|
Post by themaster293 on Mar 12, 2008 2:19:14 GMT
Gotta fly - it's my wifes birthday today, so will catch up with you all tomorrow. Tell her happy birthday for me.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Mar 12, 2008 2:35:44 GMT
Enough historical carping from me I've got a few comments:
I think DSA really excelled on the fuller execution, that blade is phenominally beautiful.
But what I'm really shocked about is the handling. Dan's done nothing but praised it both here and in private conversations. What's even more interesting is this - that CoG is pretty far forward, meaning it's probably got some serious blade presence, and, if it handles as well as Dan says, it may have the best of both worlds....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2008 3:54:59 GMT
Hello` Dan.. First let me say.. Thank you for taking the time to review your sword.. I know how much time and effort It takes to review a sword.... Great job on the review and the pics really look good.. I just might have to get that one.. I have not tried any of there 2 lb swords yet.. But from your review it sounds like a great buy.. Are you going to do any cutting tests?? Thanks again.. Jason W
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2008 5:42:47 GMT
I'm not so sure about leaving historical accuracy at N/A either. Historical accuracy in a fantasy sword is not applicable. In this case, it is applicable. They did a bad job of it. My wife who doesn't even like swords or know anything about them(other then reading over my shoulder and looking at pictures and my collection) saw this and knew something was wrong. She didn't know what was wrong, but she saw it and knew it wasn't a viking sword. So I think historical accuracy should be given a number, and then just ignore it for the overall score with a note saying you, the review didn't want that to count against an otherwise wonderful sword if you so fell inclined. I'm just not happy about going, well this point is gonna lower this sword's score so I'm gonna ignore it all together. That's like getting a bad handling sword and going, well other then it handles like a sledgehammer, it's a wonderful blade, so I'm gonna put N/A for handling so it's score can be higher. Just doesn't quite sit well with me. A review is suppose to show the good AND the bad so whoever reads it gets the whole picture...not just the good.
|
|
|
Post by septofclansinclair on Mar 15, 2008 18:32:59 GMT
Historical Accuracy typically does not counts towards the final score in a review, at least I've never felt comfortable doing so. I'm sure that other peple do but I know that many of the reviews on the forum leave it out altogether. I've always seen the Handling, structural integrity, value for money and fit and finish as the areas that matter most when it comes to the overall worth of a sword, and I'd never (and have never) left out a score in these core areas. For some people, historical accuracy is more important than it is for others. I didn't take this into consideration when I assigned the score, and if I knew it was going to be a big deal I would have left it out entirely. I've admitted that I don't know as much about some of the historical intricacies of sword design, and I'm comfortable reviewing swords and leaving that part out. In the future, perhaps I'll ask for a vote as to what the more informed forumites would give the historical accuracy for a sword.
That being said, did anyone look at the page from Oakeshott's book that Hopkins posted earlier?
EDIT: Just double-checked with Paul's review guidlines, and Historical Accuracy is not included in the final score at this time.
|
|
|
Post by septofclansinclair on Mar 15, 2008 19:20:15 GMT
I think that if the reviewer feels that his/her knowledge or sources aren't good enough to form a definite opinion on Historical Accuracy, I'd rather have an honest "N/A" or "don't know" in the field, rather than a half-forced, half-arbitrary score. (...this kind of issue should probably be discussed on a separate thread of it's own, though, and not on this specific review thread...) jj - good point, I think this topic deserves a thread of it's own. Feel like starting it? ;D
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Mar 15, 2008 19:45:44 GMT
I don't pay much attention to the scoring system. I form my opinion of the sword based on pictures, performance tests and the reviewers experiences handling it. If I want to know about historical accuracy and such, I can look that up myself and make my own comparisons. I view the final scoring as the opinion of the reviewer which may or may not match up to my own or others.
BTW, good review, Daniel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2008 0:44:57 GMT
Ah well, if the standard isn't to include the hitorical accuracy in the total, that's fine too. I can see it standing seperately. And putting "don't know" or some such is okay too. N/A means not applicable...which means this isn't trying to be a historical sword...which isn't quite true. Yeah i know, nit picking.
|
|