Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 10:15:22 GMT
Hey, if Paul himself can give a 6/5 rating in toughness to the Cheness SGC which I found to be less durable than my "fragile" kaze then I'm not going to begrudge some guy loving on his new sword and giving it a 5/5 even when it is obvious to me I wouldn't rank it that way. I always considered the number ranking system to represent how well a sword lived up to the reviewer's expectations. it was a very flawed system and that is how I dealt with it. has never been a problem for me. in fact I think I dolled out a 6 once myself just because the sword so completely exceeded my expectations. while the Albion I had would have gotten low marks for durability because it failed to meet my expectations by a large margin. turns out the blade was twisted but still you cannot compare an Albion to a Gen2. if an albion is a 4 maybe a 5 then how does a Gen2 or windlass hope to ever get better than a 2? I think we can back off the guy. he did a good review that told me everything I needed to know about the sword, even if it wasn't what I would have said. the pictures and write up were sufficient that I was able to understand how I would see it. that's good enough for me. Thank you, I agree. You cannot compare two swords that are far appart as night from day. If you take an Albion XIIa, will it adhere to higher standards, certainly, but that doesn't mean other swords cannot be perfect for what they are worth. If there existed such thing as a functional $20 sword and it handled pretty bad objectively, but pretty good for its price, I would give it a 3 or a 4 because for its price range it handles pretty good. As I said before, "slow" is a relative term. Is this sword a claymore, no, neither does it handle like one, but it's by no means as fast as my Strider knife, nor should it. Is it "slow" sure, but that's what it is supposed to be, it's a heavy sword, you are not supposed to be waving this around like a lightsaber. Is it the best type XIIa that I have handled, not really, I have handled better ones, also the owners have payed anywhere up to about 5 or more times its price to buy them and I don't believe the prices and the handling differences are really proportional, hence the high rating on the handling part. I agree that finding this exact sword out there is pretty rare, but finding components of it is possible. The pommel, though granted, too small, can be found on swords of that era, the guard may be found too (looks rather awkward, but it serves it purpose) and I am pretty sure there is at least one sword out there that resembles it. In light of that, if you do agree that there is a high chance, when looking at every sword of the period we can find one that has a very similar pommel, guard, or blade, that there is a good chance a sword exactly like this one lies among the sands of the desert. Is this hypothetical, yes, however, I see nothing on the sword that could not have been done when these swords were used, nor did everyone of them come out perfect, so I would guess a sword very similar to this one is possible, which is why I have it a rating higher than 4 (which for me means it's kinnda historical, but has some sings of modern worksmanship), but less than 5 (which for me means it's completely historical) Again, take this ratings with a grain of salt, this is how I interpret the abilities of the sword, you are welcome to disagree or if you want make a review of your own giving the sword nothing above a 0.5 if you want, I have no problem with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 19:11:45 GMT
The only beef I have with this thread is the OP arguing about the validity of Oakeshott's typology... but doesn't even bother to get his name right.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Dec 15, 2009 19:34:44 GMT
I have a sword something like this, makes a real pretty sound. Thanks for the review.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 19:43:09 GMT
Nice review George. I may not agree with some of your ratings but that does not mean you are wrong. It means our opinions are different.
This is why I am glad we got rid of the number system. I much prefer the Pro/Con system we now have. No more arguments over "How can you give something a 6/5???" Just simple statements of the reviewer's likes and dislikes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 21:31:02 GMT
The only beef I have with this thread is the OP arguing about the validity of Oakeshott's typology... but doesn't even bother to get his name right. lol... i guess george300 is hard to spell these days (I'm sorry, I usually get very defensive when people attack my name/heritage, sour past, that's all). I have not real problem with Oakenshott's validity, he has done more research than me regarding swords, what I am arguing, and he himself did agree to this, is that your knight did not go to his local sword smith and order a "type XII," he described the man what he wanted the sword to do and let it up to the sword-smith to do it. In that sense, each sword, depending from the period it was made on, has similarities with other swords of the same kind, but there is NOT a perfect copy of it. These days we place some limitations upon ourselves, in history, there was no discussion about whether someone's sword was type this or that, or whether it was a sword that looked like many others or a design they had never seen before, each was made custom to the needs and likenesses of the person bearing it and as so, every sword in itself has some characteristics that are unique to it. This particular sword looks most like a type XIIa, which is the group I included it in, HOWEVER, I am 100% sure that if you went to a weapons museum and looked at every single sword in there (granted the age does destroy many subtleties) you would not find any too that are exactly the same unless they were made for the same person and even then they would have changes as time progressed and since each sword was designed individually for each commission.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 21:37:49 GMT
Dude, nobody's attacking your heritage. He just meant you spelled Oakeshott's name wrong. You spelled it wrong five times. Perhaps you have a similar name and spell it with and "n," but that doesn't change the fact that you spelled HIS name wrong. Five times. It doesn't make one seem all that qualified to question the validy of a system when you spell the name incorrectly. Five times. Sorry if that came off as harsh, I'm just trying to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 15, 2009 22:13:20 GMT
ok guys let's all agree to disagree ok? whether George spells Oakeshott's name correctly or not has no real bearing on whether George has studied Oakeshott's works. the name may be one that does not click easily with George for whatever reason and he remembered it having an N in it. this is NOT important we know who he is talking about. yelling about a misspelled name is being needlessly arguementative. come on.
