Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 7:50:31 GMT
I'd view it less as "slammin" and more as trying to inform people who we assume come to this website seeking accurate information and that is what we attempt to provide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 13:00:01 GMT
I thought the point of this site was to provide reviews and input on $300 and under swords? From what I remember the point of this site was to provide an alternative to the other more historically orientated higher end sites on the net? But I digress I must have been mistaken...
Anyway I have a Darksword Squire and while it is a mighty hefty sword it is also a power cutter with heavy targets and the damn thing is practically indestructible. And on the other end of the spectrum I also have a fist gen VA Atrim longsword, this thing is like a light saber when it comes to targets and speed. I do much prefer the feel of the VA longsword sword over the Darksword squire but that doesn't mean there isn't a place in my heart for the Darksword, it just gives you the feeling of power... you know like the moment when Conan picks up the Atlantean sword for the first time in the movie... Anyways they both are great but very different swords think about what it's purpose will be and if you are someone of smaller stature than the VA Atrim longsword or arming sword are a no brainer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 13:44:34 GMT
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. Uh, yes, or I wouldn't have made the comparison. As I stated in other threads, I've been at this game for nearly 25 years, starting out with MRLs with Hank Reinhardt was there, and extensive correspondences with him. I haven't handled every production model out there by far, but I have handled plenty of models from each and every production maker. Your impression may be different than mine, perhaps. But yes, based on both the physics of what each does to targets and my own handling impression, as I feel it, they are similar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 14:03:27 GMT
And just as a minor point, in case this happens to apply: Don't assume that someone is a "noob" because they haven't been on this site before or racking up posts. Some of us haven't found it worth the bother at times.
The reason I "de-lurked" here was precisely that point of sub-300s: spotty in how the acceptable they are as martial tools, but sometimes being grossly (pun intended) underappreciated for the same reasons I've been outlining. And yes, that is something I picked up from Hank's influence.
When he wrote "There is No Best Sword" it was with a true broad eye to this. Viwed from one cultural perspective all sorts of swords from other cultures are overbuilt, underbuilt, too thrust-oriented, too cut-oriented, yada yada yada. Yet they proved themselves at least, under the right circumstances and understood for what they are, "capable."
The safe and easy way to contemplate this fact is just to go with extant historical examples. "If someone actually made it and used it, then I can accept that it worked." That does give a solid form of proof. But it skirts honest assessment.
Slamming on something that portrays itself as historical when it's off is a legitimate--and aesthetic--criticism. But as a weapon? Some DSAs--some--in the hands of someone like Hank who seemed to be able to get the "feel" of just about anything usable, would be just fine.
(And a squad of ten such men outfitted each would more than take out the single man who'd be the only one you could arm with a typical Albion ... something else history more than taught when warrior classes got too prissy about gearing up.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 14:23:47 GMT
Well said, Ric. +1 to you for an excellent riposte.
To the OP, it all depends on what you want this sword for. Cutting practice? Longsword drills? Backyard bashing? If it is the former, you may want to go with the VA/Atrim blade- but I am not so sure, as you bring two differing swords to our attention, of two differing typologies. The DSA offering is a heavy handed beater; the Atrim is a more harmonic two-hander, lighter in hand than the DSA and made for the cut. Which do you need/want?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 14:33:26 GMT
Guess I deserved that one. My comments were based on the fact that he comments that this is his first sword purchase. From my experience of these forums and of real life, most people do not get training before they buy a sword. There is something about the nature of a sword that makes many of us buy first and train later, which I have nothing against.
I've "racked" up posts as you put it by attempting to give people accurate information so that misinformation does not propogate as has been the case with so many things that they just become a joke, like ninja. I'd hate to see that happen to swords.
I don't dislike DSA, infact I think they make some extremely nice looking swords and there is no faulting them for toughness. My suggestion is because of weight and balance the ATrim is much easier to cut with and they come sharp. If you have the training and you are shadow drilling then by all means get the DSA. Although DSA are not designed to be sharp swords really, yes you can sharpen them, but the thickness of metal and all of that speaks more to stage combat or re-enactment but even then the profile is not correct. It is almost like a re-enactment blade trying to be a sharp blade, it doesn't quite work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 16:25:41 GMT
Thanks. And the funny thing is, we agree!
The DSA--well, hell, all DSAs--in essence handle more like an axe than anything, as I said earlier. (And BTW this particular sword IS a poor choice by about a half pound; when I say some DSAs could be acceptable to someone, I'm referring to ones more like the Knight.)
It's just that some people are oddballs and make it work. More power to them.
I had an old VA Viking--I think many of you know the type--that I, uh, "ajusted" by grinding out oval "piercings" along the blade, grinding off an inch on each side of the ricasso, removing the brass pommel and guard, and rehilting it all-wood. Took it down to two and a half pounds--but with the same thick, axe-like wedge geometry.
Did it "cut?" No, hell, it chopped. Took down a number of mesquite trees to test it. Looked like a sword, just wasn't a sword. But if you like axes ...
(And an axe won't always "work better for the same purposes." Just is cheaper. Which makes sense if you're going budget.)
