Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 19:55:26 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 20:13:18 GMT
Oh yeah, also, if anyone happens to own this sword, what are your thoughts on it's handling / blade flexibility?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 20:42:50 GMT
Well, you could call it historically plausible because all the parts look like something one could see on a 14th century sword but I don't think I have seen such combination on any historicall sword. Fitting combination is quite typical for 13th and maybe earlier 14th century and the blade could pass for a late 13th or 14th century although fullered blades were still the norm during that time. And the first diamond section blades we see are more tapered for better thrusting. This blade would look better on a 15th century riding sword not intended for battle. And the sword is a bit too heavy for its length. I haven't handled it though.
|
|
|
Post by jpfranco on Nov 26, 2009 21:04:57 GMT
Oh yeah, also, if anyone happens to own this sword, what are your thoughts on it's handling / blade flexibility? I own this sword and it is one of my favourite. It is well balanced, the balde is not whippy at all and it is peened. Now keep in ming that Windlass quality control is sometimes a hit and miss but if you buy it from KOA it won't be a problem to get and exchange if needs be. Overall I believe that this is a great buy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 21:16:58 GMT
I would say that this is not a historical blade at all.
The overall blade shape(if you look at its profile) is similar to a Type X or XIII, i.e. a wide blade where the edges run parallel for most its length. However unlike a type X, or type XIII(wich have fullers) it has a diamond cross section. Almost all swords with diamond cross section, taper along the entire length and have very acute points, which this does not have.
This sword is basically a hotchpotch of different styles, mixing the wide cutting blade of earlier swords, with the diamond cross section of later swords.
The handle and pommel look reasonably historically plausible.
I have not handled it but, the weight (3 lb 7.2) is far to heavy for a single handed sword.
|
|
|
Post by jpfranco on Nov 26, 2009 22:11:48 GMT
The weight of mine is 3lbs 2onz and it is quite well balanced. I am surprised by the weight posted by KOA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 22:19:07 GMT
That shows the variations possible on Windlass swords and why one has to be cautios...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 0:56:49 GMT
It's likely the online weight was measured with the sheath... But thanks for the responses, this just struck me as an obscure sword that I couldn't find any reviews on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 3:39:37 GMT
Not likely on the sheath...the sheath would have to be REALLY flimsy to weight about 5 oz.
And I agree with kingrat about the historical plausibility of this sword. It is quite a bit of a hodge podge.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Nov 27, 2009 13:46:27 GMT
I'd join on the side of an amalgamation of parts and designs, and thus it looses a real identity. In profile, the blade seems "Type XIII-ish" but it has a flattened diamond cross section of much later swords. If they had added a significant amount of profile taper so it was very pointy it would be much better. They could go with some belly near the tip and call it "Type XVIII" or a straight tapered profile and call it "Type XV" or even something in between and leave us to guess what it might have started out as, before it was sharpened a lot.
But the bottom line for me is, the flattened diamond cross section was much harder to forge. It was developed to reinforce a sharply pointed tip. And this sword doesn't have one. They went to the trouble of writing a set of marketing speak that clearly attempts to establish it as a "Hundred Years War-era" sword. But it's not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 16:15:10 GMT
It never appealed to me so I never bothered to look into it; but I am glad that you all did. That just lets me know I made the right decision in any case.
|
|
|
Post by jpfranco on Nov 27, 2009 16:29:07 GMT
I know a lot of swords on the market that are not historically accurate(like the new VA Actium) but this does not mean they are not good sword. This is (mine is anyway, again with the Windlass quality control, who knows) a well balanced and well put together sword. The blade is stiff and well tempered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 16:40:06 GMT
What's inaccurate about the Actium? I thought it was based on an earlier Spanish model?
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Nov 27, 2009 16:54:28 GMT
I think they didn't use fullers on their blades, Ebon. Not that I'm in any way even close in my dreams of being knowledgeable about historical accuracy, nor do I care, the blade on the Actium is the best thing about it in my opinion.
From what I've seen Windlass does a good job on their swords sometimes and sometimes not. They are a good source to draw from for their price I think. I take JP's word that this is one of the good ones.
However the OP did single out historical accuracy so I bow to the people with more info than I on that.
|
|
|
Post by jpfranco on Nov 27, 2009 16:59:12 GMT
What's inaccurate about the Actium? I thought it was based on an earlier Spanish model? The blade is also a little too long, this thing could almost be a spatha. I do not have anything against the Actium by the way, I am just saying that it is not 100% historically accurate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 17:54:51 GMT
Thanks, Ric...that makes sense as any gladii I've ever had the pleasure of viewing was pretty plain, nondescript and dedicated to the purpose for which it was made. I like the Actium in that it is a good looking sword; and while I do lean more towards historical plausibility, if not outright accuracy, I could see me owning one of these just because it looks like it'll do the job well and who wouldn't want another capable sword, right? The list just keeps getting longer!
JP, I can dig that- but show me a sword at our pricepoint that is 100% historically accurate- and I'll buy it (if it pleases me); from my experience, there aren't any, not really.
Historically plausible, yup, that's what we're working with, and the getting's good.
|
|
|
Post by jpfranco on Nov 27, 2009 18:10:49 GMT
Thanks, Ric...that makes sense as any gladii I've ever had the pleasure of viewing was pretty plain, nondescript and dedicated to the purpose for which it was made. I like the Actium in that it is a good looking sword; and while I do lean more towards historical plausibility, if not outright accuracy, I could see me owning one of these just because it looks like it'll do the job well and who wouldn't want another capable sword, right? The list just keeps getting longer! JP, I can dig that- but show me a sword at our pricepoint that is 100% historically accurate- and I'll buy it (if it pleases me); from my experience, there aren't any, not really. Historically plausible, yup, that's what we're working with, and the getting's good. It seems we agree on this!!! I was just mentioning that accuracy is one thing but quality is another. You decide what you want. Albion are usually both but for far much money than what this forum is all about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 18:18:56 GMT
Yea...Albion...those're drool-worthy, no doubt. As far as production swords go, they're the pick of the litter far as I'm concerned; but with so many more affordable options, me getting an Albion got moved back somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Nov 29, 2009 2:17:27 GMT
Now I'm thinking "What would it take to make this Windlass sword more spot-on with respect to historical plausibility?" Especially since JP says it's a good quality and well designed sword.
I wonder how hard it would be to subtly re-profile the last half of the blade to be more of a thruster? With the right grinding setup, or even some files and patience, it should be a fairly easy project... maybe?
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Nov 29, 2009 6:54:11 GMT
Files should do the trick. I didn't have much trouble at all reshaping the tip of one of my Windlass blades (to fix that dreaded unevenness and taper it a bit more). The steel isn't soft, but it's not ridiculously hard, either.
|
|