if we want to argue Historic validity of this sword, I think we can say that if you handed it to a knight from the time type XIIa'a were commonly used he would look at this sword and say "yup, that's a sword" he might remark on the unusual features but I think that he would certainly recognise it as a sword. I think that is reasonable. now I think we all have to admit that there is no record of a sword just like this one being made. Think it is pretty obvious that a sword with the same features as these would not have followed the sword design conventions of the day and age. there certainly must have been some convention since the swords from the time period that survive today ALL bear a lot of similarities to each other. I don't think we need to label this sword as "fantasy" or no way historically plausible but I think we do have to admit that it would have been a bit of an oddity had there been one of this make. dosn't mean there wasn't one. we can neither prove there was not that there wasn't, so let's stop fighting about it already. ok?
For George the sword stirs up feelings and thoughts of the Chivalric Knight in his heyday, perhaps on the Crusades, and he enjoys it and to him it has historical significance. isn't this enough?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 22:33:12 GMT
Dude, nobody's attacking your heritage. He just meant you spelled Oakeshott's name wrong. You spelled it wrong five times. Perhaps you have a similar name and spell it with and "n," but that doesn't change the fact that you spelled HIS name wrong. Five times. It doesn't make one seem all that qualified to question the validy of a system when you spell the name incorrectly. Five times. Sorry if that came off as harsh, I'm just trying to clarify. sorry, yes, i only realize that now, I though he meant my name being "too hard to spell" thanks for the input Tom. I agree, there is NO sword that is exactly like this one, what I am arguing is plausibility. If I were a smith in the Middle Ages, I would push for the "stabbing" part of the sword being reinforced by a central spine, but then again, I live in 2009... but I guess you know what I mean. In this post, I do not get mad easily, especially if people start an educated discussion. I thank everybody for their input in this thread, though I don't necessarily agree with them. As I said before somewhere, if everyone agreed about everything every time, the world would be dull and through talking to each other and comparing our opinions, we can all learn more about the subject. Also, I could swear the name of the guy was "Oakenshott" I don't know why, but it was fixated in my head that it was "Oaken(-)shott" so thanks for pointing that out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 0:48:14 GMT
You have to realize that the value for the money is the sliding scale in the number system. The others are absolutes...not for the money...otherwise why bother with a value for the money at all?!? Also this is what is seen as convention...not what YOU believe the numbers means...which means a collector sees your number and think oh great, this is a 200 dollar sword that handles as well as my albion and buy it, then he will be highly disappointed. More likely, the collector will know better and basically dismiss your review and most likely anything else you may say in the future. The proliferation of such numbers did make SBG kind of a the red headed step child and from that the pro/con system was implemented. In anycase, we don´t use that system anymore and I suggest staying away from it in future reviews.
Okay so your review says the sword is awkward and hard to control...enough so that you are afraid of losing limbs...and that to you is what a XIIa SHOULD handle like...perfectly? And slow is SLOW...SLOWER is relative. You first said slow...not slower then X. And slow devastating blow is a bit of an oxymoron. Speed generated more power then mass so devastating cuts are the fast ones...not the slow ones. Double the mass and you generate about twice as much force...double the speed and you generate about 4 times as much force.
As for historically accurate (NOT plausible...you have ACCURATE as a pro), you need to either follow the typology OR have an example of a sword that has ALL the deviations. Otherwise you can not claim accurate, no if and or buts about this point. For plausible, you have more of a leeway...however like I said, a lot of those deviations are rare to find singularly on a sword...much less a combination of them all...which really makes it not even plausible. Technically it is plausible by the definition of plausible...but not by what the general sword collecting community would accept as plausible. You can play at words all you want, but the more you try to make your point with technicality and relativism, the less people will take what you say seriously. And I am nice compared what some others at other forums would say about the points I am talking to you about.