Still wasn't enough of my cup of tea to keep long-term, but I was proud to pass it on to a serious ex-student, who loves it. Wasn't my cup of tea long-term, but I'm proud of the (re)design; there are plenty of historical contexts where its ability to handle like a sword but "bash n' crash" might have been welcome.
It's all a matter of context--and knowing what you're getting into. All I'm saying is that is how we should make sure to review and comment on pieces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 3:23:27 GMT
Well lemal, your assessment of the svante be as it may...since you have swung it around I can't argue with what you felt. My assessment is quite different of those two swords . According to pure base numbers my gen 2 black prince at lower weight, close PoB should be a faster more agile sword then my albion crecy...but to me it ain't (using these two as an example because I own em both and love em both). And it's not that the albion costs more, it's just that the mass distribution is such that it is more fluid in motion and doesn't strain my muscle as much because...well albion bothers to research this out when they make their swords (as does high end production katanas like MAS). It's subtle...but it makes a difference when your moving as you should be moving. Not so much when you do things that aren't covered by what the sword should be doing (using MAS katana for gumdo comes to mind...which is why MAS has korean swords for those gumdo inclined). The svante when held not in motion is close to the grossemesser, but when I moved it, it moved very fluidly vs the grossemesser...yeah very subjective words I'm using...not happy with that myself, but at the finer points of swordmanship, it's hard to use objective descriptors. Anyways many describe the svante as a 4 lb sword that moves like a 3 lb sword(I wouldn't quite say that...but...)...I have yet to meet anyone say that of the grossemesser. Also as for DSA as weapon...yes I can use one as a weapon. I could not use any that I have held as a SWORD. I could adapt sword skills with a mace or an axe too...but that does not make either a historically accurate sword either. I have done enough stage combat with sword heavier then DSA swords (badger blades are bloody heavy buggers)...and like I said, if that is what it's meant to do then it's fine and valid way to make such swords. And DSA is fine as a heavy blade for stage combat (although I would have prefered their old 2mm edge for such purposes...1mm is too thin IMHO) or the backyard cutter who doesn't care about history and just want something they can use to cut things up. And yes I realize I'm asking for honesty in advertising...and this happening is about as good as a snowball's chance in hell...but rather blatant mis-use of selective truths and obfuscations I'm gonna call foul on (and yes this includes the ridiculously whippy blade on some of the windlass swords). And lemal, you do have a point of oddball people...these are the ones who got the "hero" swords made back in the days. The ones who wanted heavier blades that made people looks quizically at them...and they made it work. There is quite a few unique swords that just don't fit because of this (although the XVIIIa is a pretty good catchall group...). And I'm sure there are individual people who can use a DSA just as well as "ideally" weighted and balanced sword because they just can. In fact I personally can get away with a lot that most other people can't because I have slight hunchbackism and my muscles are very different because of it. For instance I can swing a 8 lb, 6 ft long two handed sword one handed...with just my arm motion. However such things should never be told as ideal or encouraged of others...if you have something unique and it works for you, that peachy keen...but most people who try what I just mention will dislocate a shoulder...or worse. However unless we know such a person is so inclined, it is best to assume not...and it get tedious to have the but if your the 1 in 10000 (made up odds BTW) person this applies to then you can get a DSA and use it perfectly fine in every post with a question about sword choices. Will B...while this maybe a sub 300 forum, there is no reason that historical accuracy need be ignored in this catgory...especially now. Also Don't underestimate what badly balanced/ badly weighted weapons are doing to your combat techniques. Yeah they may have used sticks in the old days...but they had much more feedback from the real weapons then we will EVER have as well. Along with direct line of teacher who had such expierence to snap at your legs with a switch when you moved wrong. Just because it's sub 300 doesn't have to mean backyard bottle cutters only. You can be poor and still be a serious student of the sword as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 3:44:02 GMT
Which ironically brings us back to Atrims (in general)--and why I think they (well, and Tinkers) are often so damned GOOD. A functional, no-nonsense approach.
Rather than even play false with advertising, so to speak, most are no attempts, certainly via hilt furniture but also in pairing with blade shape, to mimic extant museum pieces. They're just made to work. (As swords.) And though Atrims' special pommel hex nut construction is ahistorical, it's proven itself as well.
I think if the sub-300 makers BOTH avoided misleading info AND avoided the often superficial resemblence to museum pieces, many of their offerings would be much better appreciated. For whatever they are, as word of mouth about exactly what that is is disseminated.
(Now if I could just get damned Windlass to wedge-fit their guards.)
(Or keep around the better models that sell well.)
(Or ... Hell. What's the use?)
(I guess that's why I have to buy tools.)
