Fake Hercules Swords 22 and 23 Have Arrived: They're Wicked

3/21/2017

The much ballyhooed journey of Fake Hercules Swords 22 and 23 from Italy to Germany to New Jersey to South Carolina is over: they are now safe and sound in my office. You can exhale.

These swords, currently produced and for sale online by the Ferrara Store (Italy), were spotted by alert Swordgate aficionado Hartman Krug (here are the pages for Sword 22 and Sword 23). The store doesn't ship to the U.S., so I imposed upon a relative in Germany to purchase them for us and then ship them overseas. You can thank Stephen Bridges for his willingness to conspire.

This was an expensive endeavor, draining $187 from the Woo War One war chest. It was money well spent.

I've only had time to take a quick glance at these, but I can tell you we are going to learn a lot from them. There are many features on the swords, and differences between them, that I think will move us a way down the road to unraveling the history and chronology of these things.

I'm not going to do any in-depth analysis in this post: I just wanted to throw some preliminary photos and make a couple of baseline observations up so we can start discussing these.

You'll notice right away that the Hercules figure on Sword 22 (the one with the pugio blade) is both larger and more detailed than the hilt figure on Sword 23. Without picking up a pair of calipers or doing a close side-by-side comparison, my initial off-the-cuff guess is that the Hercules on Sword 22 may be both larger and more detailed than the Hercules on the California sword. It certainly includes at least a few things we haven't seen before (such as dimples on the guard rivets). Although the blade is clearly not the same as that of Sword 21, the pugio shapes are a notable point of similarity. I'm wondering if the currently-produced Sword 22 isn't a design from a generation that pre-dates the California sword.

Sword 23 appears to be superficially very similar to the Design Toscano swords. The figures are about the same size and have a comparable lack of detail, and the blades are very similar (but not identical) in size and shape. My first guess is that Sword 23 and the Design Toscano swords (Sword 5 in the database) are closely related.

There will be more to come on these new swords. I've got Sword 22 on my 3D scanner right now and will make the model available as soon as I can get the data processed. In the meantime, here are some photos:

Swords 22 (left) and 23 (right), front.

Swords 22 (left) and 23 (right), back.

Sword 22, front of hilt.

Sword 23, front of hilt.

Sword 22, front of blade.

Sword 23, front of blade.

Comparison of Sword 22 (left), Sword 23 (center), and the Design Toscano sword (Sword 5) (right).

Sword 22 on the scanner.

Peter

3/21/2017 09:47:48 am

Not cheap, compared to DT. Nonetheless, the value for the cause...priceless.

Bob Jase

3/21/2017 11:33:40 am

Perhaps in time these swords will evolve so that they can actually be used as swords.

Peter

3/21/2017 03:35:02 pm

I think 22 looks smallest in the pictures, but who knows. Comparing it to California will be a good test of the 3D models. I can really see why these two new ones are priced differently from each other.

Andy White

3/21/2017 03:47:57 pm

Yeah, my first impression might not have been very accurate. We'll have metric data soon.

Peter

3/21/2017 05:41:48 pm

The face on 22 also looks like it's turned more but I realize they don't all lie perfectly flat. Even without the lion skin headdress, the head and face look over sized, I think consistently through the whole database,

Jonathan E. Feinstein

3/22/2017 07:00:52 am

Yes, I have noticed a difference in the angle of the face-turn in earlier swords, but until now had assumed it was just due to the way the photos had been taken.

I do find it odd that this company did not use the same Hercules hilt for the two models, I suppose they may have simply acquired the two "originals" they are casting from and kept them as they were. I think I might have used the better Herc from the Pugio on both.

Once you have an original you can make a hilt model and attach the blade type of your choosing to make a new master which I had assumed was how all the changes in the swords happened over the years, but not in this case, I guess.

Bret Ruby

3/21/2017 05:39:17 pm

I've had a lot of trouble getting a good scan on any kind of shiny object with the NextEngine scanner - I'll be interested to know how these come out...

Andy White

3/22/2017 07:45:02 am

Working on the first one now. Coating it with baby powder seems to have done the trick.

FYI your comment was number 5150 on my blog. Sounds meaningful.

Jonathan E. Feinstein

3/22/2017 11:27:34 am

Hmm, is that a "J" mark on the front of the Sword 23 blade? That might help to fit it into our estimated chronology, though it could be a trick of the pictures.

