|
Post by shadowhowler on Jul 6, 2009 23:20:05 GMT
Heh... Thats even better then the transparent Aluminum sword.
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Jul 6, 2009 23:35:27 GMT
Heh... Thats even better then the transparent Aluminum sword. We have our very own red sword review right here on SBG... I believe from Chop.... Let me see if I can find it.... it was from the Early days....
|
|
|
Post by enkidu on Jul 7, 2009 2:31:44 GMT
So... when do we start ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2009 3:53:38 GMT
The main issue I have with this is what Mike pointed out. Most swords in the price range of this site doesn´t exactly fit into the oakeshott typology. While it may seem like a good idea, I can´t stand behind something that is going to misinform the public. If we keep the categories to ONLY swords that FULLY fit the typology (i.e. no type XII with a diamond cross section tip), and place all the sword that don´t quite fit into an others category do I think this is a good idea. I suppose a type XII category followed by an almost type XII could also work. To simplify is okay...but to overly simplify to the point where your calling a sword that has a non-historic blade design a historic type isn´t the best move. I know that many don´t care about historic accuracy...but to interact with the sword community at large, it is VITAL that at least the basics are not muddled and dummied down. If you don´t care about history at all, that is fine...but what I don´t wanna see is some new collector get the muddled and dummied down typology and then go to other forums and try to apply that to the community at large. It´ll make him/her look like an idiot...and us like a bunch of idiots (many already view us as such already...).
|
|
|
Post by enkidu on Jul 7, 2009 4:02:22 GMT
Who says we need to take only sub 300 swords ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2009 4:12:01 GMT
Even still...the focus of this board isn´t very good for a project like this. Yes we can use more expensive swords as well...but the points that I am worried about still stands from the focus of this board.
|
|
|
Post by enkidu on Jul 7, 2009 4:29:24 GMT
I think that one of the main focus of the SBG is to educate and guide the first time buyers into not getting ripped off, and letting them know what they are buying on an historic level makes an interesting addition to this goal.
And think of what a challenge it would be to find the less costly possible production swords that respects the typology established by Oakeshott ? You CN, and so many others have the knowledge, the eye and the hand-on experience to make this a serious and well done tool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2009 11:28:30 GMT
It would need to be started on a new thread so that examples could be kept on the first page and in order. Ill happily start the thread
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jul 7, 2009 15:42:29 GMT
Let me recant a little, since we are talking about a thread of discussion. I was considering it a moderated thing like the collections area or the classified ads.
If it's a discussion thread, where everyone can post a picture(s) and state their guess as to the type, I'm all for it. At least as long as there is discussion as to really how well the posted swords fit the typology. I think that discussion, and even arguements, can be positive and educational. Even Oakeshott disagreed with himself on occasion. If you read all three of his main books where he assigned well known swords to his typology you will find that he put a few into certain types in the first book, then changed them in subsequent books.
As long as folks have an open mind about disagreements as to which type, or not fitting into any type, a sword might be, it could be interesting?...
If no one objects too loudly, I say start the ball rolling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2009 1:56:54 GMT
Okay so I thought this was suppose to be a resource.
If it's as Mike says and it's just a discussion thread where people are discussing about if a sword is this or that, then by all means, go for it.
If it's going to be a resource...then we should be a bit more careful about it...although a discussion thread first followed up with a complied resource thread isn't a bad way to go either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2009 2:15:08 GMT
Good sirs, Whilst I may be still a squire in this marvelous medieval world, I am quite serious about learning the history behind the various types of swords discussed here.
If I might be so audacious as to make a suggestion, I think that a discussion of how each member's posted sword DIFFERS from Oakeshott's typology would be beneficial to both the poster as well as the reader in learning to recognize and appreciate the differences between sword types, and modern reproductions vs. historical examples. It might also stimulate a discussion as to why modern reproductions do or do not deviate from historical examples.
The result should be both educational and fun, as well as relevant.
Your humble servant Strider
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jul 9, 2009 3:25:42 GMT
Those were exactly my thoughts... though worded much more clearly and concisely. Thank you, good sir. Who wants to start such a thread? Who else would be interested in joining in to play?
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Jul 9, 2009 3:42:16 GMT
I'd love to join in the discussion, give my thoughts and learn, but I won't be able to provide many personal examples.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2009 19:25:02 GMT
I for one find Glen's words just a bit condescending and rude. I think there is no reason not to do a project like this, if there is interest and energy from people willing to do so. We may well be the 'fast food' of swords as it were, but that does not mean we can not add-expand to that if we so chose. The iNtErWeBz are a big place, more then enough room for all of us to do whatever. So, it isn't just me. I've thought this of some of his posts on this and other fora... Besides, didn't McDonald's and other fast food chains update/upgrade their menus to offer more choices for more discerning tastes? So I am being a bit funny here but my point rings true- it can be done here. I think perhaps there should be two threads; one for those of us who enjoy our swords and want more excuses to bring them out in pictorial view and see how they match up with the typology, and another dedicated toOakeshott typology where all swords on display meet that stringent criteria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2009 10:12:46 GMT
May be the best way ahead is to start a general how each member's posted sword meet the Oakeshott's typology. And if after this thread is under way there is an appetite for creating a SBG Oakeshott list, then this could be done using the best examples form the first discussion
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Jul 10, 2009 11:16:50 GMT
King Rat, I started a dress rehearsal thread. I hope you arent mad... I'm not trying to steal your idea, just get the ball rolling so to speak... I will delete the thread if its not quite right and like you had in mind... just want to see your excellent idea put into action.... OK , so I'm an instant gratification type guy... LOL
OK... actually i felt guilty about stealing your idea...so i killed the thread...
Ok starting it back again....
]
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jul 10, 2009 14:14:27 GMT
Since this thread is already 3 pages long... and people might actually like to be able to go see swords and typology discussions, without all the lead-in?... Should this start in a new thread? Maybe titled something like "Oakeshott Typology of These Swords?" or something like that. I would be glad to start it if others want. I have some pictures of swords with conflicting characteristics that make them not fit neatly into a particular type. What say you?...
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Jul 10, 2009 14:18:28 GMT
Absolutely it should be a new thread.... I started a new thread... but didnt want to steal King Rats thunder , so deleted it and posted the post from the thread here...
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jul 10, 2009 14:56:10 GMT
Cool. I say Marc should start the new thread with his sweet little riding sword. That sword was my very first ATrim, bought from Lee's Armoury about 3 years ago. It went through a lot of changes. But it's closest to Oakeshott's Type XVIII.7 from the Wallace Collection, though the blade is also quite similar to XVIII.11. ;D
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Jul 10, 2009 15:45:34 GMT
Really Mike?? So thats one of the 1502b swords from Lees ? I bought one about the same time... but it was different. Different guard and the edge geometry want as good.. you must have done a bit of work on this one.... Heres the one I got same time you did,
|
|