The Armour Archive

Authentic?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 36681&rd=1

Estoc?

Handle doesn't look long enough. In fact, the whole thing looks rather odd to me. I can't place it.

handle's long enough, but it's weird. Looks like a victorian take on an early rapier, to me. i'd pass.

Never seen an example like it, and there is no origin information. Methinks I doth smell a rat.

If it was worth $700 as a reproduction, maybe. But a lot of it's worth is that it's supposed to be something that's 400-500 years old. Without proof, I would pass.

i might bid, if i could get ahold of a good musem curator or other expert to help examine it.

I have seen examples of it. I am not positive that this particular piece is as old as claimed, but it might be. It would really need an in person evaluation. It is old - but that could just make it a victorian era reproduction.

examples of other estocs:

http://www.comptoir-du-chateau.fr/catal ... estoc.htm#

http://home.columbus.rr.com/tirnewyddfe ... B0005b.jpg

This is NOT a rapier, or even a victorian take on one. It looks like nothing other than an estoc. Long semi narrow blade used for thrusting. 15th century (theoretically)

I was right w00t!

Estoc for sure. authentic ?? no i don't think so, for some reason it just says victorian to me.

Might be a short sword. Kinda common for a gentleman to carry in the 1600's. Basically a cut down rapier blade, would explain why it only has a 27" blade, but seems to not have the quillons more common with the period. An Estoc should have more of a taper from the quillons to the tip. Best WAG says it is a Victorian copy though.

I can't understand why anyone would pay so much without provenance.

I love swords, but I don't get lust for antiquarian swords, nor do I really understand it. I love antiques in general, but for some reason I don't allow myself to feel anything for old weapons. Perhaps I have seen too many scams, or perhaps some subconscious inkling in my mind tells me that swords were tools that were used hard and typically not passed down anyway.

I much prefer my A&A Henry V. It's not an antique, but it's a genuine hunk o sharp steel.

Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus

That thing is 150 years old *tops*. My personal opinion is it's 1900's.

Which still makes it an antique - if not to the period that the description says

The hilts not right to be medieval, thats for sure. Ya. Victoriean nock off. If I were looking I would just buy a modern reproduction. It`s cheeper and is probably more true to the originals. This was never ment to be a fighting sword.

Yup, my vote is Victorian repro.

I really feel confident that its a Victorian repo. It's obvious that the seller has no idea what it is or what era it comes from. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about historical weapons would never call that thing Medieval. The hilt fittings are way too thick and crude. The lack of a pommel further lessens its authenticity. I wouldnt really go as far as to call it an estoc or a tuck as the blade is way too short and it, quite frankly, isnt really a weapon. Here are some better examples of real Estocs/Tucks

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/display ... m=41&pos=6
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/display ... =41&pos=21
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/display ... =41&pos=85
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/display ... =41&pos=86
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/display ... =41&pos=87
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/display ... =41&pos=90