Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2009 6:37:32 GMT
I am trying to decide between two different swords for my first sword purchase. One is the "Atrim" two hand longsword (Signature swords by VA) and the other is the Darksword Early Saxon Sword.
I love the look and history of European and Viking type swords; but I want a sword that is good quality for the price and will make an excellent cutter and thrusting sword. The main difference is that one is two handed and the other is one handed. I done extensive research; but I would appreciate any insights from you experts.
The online reviews on both of these swords are excellent; but perhaps you all can give further opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of both. Both seem to offer great quality/durability for their prices ($220-$240 price range). The price is similar (especially in that the Saxon will cost a little more for sharpening). Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2009 6:47:55 GMT
If you have the money go with the ATrim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2009 7:55:49 GMT
+1 for the ATrim. You would find the Darksword slightly heavy and difficult to keep an edge on. DSA makes a good beater sword, but the ATrim is a better performance weapon by far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2009 8:30:42 GMT
Another vote for the atrim as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2009 16:21:06 GMT
Definitely Atrim, all the way. I have one from back in 2000 that I just can't bear to part with, even though I've promised myself not to get another unless I'm willing to sell this one. You pretty much can't beat Gus's sword in bang for the buck!! Except ...(I'm in the mood to play Devil's Advocate today.) What fits your style, in the ways you want to use the sword? In part I'm responding to all the negativity I've been hearing on DSA stuff. Odd, because I do not own any of it and when handling it never been turned on anywhere near enough to buy. Darkswords certainly are not my preference. Probably never will be. But I can differentiate between something that is wrong for me, or even most people, and what's wrong in total principle. I'll use this example: My Black Bear compound bow. I'm a traditional archer, practice with my beloved recurves all the time, and even when it comes to the Black Bear I shoot with no sights, no accoutrements, with fingers and off the shelf and instinctively. But the damn BB is like a part of me and it's what I use for almost all my hunting and bowfishing, and will be until it breaks. (Which may be a while.) It's a smooth-shooting wheelbow that works very well w/ traditional technique. But it's no longer made. Compounds go cams and all the rest, which I hate, but almost anyone who wants to advantages of a compound prefer. Almost anyone who doesn't goes traditional. Does that make me wrong? Does it make the BB a bad bow? Of course not. It's just that the niche it fits appeals only to a few people. Many sword people seem to love to hack (pun intended) on DSAs as "sharpened crowbars" or SLOs that "handle like an axe." I'm sorry, but I seemed to miss all the new archeological evidence that shows what we thought were medieval axes were actually Victorian fakes. Some people like the sturdiness and power of an axe. In the Middle Ages it usually meant you bought an axe, and took the benefit of ease and lower price with it. Or you preferred a typical sword, and its benefits. It makes sense that the medieval market would bifurcate. There wouldn't be many in-betweener customers for a sword that handles a bit more like an axe, even if it were near-indestructible. It doesn't mean such a customer could never, in principle, exist. Even if they didn't, it doesn't mean that kind of sword is just plain wrong, or someone to whom it appeals couldn't practice diligently to make it his own and make it work as a fearsome martial arts weapon. Were all the game I've taken with my BB somehow illusions just because I did the same archery-wise? (Don't even get me started on Lyoto Machida after last night. Maybe that's why I have this wild hair up my ass this morning; I get sick of the Shotokan-craze he inspires because I think overall its a foolish discipline to base MMA on, just like Dan Quisenberry's pitching was an anomaly in MLB and Bernie Kosar's sidearm isn't something you want to teach your QB kid. Still, can't argue with success.) Hell, someday, should I hit a jackpot and have the luxury of much more time and money, I'd like to pick up a couple DSAs and challenge myself to see. Maybe I'll even find they could've suited me all along. Question is, what are you looking for? In this game there are only three rules. Keep it safe. Other than keeping it safe, there are no rules. And whatever works for you, works.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on May 24, 2009 16:37:07 GMT
(Don't even get me started on Lyoto Machida after last night. Maybe that's why I have this wild hair up my ass this morning; I get sick of the Shotokan-craze he inspires because I think overall its a foolish discipline to base MMA on, just like Dan Quisenberry's pitching was an anomaly in MLB and Bernie Kosar's sidearm isn't something you want to teach your QB kid. Still, can't argue with success.) Hey now, don't be hating on Lyoto... I watched that fight, I've ben a follower of MMA for awhile now and I was rooting for Machida. If there is a suddon incress in Shotokan Karate interest because of him, well, so be it... but he's be doing it forever and he has learned how to intirgate the techniques and skills into his own fighting style. Anyone who thinks they are going to go take Karate and become a Machida is in for a rude surprise. It's not the style that makes the fighter, it's the MAN. Right now, Lyoto is the man, and I am thrilled for him. he is a TRUE Martial Artist... someone like him is what I think about when I hear the term 'Martial Artist'... he's confident but humble, respectfull, disciplened, and just all around awesome, a GREAT example of what a champion should be and a perfect ambasador for the sport of MMA. I'm still grinning ear to ear about his win. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on May 24, 2009 21:16:17 GMT
I have not handled the DSA sword you are reffering to but I have a first gen of the practical Atrim you are looking at. while my sword is a particularly good version of the sword there are things about it that the new models have better. the leather is one notable case of this.
