20th December 2008, 01:56 PM

The rebated blade does appear to be one of the executioner type blades, and probably of age, but the inscription seems entirely spurious and not corresponding to period inscriptions that I am familiar with. It does seem to be an ambitious interpretation, but it seems that in the unusual instances where Solingen is noted ,the standard 'me fecit' prefix is present. When the term 'in' is seen it is usually spelled 'IHN' or even 'EN'.
It also seems that if the 18th century Iohann Peter Knecht actually was associated with this blade (the Knechts actually were dealers in blades rather than makers, 'Wallace Collection cat.' p.268) he would have spelled it correctly. There is always the question of literacy put forth in these kinds of situations, but by the 18th century this was typically not the case, especially with merchants.

I think what is most curious is why, with what appears to be an authentic, though remounted blade, would someone apply such a poorly done inscription.

All best regards,
Jim

katana · 20th December 2008, 04:20 PM

A true executioner's sword would tend to have two characteristics....usually the hilt would be two handed (for better control) and the blade 'tip heavy' to give the blade more momentum in a down ward stroke. You could also argue that the crossguard would be an unecessary addition.

I firmly believe that the blade has been re-mounted, the additional picture you have posted shows the cleaned area more clearly.(perhaps , also reworked to fit the crossguard ) Could this be another Victorian marriage

, but this does not necessarily mean that both blade and hilt are not pre-victorian though.

Regards David

20th December 2008, 04:20 PM	#2
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	A true executioner's sword would tend to have two characteristics....usually the hilt would be two handed (for better control) and the blade 'tip heavy' to give the blade more momentum in a down ward stroke. You could also argue that the crossguard would be an unecessary addition. I firmly believe that the blade has been re-mounted, the additional picture you have posted shows the cleaned area more clearly.(perhaps , also reworked to fit the crossguard ) Could this be another Victorian marriage , but this does not necessarily mean that both blade and hilt are not pre-victorian though. Regards David Attached Images

20th December 2008, 01:56 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,592	The rebated blade does appear to be one of the executioner type blades, and probably of age, but the inscription seems entirely spurious and not corresponding to period inscriptions that I am familiar with. It does seem to be an ambitious interpretation, but it seems that in the unusual instances where Solingen is noted ,the standard 'me fecit' prefix is present. When the term 'in' is seen it is usually spelled 'IHN' or even 'EN'. It also seems that if the 18th century Iohann Peter Knecht actually was associated with this blade (the Knechts actually were dealers in blades rather than makers, 'Wallace Collection cat.' p.268) he would have spelled it correctly. There is always the question of literacy put forth in these kinds of situations, but by the 18th century this was typically not the case, especially with merchants. I think what is most curious is why, with what appears to be an authentic, though remounted blade, would someone apply such a poorly done inscription. All best regards, Jim