Also, I think Sword 22's hilt clearly show 5 fake rivets, not the three I usually think of on these things. As new swords frequently so it sent me to my DT copy. There are five corresponding bumps although the ones on the ends are not as clearly defined as in #22, I also note the fake rivets show more detail (not surprising) with concave dimples in the front and all convex on the reverse. My DT sword is convex on both sides, but these look more like real rivets.

That does reawaken an old question as to whether there was an original (our fabled MoAFHS) which featured an actual hilt, or a model of one perhaps, that really was riveted to the blade... or a model of one. It seems a strange detail to add on an artifact of which all known copies are cast as single pieces, They ones we have seen don't need rivets. They're not really all that decorative,

Peter

3/22/2017 01:18:32 pm

The dimpled rivets clearly create another morphology mystery but explainable to a point I think. Sword 21, Type X, has no rivets and the lion paws seem to curl and extend too far around the outside ends of the hilt base. Maybe this looked too odd so the next variant, Type F was adjusted to have shortened better looking paws and the ends of the base were converted into a rivet. Just two rivets might not have looked convincing so they added the centre three. This hypothesis works but more corroboration is needed. Sword 22 thus falls in line with thinking it is a better/best cousin of the good Type F we know of, California, hence the extra little subtle things seen like the dimples which are not obvious in the only two examples of F we have seen. A better original F might show them. As time went on, the outside rivets blurred more and more and became harder to distinguish. This would work with the look of Type J and CS and then DT.

Jonathan E. Feinstein

3/22/2017 01:57:04 pm

All good points. We're doing a lot of conjecture and frequently based on photographs only. I can think of two explanations for the lack of fake rivets on Sword 21.

1) It might be closer to the original than any of the others and if originally was a cast piece only, of course it would have no rivets.

2) whoever made Sword 21 thought the rivets looked wrong there and ground them off the master before casting the piece. (btw, I don't agree with that hypothesis, but it occurred as a possibility. Usually someone making a copy stays as close to the copy as is convenient)

If the first, that Sword 21 is closest so far to the MoAFHS, someone might have cut off a hilt from one of that generation to start the Pugio and California/Sonja types and the casting of rivets remained ever since..

As for the center three rivets, they are in keeping with riveted-on hilts of Middle Eastern Bronze age weapons, many of which would date up to two millennia or so before the Roman period. I studied a fair number of daggers and so-called swords of the MIddle Bronze Age in Syro-Palestine and several had hilts that were attached in this manner. Of course those hilts were wood or bone and most have not survived, just the rivets. Also like most if not all of us, I do not believe these fake Hercules swords are Roman period weapons (and likely not even replicas of them), so the presence of rivets on this weapon likely does not relate to the much earlier bronze blades, it's just that if this were a riveted-on hilt, that is not an entirely unrealistic arrangement of rivets.

I have to admit , though, that I was never particularly impressed by that means of attaching a hilt. It never seemed a particularly strong attachment method. Okay for a stabbing (or maybe slicing) weapon, but not for one that hacked. Of course to hold a hilt to a blade just long enough to make a mold, it's fine. Now if there were one or two additional rivets further up the hilt, like in the palmette, that could be a good strong attachment, but I don't see any sign of them there,

As always, I'm just throwing out these ideas while waiting to hopefully learn what the case might really be.

Peter

3/22/2017 07:30:43 pm

I would agree on point 1) because that's the most straightforward and logical explanation - nobody was thinking too hard about making an exact replica of anything, so no rivets in the first or early versions. Number 21 is still mysterious nonetheless, because of the size, the blade detail, the text with it that said cast iron, and because of course we only have a couple low resolution pictures. It's interesting how 22 is such a mystery as well, after going pretty far down the road and having two mysteries pop up one after the other.