I have handled exactly two DSA swords (both belonging to Shadowhowler) and I have handled several of VA's practical Atrim line and in my opinion any one of the Practical Atrims from Valiant Armory are far superior to anything I have seen and would expect to see from DSA. plain and simple Valiant has seriously raised the bar in the European Sword production market and if you aren't buying from them (at least for right now until other companies catch up) then you are not getting the best sword possible for your money. The Hanwei/Tinker swords look like they are the next best thing but they seem to be still working through their first generation kinks which Valiant did last year. all the same I think Hanwei/Tinker is the only other possible competitor for VA in the price range right now. there are a few exceptions out there but you have to dig them up and get lucky. what all this mean is: right now, hands-down VA is better than DSA in my opinion.
with that said a real Atrim or Tinker sword would out perform either of their name-sake production lines with no difficulty and if you can afford them/withstand the wait they are certainly the better option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2009 3:06:39 GMT
DSA makes em good and tough, but heavy, if you got the arms thats fine, I got a DSA Gothic 2H and while its heavy, its a warsword not a fencing sword (like light flickable longsword). DSA are a good sword if you got the muscles for it (and DAYS of patience sharpening the things sheesh ...... tough blades make labourious work).
Mines a pre-peen DSA Gothic and I think the newer ones would be heaps better, great value for you money at the moment. And hey ..... hand forged by Eyals own trained smiths (maybe himself). Their DSA Saxon would be a weighty single hander but probably fairly apt of the Type X Viking blades.
But the Atrims from Valient Armoury are certainly "the goods" currently. Great if you want a fast, sharp as longsword thats got the attributes spot on.
Either way I think you would be a happy chappy but you gotta keep these blades in mind of their context. The DSA Saxon wont slice a sheet of paper katana like sharp (lucky you if it does) and the VA Longsword isnt gonna sunder a target like a hammer. But really who's gonna be warring with a sword so go for the sharp "bottle killer" VA Longsword.
Bit of a rant but just trying to illustrate the difference, neither ones better per se just applications far different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2009 6:46:31 GMT
Their DSA Saxon would be a weighty single hander but probably fairly apt of the Type X Viking blades. I take issue with this. Type X swords ideally should not be that heavy. They are fairly thin and they kinda glide as you swing them. They are very fast weapons and not hulking and big as people seem to think they are. Also the DSA saxon blade is so wrong as far as a type X goes that it isn´t even funny. The profile is that of a type XII being the biggest culprit...but not the only one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2009 14:50:23 GMT
I'd say the problem is that DSA is a little vague about their distinction between "historically inspired" and what would be a historical re-creation. Not an uncommon problem at all among sub-300 makers.
Still, it's as much a problem of the consumer as anything. Why should we assume that a sword that looks like, or even has the profile of, say, a Type X will actually function like one? Or if it doesn't function like one, that the design or maker are somehow "bad?"
Couple cases in point I'll defend vociferously: my Windlass Arbedo and CS Grosse Messer, both of which some people like to savage, but because they don't handle and function like the historical example they superficially look like.
There's the flexibility of the Arbedo, which certainly is different from the stiffness and central ridge of the artifact it looks like, to the point that everybody gets a laugh out of ShooterMike's video using Devo's "Whip It." Yet even his review admits how ungodly well the Arbedo cuts--and I'll not only second that but it may be the absolute best cutter I've ever handled. Period.
Are there blades that have been as flexible, with that thin a profile, to be just as wicked against light and medium targets? Damn right, including many early Viking blades and many late baskethilted blades. The Arbedo doesn't "fit" as a replica of an extant historical sword (the hand-and-a-half nature of it included--though it does then, functionally, provide us a version that common fantasy of a Viking-type bastard sword). Nevertheless, the fact that it isn't the sword one who is familiar with historical pieces might expect from looking at it does NOT mean it is a "bad sword."