Don´t take what I say too badly, the rest of the review was quite good...but the lapse in historically accuracy and the ridiculous numbers was not good for the SBG amongst the sword collecting community at large and I don´t wanna see that lapse going back. If you don´t know about the historical accuracy, you can just plain up and say I don´t know and that is fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 1:35:10 GMT
i'll have a beautiful phrase for you CN, it's extremely PLAUSIBLE that the sword is historically ACCURATE. There might be some sword in some museum somewhere that is its exact clone, granted, since no one of us can really research all that material (i.e.: travel around the world looking at every type XIIa out there), I believe there is a good chance that one smith in particular may have put a diamond cross-section on the blade once the fuller ended, who knows, maybe one looking for a vintage asked some smith at a later time to do something like that, you cannot seriously tell me that there is no chance in the world a historical sword like this one could never have existed...
Other than that, I believe every collector has his/her own way to rate their pieces, I'll give you an example.
The Cold Steel GM is a great sword, I own it and I love it. There are I think either one or two other reviews that say pretty much the same. This is in contrast with the review up in myarmory.com. Now, you say, since myarmory, which has mostly more expensive swords and (this particular person at least) is very concerned with historical accuracy (hell, if I were buying an Albion I would be much less lenient with stuff like that) says it just doesn't cut it, then it is not a good sword and since every sword review is highly objective (and we suppose the people of myarmory are so much more experienced, since they handled the holy Albion) then the GM sucks and that no one should ever buy it because it's terrible. Well, I am sorry, but I beg to differ, I love my GM and most others I know love it too. All reviews are HIGHLY OBJECTIVE, in fact, a review in itself is the person's feelings on the object they are reviewing, which is the definition of subjective...
Finally, I would like to stress that there is some things I know, some things I fairly confident on, and many things I don't know, but what I know I know well. As a Pre-Law student and a future lawyer(hopefully), I can assure you that words like "fast," "slow," "beautiful," "ugly," and other such swords are as relative as you get. If you are used to handling rapiers then the fastest sword I have ever handled is as slow as hell (especially since, according to my understanding, you deliver blows from the elbow, not using the whole arm), but if you like heavier swords, i.e.: ones that would have been used in armored combat and in actual battles, then this sword would not be as heavier as some other, more accurate, better made, much more expensive, custom made swords (I would give you names, but Albion and such is very popular in Albania, they do sword the old way down there, only having individual commissions) and truthfully, I would have a hard time deciding whether I would take this sword because it's faster than those and would give me and advantage in speed or one of those sword because they are heavier and would deal huge, devastating blows when they hit... again, slow, fast, depends how I see it, you are welcome to disagree, but I suggest you do so only after you have wielded the sword yourself.
I have had many different posts on this issue. When picking out a review for a sword I want to buy, I try to find a person who has similar interests in swords as me and then see how they judge it, that is why looking at the review from Jason's friend in England tipped the balance for me, he was testing it against plate and chain mail, which is what this kind of sword, heavier, "slower," would have been made for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 1:57:42 GMT
Great review,
Though it kicked a hornets nest I too feel it covers the sword well enough for the average Joe to make the decision on whether it is the right sword for him.
To add my two cents on the weight and balance. This sword would not lend itself to my fighting style with sword and shield on foot, but would work better if used from horseback with its long heavier cutting blade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 3:59:31 GMT
Great review, Though it kicked a hornets nest I too feel it covers the sword well enough for the average Joe to make the decision on whether it is the right sword for him. To add my two cents on the weight and balance. This sword would not lend itself to my fighting style with sword and shield on foot, but would work better if used from horseback with its long heavier cutting blade. true, unless you are going to handle this with both hands (which is doable, but if the handle could be a little longer would be nice) this is mostly a horseback blade, which really fits the character of the Knights Templar, but since being able to ride a horse has always been one of my dreams (not too many horses in Boston or in my old city in Albania though...) this sword fits me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 8:51:33 GMT
George, I highly suggest you don´t try and ¨lawyer¨ an argument. Yeah, I played that game as a kid and if I wanted, I could probably nit pick this thread into oblivion...which is what you are headed towards with your replies. Since your obviously not gonna listen, I´ll bow out of your thread before I get mad and actually do destroy your thread and break CoC in the process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 17:23:23 GMT
Good review Georgy, covered all the bases, +1 from me. I've had my eye on this sword for awhile, I like the look of it and I have a soft spot for big tough beaters. I have Darkswords version of this sword, now THAT'S a real beast! I use it to practice drills and forms, to build up muscle and endurance. You can't really please everyone, especially at the sub-$300 price point, but it looks like this one works for you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 23:59:42 GMT
