Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2009 3:40:49 GMT
I think that the advantage of following the types is that well, the "groundwork" is already there. If someone says "I'm making a historically accurate blade, type XIV", and I look at the blade, and it's a good match, then I can say "well done".
If someone is going to do a sword that does not follow type, I think that to be able to call the blade accurate, the maker should say "we were inspired by this specific antique blade that is in such collection from such date, and as you can see, our reproduction is pretty close". If you use a historical example, even if it's an "unusual" blade, then the reproduction can be pretty historically accurate. But if you do a an "out of type" sword and it's not based on a real antique... then how can we know if it is historical? It might be plausible, but...
|
|
Brett Whinnen
Member
I know enough to know I still know nothing
Posts: 208
|
Post by Brett Whinnen on Dec 9, 2009 21:07:12 GMT
I like Mike's comments above. I've not read the book by Oakeshott but that is largely irrelevant Honest it is in this case. What I think it comes down to is two separate things for the masses; 1) Is the sword an aesthetic replica of the historical sword -or- 2) Is the sword a functional replica of the historical sword Obviously I'm discounting the 3rd option that is for the absolute purist, is the sword an aesthetic and functional replica of the historical sword... So what am I saying with the two options above? Is it a wall hanger or do you want to use it as it was in history. As an aside, I'd like to know just how many smiths out there today actually make a piece that fits option 3, and by this I mean every aspect of option 3, has the exact aesthetics that a piece from that period does, and handles the way the original did, not our modern interpretation but the historical and scientific way they were meant to handle. Personally I'm in an option 1 or option 2 camp here depending on what I want out of it, for a wallhanger/display sword I'd want option 1, for something to use I would settle for option 2 as I don't have enough money for option 3 Also interesting analogy above from Odingaard, the second last paragraph about collecting, what determines if something is worth collecting is the collector themselves not necessarily our pre-conceived ideas of what makes something collectable. It reminds me of a saying "Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it", which is pretty open ended, just like collecting
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 21:30:30 GMT
I can see both sides of the argument that you put forth, Pete, and I can't say I disagree with them. Mike and Tom (and Jon and Odin) made formidable counter points that I also seem to agree with.
Bottom line, we're all different. The sticklers will continue to decry the pieces they feel do not conform, and those of us who are not so stickly for it, will either love, not love, like or not like it, but not because it doesn't fit typology per se. That's why I like individuals instead of the masses; we're not all alike, we don't have the same tastes in everything but I know I can at least appreciate what is before me and I'm sure I'm not the only one; in fact, I know I'm not.
I guess all that to say I pretty much agree with what everyone else has said, barring a few inconsistencies that don't strike me as being 'me' but who cares. This is a good thread.
|
|
kurokaze
Member
Fur Ehre und Pflicht bis Herz und Klinge Bricht
Posts: 89
|
Post by kurokaze on Dec 9, 2009 21:52:34 GMT
This is a very interesting debate. I think it is important to remeber, though, that in The Archeology of Weapons, Oakeshott pointed out several times that he was trying to simplify earlier typology systems and that each "type" was representational of a group of similar characteristics on blades.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Dec 9, 2009 22:36:36 GMT
... I think it is important to remeber, though, that in The Archeology of Weapons, Oakeshott pointed out several times that he was trying to simplify earlier typology systems and that each "type" was representational of a group of similar characteristics on blades. That's an extremely important point. For every 10 average antique swords that survive from the 10th thru 16th centuries, I'd guess that 7 to 9 of them fit within an Oakeshott type. And the other 1 to 3 just don't, no matter how you look at them. I'd guess that just about any and every thing that could be tried was tried at some time during that period. The stuff that worked was done a lot. The other stuff, not so much. Who knows, maybe the stuff that didn't work is a substantial number of the surviving specimens, since they wouldn't see as much use. Though I imagine they usually would have been changed and reworked since steel was an important commodity. Bottom line is, we only have the surviving specimens to work with. But there are a LOT of them in collections around the world. So sword makers like Peter Johnsson, Tinker Pearce, Gus Trim, Craig Johnson and others who have gotten to study lots of the originals can at least tell, and show us, how the originals behaved. For those who don't know, Craig Johnson at Arms&Armor is the "caretaker" secretary of the Oakeshott Collection. He makes those available for study. So the big name makers all have access to a substantial number of surviving originals. And the Higgins Museum in Worcester, MA has literally hundreds of surviving specimens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2009 13:27:28 GMT
Also interesting analogy above from Odingaard, the second last paragraph about collecting, what determines if something is worth collecting is the collector themselves not necessarily our pre-conceived ideas of what makes something collectable. It reminds me of a saying "Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it", which is pretty open ended, just like collecting I might be different in this. I value swords a lot more if I know they are generally liked by wise people with good taste and historic knowledge (I am not one of them). With "good taste" I mean mostly that they value the swords historicity, but also aestetics. With "wisdom" I mean that they are not slaves of historicity however, but can see when ahistoric feature is acceptable and does not defile the original historic swords. "Generality" means that the features of sword are not too "personal" but rather iconical and "universal" (in the scale of the culture that has produced it).
|
|
kurokaze
Member
Fur Ehre und Pflicht bis Herz und Klinge Bricht
Posts: 89
|
Post by kurokaze on Dec 10, 2009 18:58:27 GMT
Bottom line is, we only have the surviving specimens to work with. But there are a LOT of them in collections around the world. So sword makers like Peter Johnsson, Tinker Pearce, Gus Trim, Craig Johnson and others who have gotten to study lots of the originals can at least tell, and show us, how the originals behaved. That a very reasonable statement. Being a complete amateur myself, I feel that it would be folly not to trust the designs of people who have both handled historical blades and are very competent in the art of bladesmithing. They're bound to be able to pick up on subtleties that others might not notice about a given type of blade.
|
|