Same thing for the Grosse Messer, if it's one w/o any QC problems. The guys at MyArmoury basically poo-pooed ol' Grossy because it doesn't weigh, balance or handle like the extant examples of kriegsmessers. In this case everything is argued as overbuilt by a bit. Of course, here too the reviewers grudgingly admit to its awesome performance as a (this time heavy) cutter--conveniently ignoring that there are plenty of war swords and heavy cutters (the Svante, anyone? the similar Del Tin?) with similar weight and feel that Grossy simply doesn't look like.
(We could dig up all sorts of similar situations with CS. So its smallsword is overbuilt and doesn't handle what it looks like? It does however have a length and sturdy handling more akin to some rapiers, and I have a history professor friend who specializes in early American martial and military history who loves his; he practices with it in one hand and a bowie in his off hand. CS's Japanese-themed swords are constantly ripped on for being overbuilt and not handling like the katana or wakizashi of a particular extant ryu. Well, then, don't handle them that way! I keep dreaming they'll make an "o-katana" in their Dragonfly series that I can rehilt and use like a kriegsmesser.)
If I pick up a Walther P22 and it looks like my P99 but doesn't function like it, is it the gun's fault? Guns are inanimate objects. The maker might be at fault if there is a clear misrepresentation of the P22. But if there isn't, is it not my responsibility to either adapt to the weapons (especially if I need to) or, if I don't need to adapt and don't want to adapt, to simply shrug, chalk it up to a learning experience, and find that weapon a better home--without blaming it?
Not that it would hear me anyway, I suppose. But still.
|
|
|
Post by musicalpoo on May 25, 2009 14:53:08 GMT
Don't be slammin' on the darksword people! I would say for a FIRST sword, early Saxon. A heavy first sword is a good thing, it gets you used to heavy swords, so if-when you do get an Atrim, it will be even better than you expected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2009 15:27:37 GMT
No musical, that is crap, sorry to say it mate. A heavy sword won't do anything but teach you bad habits if you don't have the habits already ingrained into you. Get a good sword with good balance as your first and learn your habits properly the first time.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on May 25, 2009 15:42:29 GMT
No musical, that is crap, sorry to say it mate. A heavy sword won't do anything but teach you bad habits if you don't have the habits already ingrained into you. Get a good sword with good balance as your first and learn your habits properly the first time. Not necessarily so my friend, Wraith. A quote from The Military Institutions of the Romans by Flavius Vegetius Renatus; We are informed by the writings of the ancients that, among their other exercises, they had that of the post. They gave their recruits round bucklers woven with willows, twice as heavy as those used on real service, and wooden swords double the weight of the common ones. They exercised them with these at the post both morning and afternoon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2009 16:40:54 GMT
Ric: whilst this is true, these guys did have instructors standing over them correcting technique. Without having the technique a heavy sword will just cause you issues. If as I said you have the technique or someone to train you a heavy sword will teach you a great deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2009 16:54:23 GMT
Ric: whilst this is true, these guys did have instructors standing over them correcting technique. Without having the technique a heavy sword will just cause you issues. If as I said you have the technique or someone to train you a heavy sword will teach you a great deal. Or if, as you already stated even earlier, you already have established good skills. Even then, though, "triangulation" is the key, in terms of kinesthetic cognition. You want to train as close to possible as how you'll fight, so if you deviate one way (too heavy a sword, e.g.) then you'll also want to compensate by also training another way (too light of one, perhaps at even higher speed than normal). The brain is great as "filling in the gaps" when learning--but not if there is no gap! ;D (I opened the possibility of choosing a robust sword like a DSA if that's one a person actually wants to "make his (or her) own" but I wouldn't make the same recommendation as just a training approach for something else. )
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on May 25, 2009 20:03:26 GMT
Ric: whilst this is true, these guys did have instructors standing over them correcting technique. Without having the technique a heavy sword will just cause you issues. If as I said you have the technique or someone to train you a heavy sword will teach you a great deal. I agree, Wraith, training is overriding important for the serious swordsman (not that I am). I was just pointing out that practice with a heavier blade had some credence. Personally I don't care for a heavy sword. Of course, I didn't know that until I had handled a properly weighted blade. Still, I find some value in using my Hanwei Bastard. That sucker is heavy. I'm working with it on Poo's theory that it'll make my VA Practical LS seem lighter. We'll see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 4:58:19 GMT