This is a nice review, George. I was fairly close to buying this sword at the beginning of my search. I don't think that Cold Napalm means that there is no chance that this sword ever existed, but rather that it isn't very likely that it existed and that there isn't much evidence of it. Like you, I believe that it could have been a sword wielded by a Templar, but it's obvious that it is a rare example of an XIIa. A new sword collecter might not know that though, so you might want to mention somewhere in your review that this sword is not a common XIIa and that it deviates slightly from any Oakeshott category. Have you seen Ricwilly's videos of him using his gen2 12th century? It is an older model of this sword. He can make that sword do some pretty impressive things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2009 0:00:55 GMT
George, I highly suggest you don´t try and ¨lawyer¨ an argument. Yeah, I played that game as a kid and if I wanted, I could probably nit pick this thread into oblivion...which is what you are headed towards with your replies. Since your obviously not gonna listen, I´ll bow out of your thread before I get mad and actually do destroy your thread and break CoC in the process. what can I say, I'm one of those people who decided to play that game for the rest of their lives, and get paid for it too... it's not that I don't want to listen, it's that I see the point of reviews as ME expressing MY opinion on the sword, so if others don't agree with it, well... tough... anyway though, I do applaud the fact that you are retiring from this thread, I don't like angry people... nor does this forum i guess another thing I don't like is people making empty threats, please dude, take a chill-pill, drink some hot cocoa and go play in the snow with your kids/family and have a happy life, because last time someone threatened to "ruin my thread into oblivion" I was fourteen and the person was younger...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2009 1:49:01 GMT
another thing I don't like is people making empty threats, please dude, take a chill-pill, drink some hot cocoa and go play in the snow with your kids/family and have a happy life, because last time someone threatened to "ruin my thread into oblivion" I was fourteen and the person was younger... Not to get in the middle of your disagreement but I believe what CN said was the opposite of a threat. He retired from the thread to prevent destroying it. So about that chill pill? edited: hit submit too soon! sorry! And CN, I understand your frustration with George's ratings but it is his review and so his opinion. No point getting angry over it. Read it. Agree or disagree and move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2009 16:49:00 GMT
Just to clarify some points on the Templar swords historical accuracy Clyde and I pulled out the book "Record of the Medieval Sword" by Ewart Oakeshott (right in front of me as I type this). On page 104 Type XIIIA. 9 (this version also made by Arms and Armor) the pommel type is 1.1 and the crossguard style 1 dates from c. 1200 - 1250 or 1100 - 1150 more likely is nearly identical to the 12th century. The original is hanging in the Museum and Art Gallery in Glasgow. Showing that the 12th century by Legacy Arms/Gen 2 is not only historically feasible, but based on an actual sword as can be seen by the picture in Oakeshott's book. Therefore, one would conclude that this is a historically accurate sword and a style of sword that could have been used during the crusades.
The original blade is 35 inches in length and the Gen 2 blade is 34.6 inches. You will also note the slightly long handle for a single hand sword, which would allow for a mail clad hand to grip securely with out interference of the guard/pommel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2009 17:26:25 GMT
Dude, nobody's attacking your heritage. He just meant you spelled Oakeshott's name wrong. You spelled it wrong five times. Perhaps you have a similar name and spell it with and "n," but that doesn't change the fact that you spelled HIS name wrong. Five times. It doesn't make one seem all that qualified to question the validy of a system when you spell the name incorrectly. Five times. Sorry if that came off as harsh, I'm just trying to clarify. sorry, yes, i only realize that now, I though he meant my name being "too hard to spell" thanks for the input Tom. I agree, there is NO sword that is exactly like this one, what I am arguing is plausibility. If I were a smith in the Middle Ages, I would push for the "stabbing" part of the sword being reinforced by a central spine, but then again, I live in 2009... but I guess you know what I mean. In this post, I do not get mad easily, especially if people start an educated discussion. I thank everybody for their input in this thread, though I don't necessarily agree with them. As I said before somewhere, if everyone agreed about everything every time, the world would be dull and through talking to each other and comparing our opinions, we can all learn more about the subject. Also, I could swear the name of the guy was "Oakenshott" I don't know why, but it was fixated in my head that it was "Oaken(-)shott" so thanks for pointing that out. There was a Thorin OakENshield once...maybe you were thinking of him? But it is Oakeshott, no 'n'. As for CN, why so uptight? It is an opinion-driven review, like all the rest we have on here...maybe not as 'scholarly' as you might like, but it has value; I take it for what it is worth. I've also learned that you can't shoe-horn swords into typologies just to suit your argument; even Oakeshott himself said there were blades he couldn't affix to a single type; since these things weren't mass produced, it makes sense to me that there'd be variations to what we have managed to rescue from the living earth. A diamond cross section in front of the fuller will only give more impact to the downward cut (which is ideal for a Templar as they were cavalry-based for the most part); stands to reason someone may have thought of that before 1400AD, wouldn't you say?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2009 17:31:28 GMT
oops! Sorry I read all this !! George300 +1 for the review
|
|