|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Aug 22, 2009 15:35:02 GMT
THEY DID. again this is one of our silly modern notions. it may be exaggerated a little but hving the strong og the blade blunt is historically accurate, although I think it was found more often in later period swords I think it is still acceptable in a type XII. like I said you could easily get two thirds of the blade sharp and that would only leave you with 8-ish inches that were blunt and I doubt it would change any of the blade's characteristics.
as far as changing the blade's charcteristics goes the project I'm working on right now will do it if anything will. I've already cut off the threaded part of the tang, and extended the tang up the blade by an inch and a half to two inches. I'll let you all know how it turns out. eventually.
|
|
Avery
Member
Manufacturer/Vendor
"It's alright little brother... There are more!!!
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by Avery on Aug 22, 2009 21:01:06 GMT
First off, good review. On the subject of the spatulate tip, I thought I'd toss in. Heres a short vid of me cutting a water bottle with just the tip of my Leuterit blade, and then an upclose pic of the cuts. My point being never under estimate the quick tip strikes with a spatulate tip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 21:08:23 GMT
StevenJ, I just got a EMSHS blade and it is blunt in the lower half too. as I understand it this is an accurate historical way of sharpening. the idea is you block with that part of the sword and you can half sword without getting cut and you can bash their armor with it, but I had thought this was mostly for longswords and later period blades. Sorry, but that's wrong. Early medieval swords were sharpened all the way up to the crossguard. There might have been exceptions but for 99% of swords from that time period that's the way to go. Also, half swordening was never done with one handed blades from early time periods. Vikings and the early medieval soldiers had a shield in their left hand and couldn't grip the sword by the blade. Half swording was only used on later medieval longswords/hand and a half swords. Oh, by the way, you NEVER block with your sword. IF you HAVE to parry with the blade you use the flat so an unsharpened part of the blade doesn't make sense. And that parrying movement isn't a block, it's a fluid movement so less stress is put on the sword. The sabers later were different they actually had only the front half of the blade sharpened.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Aug 22, 2009 21:51:50 GMT
yeah I know it's a sharpening idea that came later (15th C-ish) but I figure it is forgiveable. tell you what, let me measure how much of the blade is so blunt I think it would be impracticle to sharpen and I'll get back with you guys in a minute. the rest of the blade is really pretty good though and I didn't want people to overshadow the fact that it realy is a good geometry right now. I think there's too much worry about the unsarpened part.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Aug 22, 2009 21:56:53 GMT
ok I'm back with measurements:
my EMSHS blade is about 32 inches long from shoulder to tip. the first 8 to 9 inches closest to the shoulders is so thick and blunt it would be a major undertaking to sharpen and therefor probably not worth it. however, I will do it so that I can relay to you guys how hard it is, or isn't.
9 inches blunt
23 inches sharp or sharpenable with reasonable effort
I find nothing wrong with that idea.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Aug 22, 2009 22:02:50 GMT
I'd like to see an "as is" cutting vid.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Aug 22, 2009 22:05:27 GMT
ok, I won't touch the edge until I have it mounted. may be a while though.