Don't be slammin' on the darksword people! I would say for a FIRST sword, early Saxon. A heavy first sword is a good thing, it gets you used to heavy swords, so if-when you do get an Atrim, it will be even better than you expected. No...the fact that they behave NOTHING like a sword of it´s type makes it a HORRIBLE first sword if you actually care about learning swordmanship. If you wanna hack thing, go nuts...but otherwise, yeah it´s a bad thing. Actually now that I stopped using my cheness, I am learning exactly how much using a heavier sturdier blade that give me dulled feedback because messy form is given allowance by the blade has done to make me learn bad habits. From personal experience in JSA I avidly do not recommend this method for anyone serious in sword training. Get training weapons that act the way it should...if you need to get stronger, hit the gym.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 5:19:10 GMT
I'd say the problem is that DSA is a little vague about their distinction between "historically inspired" and what would be a historical re-creation. Not an uncommon problem at all among sub-300 makers. Still, it's as much a problem of the consumer as anything. Why should we assume that a sword that looks like, or even has the profile of, say, a Type X will actually function like one? Or if it doesn't function like one, that the design or maker are somehow "bad?" When you say the sword is historical and it does not function like one...then it is a problem. If it´s marketed as a over built stage combat sword and it doesn´t act historical, then it is fine as the sword is acting in the manner it is designed to act. The problem is that DSA marketing is a bit vague in what it is to say the least...and in the end claims both(although vaguely). I have no issue as long as DSA swords are shown as what they are...but historical accurate pieces they are not. Umm have you ever held a svante? I´m sorry but it is NOTHING like the CS grossemesser. It move pretty similar to the hanwei albrecht sword...at a pound more and much more length. The grossemesser is a heavy unbalanced chopping tool. If I wanted something like that an ax would work better for much less price. The windlass and the CS are getting lambasted because they do not act like swords of their type should and they are sold as historic replica swords...not as a tool for cutting bottles. If the marketing said these are modern cutting tools that just look like swords...well then we´d have no issues what so ever. See that isn´t the issue. What is happening with those swords isn´t that it´s a P22 being marketed as a P22 and the customer thinking that it is a P99...it´s that these thing are P22 being sold as a P99. And as a customer, I think I damn well have the right to be mad if somebody sold me a P22 as a P99.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 5:43:29 GMT
Actually I think the most annoying thing is that many sword companies play on the gullibility of their customers. What do I mean by this? Well most people who buy swords aren't historical scholars who know the nuances of what the different types of swords are supposed to feel like they are the equivalent of "ooh, that looks shiny and these manufacturers say it is historical type Y so I will buy it." I have had people argue black and blue that their type Y is historically accurate because the company says so, even when given proof that it is nothing like historical type Y was. I mean for the most part unless you are a person who looks after weapons for a major museum or you are a scholar with a great deal of experience how do you know that type Y really is historical type Y. Now if a company wants to say this is a great sword for slaying bottles without claiming historicity then I have not problems with that, but if a company says this sword is historically type Y, then it better bloody well be historically type Y. With the internet these days and the amount of experience that is available a consumer can now find out whether type Y is really type Y.
Let's use an example here, lets take the mercenary from DSA.
There has been poetic license used here to fire the imagination of the buyer, I mean who among us doesn't like the idea that a sword can "shred" a polearm ? The difficulty with determining whether this is historically accurate is that so few examples of historical katzbalgers have been recovered.
Now personally I can't tell you anything about the accuracy of a piece like this but looking at it and the stats presented I would make what I think is a reasonable guess that this weapon is not historically accurate. Now if someone asked I wouldn't tell them about my guess but as a personal thing.
I'm sure there is someone on the forum who can corroborate my guess or tell me I am wrong, which is one of the great things about our forum.
I have stopped looking at historical accuracy because I don't have enough knowledge in that department, these days I look at the stats and compare those stats to pieces I have used for training, whether those are blunts used for sparring or sharps used for cutting, and from the stats I decide on the viability of the piece. For longsword training personally I would not suggest any of the swords from DSA. That would be like a JSA student without any knowledge or technique being given a suburito and told to use it. Because the body is not used to the training especially with such a heavy weapon the body will do odd things to compensate which teaches bad habits.
Back to the original topic, of everything I have read about DSA and ATrim (having handled neither) my recommendation falls to the ATrim because of stats, balance, vicarious experience of people I trust and my understanding that you don't actually know how to use a longsword with the proper technique that goes with them.
|
|
|
Post by musicalpoo on May 26, 2009 7:14:10 GMT
oh Napalm, always slammin' on the newbs lol
|
|