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on May 27, 2009 19:19:21 GMT
I've stayed outa this discussion. But I gotta throw in a couple of supporting points. Point 1: I agree with the assertions about misleading marketing pieces and such. It has been a source of frustration for me as well. I wish that if makers cite historic examples as their inspiration, that they would at least attempt to make a sword of the same or similar type and configuration. For instance, if Sword X is advertised as being "based on" or "inspired by" historic museum piece Sword Y then they should be of the same type and relative size. So hypothetically, when a manufacturer makes their Sword X as a 3.5 lb non-typeable sword with 28" blade of generic flattened diamond cross section, and advertise it as being "based on" museum piece Sword Y, which happens to be a 2.5 lb Type XII with a 32" blade of very thin lenticular cross section... well that's just plain annoying. Point 2: There are at least two types of "historical accuracy" that can go together or be totally separate. At least in my mind. The first type is "looks" historic. Does it look like a historic sword? This takes into account all the parts of aesthetics. Mass distribution, especially in the hilt fittings, method of assembly, materials, or at least the appearance of the materials (i.e. suede and plastic were invented in the 20th century), etc. The second type is "feels" historic. Does it actually handle the way historic originals are said to handle? Does it behave like a sword should/would have? This has nothing to do with looks or materials. And IMO this is where the ATrim, Tinker, VA Practicals, Hanwei/Tinker Line show extreme value. They are designed to replicate the handling of originals, though not necessarily the looks, especially in assembly methods. Handling is by far the hardest part to judge, since most of us have never handled real historic originals. But still, we can try to get some appreciation by comparing things we have handled against the observations of the same swords by folks who have handled period originals. Here I'm talking about folks like Tinker, Gus Trim, Peter Johnnson, and others who have access to museum pieces. Their words and observations are invaluable IMO. To my mind, that's where the particular value of having, or at least handling, swords from makers like Albion come in. It lets us get a feel for reproduction swords that are said to closely approximate historic originals in both handling, appearance and assembly methods. That's why they are the most expensive I suppose... Anyway, now I forgot what prompted me to start this pointless rambling... Between the two you initially listed, my vote goes to the VA Practical longsword. It's well made and durable. It handles very closely to what a historic sword would do. It comes plenty sharp. It would be a good choice to cut with. You would be able to just open the box when it arrives and go use it, as opposed to having to spend significant time sharpening. In fact, any of the VA swords that Gus Trim and Christian Fletcher designed would be good choices... as would any of the Hanwei swords Tinker designed. Sorry, in the end, I'm not much help here... so maybe I should not miss this good opportunity to just shut the heck up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2009 0:02:46 GMT
Its funny, in terms of handling, I just got my Tinker viking, all on par, weight is as stated, blade nicely ground, good cross section, feels really great ........... but still it seems very heavy to swing .......... I called out to my wife and said "Feels great but heavy sweetie, hope its alright" ......... she called back "Your tired, unfit and need to do some push-ups" ........... I have to agree it wasnt the sword ......... I'm a sissy ............ there we go ......... I could blame the blade but I wont ....... I just suck
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on May 29, 2009 2:46:44 GMT
That "feels heavy to swing" exactly describes my Albion Next Gen Gotland too. It seems that's an attribute of quite a few high-end reproductions that are faithful to original Viking swords. The numbers say "light and floaty" but the actual handling is anything but that. I bought one of the Hanwei Tinker Viking sword today too. I can hardly wait to see how it handles in conjunction with a Viking shield. But I'm certainly not expecting "light and floaty."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2009 4:45:02 GMT
Yeah I agree shooter, I gotta get a shield boss and hit the hardware store and get my shield made. And yeah the numbers are the numbers, but until that cold hard steel is in hand you dont know how your gonna go with it. Dont get me wrong I think this blade is VERY spot on for what it is. Not to heavy to be unconstructive, not to light that I'll be worried about its usage. My hats goes off to Tinker and Hanwei for the whole job. And its the nature of the beast with this kind of blade, the type *censored* Viking, to an extent its still a "hacker", its no skewering rapier, swift slashing katana nor deft late medieval longsword its a sunder'er, a sever'er and deep gouge'er, it was the nature of the blade of the era, needed to be better then an axe, but it might be striking shields, helms, mail and it needed to be able to take that. You hear "its not historically correct" all the time, 80% of the time a justified call and a justified debate, and people get pretty picky on anything thats an "interpretation" (e.g DSA and "the stabby point" on this sword) its either gotta be spot on museum like or far enough removed to get into the fantasy swords section. Well the irony is that alot of museum artifacts examined by the experts unless they are in a 95-98% structurally surviving state ........ well their original condition has to be interpreted. You can pile on the evidence to kingdom come but unless you got a time machine well anything that hasnt survived pristine you never quite know what it was like newly forged. So thats how I tend to feel about something that comes in a little heavier then thought, or not quite paper cutting sharp. You want razor sharp and fast ............. get a katana I wanted the Tinker Viking for what it is, not just what it can do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2009 5:56:02 GMT
Well considering vikings were warriors from a warrior culture where they were always fighting for their lives or working their lands they were a great deal stronger and fitter than any of us soft westerners could ever hope to be. Any "historically accurate" viking sword that is "light and floaty" would probably have been a woman's weapon. Vikings used axes and spears more than swords but when they did make a sword they would make a proper weapon that was worthy of a viking, in other words a weapon that was heavy and weighted for smashing through flesh, bone and anything else in the way.
|
|