Not to interrupt the topic at hand, but I don't get the antiquing thing. When I pick up a sword, I want to reach back through the ages as if I had pulled it sraight from the armory rack, ready for war. A mild patina over time I dont mind, and can be quite pleasant, but I like my weapons crisp, clean and new. Maybe because in the military i always got issued weapons that were old and rattley... errr... "antiqued" :lol:

Can someone expound the virtues of antiquing more clearly to me?

Gavin,
I've split this topic off, since it'll likely generate its own debate and discussion. :)

Gavin;

Most of the time I agree with you as I also prefer my swords as if I had gone back in time to pick up a fresh one.

The degree of antiquing can vary from slight patination to rusted looking 1000 years in the ground look.

With some less expensive swords I will give it a used for one or two generations but well maintained look: This can make a so so finished blade with visible modern tool marks look a lot cooler.

And I can see that someone might want to make one look like an ancient relic.

Oh, and some of us can resist the challenge of seeing on close to a real antique we can make something look. ( Well, some less than honest might try to pass one off as a real antique on E-Bay. :evil: )

I see it a bit like buying a shiney new sports car and then turning it into a dented rusty wreck, that doesn't even drive anymore. Why ruin a perfectly good blade? There's no need to age any modern made blades, as there's already plenty of aged ones in museums. The whole point of making a reproduction is so you can have one that's still in brand new condition and functions like one, so you can hold it in your hands, cut with it, get a feel for it and just get an impression of what the originals have looked like.

On the other hand, nobody (I hope) buys a fine reproduction edged weapon and then uses it for its intended purpose. Maybe it'll be used to cut foam noodles, but most likely it will simply be put on display and collect dust or be worn at a living history event. So the issue is primarily one of aesthetic preference. I happen to like both pristine arms and armour and antiques. I like the former for the reasons y'all suggest. I like the latter because they feed multiple fantasies–that I'm holding an artifact of a dead culture, that I have the money to purchase fine antique arms, etc. Pristine weapons feed fantasies too–that what you're holding is giving you an historically accurate experience, that the weapon can perform exactly as orginals did, etc. Those fantasies are more plausible than the antique fantasies, but they're fantasies nonetheless because they can never be tested on, say, a medieval battlefield.

Currently, most of my collection is either bright or only lightly antiqued. One of the main reasons I like the light antiquing is because it can hide flaws and make inexpensive pieces less cheap-looking. It also suggests that the pieces have been used. Collectors value provenance. The sword dredged from a river at the site of a famous battle is worth more than an identical weapon found, without provenance, in an auction catalog. Antiquing suggests provenance, while a pristine weapon clearly just came out a box that came out of a brown truck that left the factory where the weapon was made. Some folks like knowing and demonstrating that they're the first and only owner of a weapon that has never been, and will never be, used. Others aspire to be the 400th owner of a twisted lump of rust. I'm somewhere in-between. Also, I'd rather my home look like a museum than a showroom, and that, too, is an aesthetic preference. Then, of course, there are those who want thoroughly-researched, pristine reproductions with matched finishes in order to emphasize details of form, function, construction, etc. That's what I would call a study collection, and it represents yet another set of values.

I always come back to an analogy from my first love–photography. The Leica M-series cameras are among the finest precision mechanical instruments ever made. They will give decades of service under constant use in the harshest working conditions. Their lenses are among the best ever made in terms of construction, resolution, etc. The M system has been favored by some of the finest photographers in history. For all these reasons and more the Leica Ms are fanatically collected by people who will pay a premium for mint-condition examples and then put them behind glass on a shelf. Or they'll wear them like jewelry, perhaps making a few technically flawless but aesthetically indifferent photos. Personally, I'd rather have a battered but perfectly usable M6. Why? Because I won't obsess about keeping the piece in pristine condition and thus will use it as intended, with all my attention on doing my best work, because I enjoy knowing that the piece is "battle"-tested, because I like to wonder who else has used it, what it has "seen", etc.

There's plenty of room for all kinds of aesthetic values in this hobby. It is just a hobby, after all. Apart from circulating myths and misinformation or using reproduction arms to commit crimes, I'm content to let people do as they please.

Finally, I still contend that learning how antiques are forged can help collectors learn to distinguish between antiques and forgeries.

I agree. The greater the research and care invested in creating the reproduction, the lower the benefit from antiquing. The opposite isn't necessarily true for me, though. I would consider it a waste of time to antique something that nobody researched or took any care in creating. I think the best candidates for antiquing are in the middle range of accuracy and price, which is why I put Windlass/MRL pieces through such hell :lol:

Having said all that, I sure would love to see certain Albion/PJ/AA pieces given a serious antiquing and professional conservation, not as a regular catalog option, but just as one-of-a-kind, ultra-deluxe copies of the originals on which they're based.

I think a very light patina on the crossguard and pommel can be quite pleasing to the eye, but I agree with those who have stated that they wouldn't attempt to antique a blade. This said, has anyone tried putting a very light patina in the fuller of a blade? I think this would add contrast and give it a bit more perceived depth. I'm toying with the idea of doing this, but would like to learn from the experiences of others before I attempt something of this nature.

It's a fascinating question, actually. Not silly at all! It's something I wrestle with every time I think about what to add to or subtract from my collection. I like to think that these kinds of questions are what distinguish the more seasoned collector or student of arms. Keep 'em coming!