Jonathan E. Feinstein

3/24/2017 12:04:42 pm

After my discussion with Peter (above), I took another look at the pictures. Still waiting for the scans, but do I possibly detect an extra fake dimpled rivet on Sword 22 just above the lions' rumps on the base of the palmette? On the corresponding spot on the front, the base of the palmette looks like the half of that bump on the viewer's right is slightly offset from the left. The same spot on Sword 22 is smooth but oval in shape, like most of those. On the back the bump at the base of the palmette is rounder.. That could be one way to possibly hide an extra supporting rivet. My DT copy has a slight indentation there on the back, but given the amount of change over generations, It's no indication of anything. (and still does nothing to explain the lack of rivets on Sword 21)

Another question: Is the blade on Sword 22 a little beveled toward the edges? Also is that a "J" mark I detect on the front of that blade? I have tried looking at the pictures of the J tapes and cannot quite tell if is there is beveling on the blades, but there might be a little. Not sure if any of that means much, but is Sword 22 a Type J sword?

Peter link

3/25/2017 09:04:44 am

Reply button is not working, so anyways, in reply to Jonathan from yesterday:

Dimpled rear rivet above tails – looks like it could be; good eye, and subsequently blurred in later variants. Oblong palmette centre on front – agreed; I’ve noticed this as well and want to check through the whole database for changes. One other thing that I’ve noticed and maybe hasn’t been mentioned yet is in CS, new 23, and DT, per the lion on the left, rear side, his back leg blurs into the centre rivet. This corroborates CS being the model for DT in terms of timing, and now helps corroborate that 23 is a contemporary variant of CS, or dare I suggest even a copy of DT maybe!

In your second paragraph, I think you mean 23 regarding the J mark, not 22. Agreed the blade looks from the lighting and reflection it might be bevelled a bit. I think there is very subtle thickness difference, especially with the Js because it looks like the blade model was built up from stuck together sheets or layers. Dr. McCallum even noted this on the show. The layers result in the edges that define the anomalies of the ‘J’ and the ‘ridge’ as we’ve called them. The blade part of a master may have persisted to CS but blurred down a bit, and covered with patina, thus maybe the hint of edges or lines might still exist in CS under the patina, and be copied into 23 but visible because of no patina. On the other hand, we always have to keep in mind that the intent to have an ancient look means multiple little flaws were probably never given a second look over the years, plus we know that grinding and filing was done crudely to various degrees to clean up several of these so there are bound to be differences that are not primary indicators of lineage or morphology changes.

On that note, have you seen the video for the blade anomalies (or any of the other videos)? If you are on Facebook, you should join the Fake Hercules Sword group where there is a little more day to day and week to week posting. ‘We’ actually have a timeline morphology model going, that is not on the latest poster, and there are other things in this that have yet to make the blog. The blog is nonetheless the primary spot for Andy’s salient posts, and for search caching by Google.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ6yqXj2OgQ
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChRK9163MJLl93ad6mr1iwA

Jonathan E. Feinstein

3/25/2017 11:07:13 am

Peter, thanks for the links to the YouTube videos. I missed a couple of those. Also I do not have a Facebook account, so I do miss some of the fun as this develops.

Peter

3/25/2017 03:22:55 pm

In looking at and manipulating the preliminary 3D model for sword 22 today, I would say the outside faux rivets are not really rivets but rather just scrolled spiral corners, that are more or less the size of the other faux rivets. The possible middle rivet on the back above the lions tails is just a slightly dimpled and rounded centre to the palmette and not a rivet.

Jonathan E. Feinstein

3/26/2017 05:23:40 am

In light of Peter's description, I have to agree, that the outside "bumps," are obviously spirals. It just goes to show how sometimes you are going to see what you expect rather than what is really there.

I'm not particularly disappointed by the lack of a rivet at the base of the palmette, however. That might have been a mark of a functional weapon haft, but none of us thought of these as functional weapons and as one of us said above the, simplest explanation is that these copies were being made with as little modification as convenient.

Many of the changes over time have been toward smaller (and thus cheaper) blade sizes. The rivets still puzzle me, but if someone were taking a haft from an earlier form and attaching it to a different blade, whether a pugio type or one like the California/Sonja swords a simple rivet would have held it in place while making the mold. One rivet would have don the job, actually, but three would have look better, perhaps? I don't know... just guessing.

When I was sand casting bronze replica weapons, I was making the blades only since the weapons I was trying to duplicate all used wooden hafts, but if I had been casting on a haft, I probably would have riveted or pinned the haft to the blade of the master.

Comments are closed.

Fake Hercules Swords 22 and 23 Have Arrived: They're Wicked

Archives

Categories