I imagine the Norman edges are about the same as the EMSHS
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Aug 23, 2009 3:52:30 GMT
I'd like to see an "as is" cutting vid. Good call, Ric. Tom: 9 blunt inchs and 23 sharp inchs would be totaly fine with me... thats less then 1/3 of the blade being dull... which, to me, is a big difference from 1/2 the blade being dull. If the sharp part is REALLY sharp, that would work fine for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2009 4:25:32 GMT
I generally like to have 3 or 4" of dull blade near the hilt on a Euro single hander with a reasonabley long blade, since I can choke up on the handle and wrap my index finger around the guard. Sometimes I find it easier to get good alignment this way, and it can also free up a little room on the pommel end of the grip for a second hand, should I want a more powerful cut. I agree the majority of my cutting is done with the half of the blade nearest the point. The swords I have that see a good bit of use are scratched up around the CoP and near the tip, but look good elsewhere. Of course, this is from a stricly backyard cutting perspective and not that of someone who practices any accepted historical form, so ymmv.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Aug 23, 2009 5:24:37 GMT
I'd like to see an "as is" cutting vid. Good call, Ric. Tom: 9 blunt inchs and 23 sharp inchs would be totaly fine with me... thats less then 1/3 of the blade being dull... which, to me, is a big difference from 1/2 the blade being dull. If the sharp part is REALLY sharp, that would work fine for me. that's why I said it would be easy to sharpen up to two-thirds of the sword. half the sword is dull out of the box but one third of the blade nearest the hilt is extremely BLUNT and would be a massive job to sharpen. a raw newbie could sharpen it up to 2/3 with little effort especially if they had their questions answered by guys like us or maybe watched my videos . my prediction is that the sword will cut ok out of the box but most folks will want it sharper. it won't be as sharp out of the box as the typical Valiant but it could become that sharp very easily. it DOES have better geometry than the standard Valiant and I expect that will help it cut on close to the same level out of the box as a VA out of the box.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Aug 23, 2009 15:35:31 GMT
it DOES have better geometry than the standard Valiant and I expect that will help it cut on close to the same level out of the box as a VA out of the box. Whats makes the blades geometry better then a standard VA sword?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2009 16:46:11 GMT
Nine inches of blunt isn't too bad, I suppose, although I would still prefer no more than five inches blunt.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Aug 23, 2009 17:30:23 GMT
it DOES have better geometry than the standard Valiant and I expect that will help it cut on close to the same level out of the box as a VA out of the box. Whats makes the blades geometry better then a standard VA sword? Well I can't speak to the new generation of VA practicals nor many of the signature line but from what I know of VA swords (especially the 1st gen practicals) the H/T EMSHS has much better distal taper, harmonic balance, and mass distribution. both swords start out about the same thickness but the EMSHS gets a LOT thinner and tapers more in the weak of the blade than the strong. the profile shape is more pleasing to me than the at303 which is almost straight. the first gen AT303 and 304 are not lenticular forward of the fuller as a type XII should be (this assumes the AT303/304 are supposed to be type XII) but the realization of the difference really hit me when I realized that the better sword to compare the EMSHS to was not the AT303 but the Albion Norman I had for a while. the EMSHS is very stiff in the strong and very flexible in the weak. I should have something to show you guys very soon. I've only got to wire-wrap the handle, the furniture to hot blue, and then assembly and peening and I'll be done. until it's time to make a scabbard. . .
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Aug 23, 2009 17:32:12 GMT
Well I can't speak to the new generation of VA practicals nor many of the signature line but from what I know VA swords (especially the 1st gen practicals) the H/T EMSHS has much better distal taper, harmonic balance, and mass distribution. both swords start out about the same thickness but the EMSHS gets a LOT thinner and tapers more in the weak of the blade than the strong. the profile shape is more pleasing to me than the at303 which is almost straight. the first gen AT303 and 304 are not lenticular forward of the fuller as a type XII should be (this assumes the AT303/304 are supposed to be type XII) but the realization of the difference really hit me when I realized that the better sword to compare the EMSHS to was not the AT303 but the Albion Norman I had for a while. the EMSHS is very stiff in the strong and very flexible in the weak. I should have something to show you guys very soon. I've only got to wire-wrap the handle, the furniture to hot blue, and then assembly and peening and I'll be done. until it's time to make a scabbard. . . Sounds damn nice Tom... I look forward to seeing what you are making out of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2009 18:48:40 GMT
Please post pictures of it once you finish your project. A review would also be nice, even though it is customized.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Aug 23, 2009 20:13:06 GMT
I will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2009 6:56:34 GMT
The EMSHS just looked so thin from the side, kinda put me off, the norman however looks just right for my tastes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2009 11:03:20 GMT
Would you classify the norman as a medieval sword or a viking sword?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2009 11:24:49 GMT
I would classify the norman as an early medieval sword. There are similarities between these swords and the viking swords, especially the blade but they still classify as medieval swords in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2009 23:06:57 GMT
Its a fine line as one age went into another, there will still vikings so to speak in the middle ages. Essentially Norseman Vikings became Norman Lords, those with enough guts and money.
|
|