First (potential) sword - a waffer thin review
Nov 2, 2007 18:59:47 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2007 18:59:47 GMT
Hello
I'm taking sword handling classes and our instructor is going to be ordering a number of swords, and asked us who would be interested. We are currently training with wooden waisters, but it seemed like a good opportunity to get a steel sword - especially considering that a: we can change our minds as he's sure he can sell them to someone else if need be and b: he's going to give us a 1 year warranty on them (as long as we don't do something stupid with it like hitting brick walls).
So he showed us the three models we was going to order, all Paul Chen/CAS Iberia swords. I got to handle all three, so here is my very superficial review. Keep in mind I am quite inexperienced, and I didn't spar or do cutting with them.
The first sword I tried was the practical knightly sword. The scabbard was plain but had a quite attractive wood finish, and seemed very sturdy. The draw was a bit stiff - I don't think this sword would fall out on its own. The finish of the sword seemed plain but well done, although I didn't get to examine it in great details. The weight of the sword was reasonable, but it seemed quite tip-heavy. The handle is not very long -unless you have small hands, this is definitely a single hand sword. The edges and points were rounded - it could be sharpened I guess, but it would take a lot of work.
After the somewhat clumsy experience of wielding this sword, I expected the hand and a half version to be even more unwieldy. However, I was pleasantly surprised! The balance is very nice, it not tip heavy at all. Single hand strikes were actually easier to perform because of this - although the blade seemed quite longer than the wooden waister I've grown used to. The pommel is massive. There is plenty of room for a second hand, but it's not as roomy as some other longwords I've seen. The comments about the scabbard and finish etc apply to this sword as well
The third sword was the Cas Iberia Agincourt. The balance is great, the sword is light and responsive but still sturdy. It looks very nice too. The leather scarbard is a thick, serviceable one that doesn't really do the sword justice but it seemed fully functional at least. The handle is long enough to accept a second hand, but not as much as the hand and a half. The blade was not sharpened, but unlike the previous two it wasn't "rounded off" - sharpening this weapon would be a lot easier.
So I hummed and hawed between the two, until my instructor (a short, stocky man) told me "you're a big boy, get the hand and a half!" (I'm 5'11" and 185 pounds... not that big, but everything is relative I guess). Another factor was the fact that I want a sword I can practice with, and the practical hand and a half sword seemed safer in case of accident - rounded tip etc. Finally, while the agincourt sword was the easiest to handle, I'm interested in expanding from one-hand to two handed use, and the hand and a half would be a bit better for that.
So, any comments or advice? It's not too late for me to back out.
Ancalagon
I'm taking sword handling classes and our instructor is going to be ordering a number of swords, and asked us who would be interested. We are currently training with wooden waisters, but it seemed like a good opportunity to get a steel sword - especially considering that a: we can change our minds as he's sure he can sell them to someone else if need be and b: he's going to give us a 1 year warranty on them (as long as we don't do something stupid with it like hitting brick walls).
So he showed us the three models we was going to order, all Paul Chen/CAS Iberia swords. I got to handle all three, so here is my very superficial review. Keep in mind I am quite inexperienced, and I didn't spar or do cutting with them.
The first sword I tried was the practical knightly sword. The scabbard was plain but had a quite attractive wood finish, and seemed very sturdy. The draw was a bit stiff - I don't think this sword would fall out on its own. The finish of the sword seemed plain but well done, although I didn't get to examine it in great details. The weight of the sword was reasonable, but it seemed quite tip-heavy. The handle is not very long -unless you have small hands, this is definitely a single hand sword. The edges and points were rounded - it could be sharpened I guess, but it would take a lot of work.
After the somewhat clumsy experience of wielding this sword, I expected the hand and a half version to be even more unwieldy. However, I was pleasantly surprised! The balance is very nice, it not tip heavy at all. Single hand strikes were actually easier to perform because of this - although the blade seemed quite longer than the wooden waister I've grown used to. The pommel is massive. There is plenty of room for a second hand, but it's not as roomy as some other longwords I've seen. The comments about the scabbard and finish etc apply to this sword as well
The third sword was the Cas Iberia Agincourt. The balance is great, the sword is light and responsive but still sturdy. It looks very nice too. The leather scarbard is a thick, serviceable one that doesn't really do the sword justice but it seemed fully functional at least. The handle is long enough to accept a second hand, but not as much as the hand and a half. The blade was not sharpened, but unlike the previous two it wasn't "rounded off" - sharpening this weapon would be a lot easier.
So I hummed and hawed between the two, until my instructor (a short, stocky man) told me "you're a big boy, get the hand and a half!" (I'm 5'11" and 185 pounds... not that big, but everything is relative I guess). Another factor was the fact that I want a sword I can practice with, and the practical hand and a half sword seemed safer in case of accident - rounded tip etc. Finally, while the agincourt sword was the easiest to handle, I'm interested in expanding from one-hand to two handed use, and the hand and a half would be a bit better for that.
So, any comments or advice? It's not too late for me to back out.
Ancalagon