|
Post by rammstein on Jan 4, 2008 15:10:46 GMT
When people like us look at swords, one of the things that we all seem to ignore is fuller execution. However, this is something that can cause a fuller, if done correctly, to look very sightly, or if done poorly, to be an utter eyesore. Almost all historical swords I've seen use fuller termination #1. However...I've yet to see (not that I've been actively looking) a contemporary reproduction short of A&A and Albion that use the accepted historical fuller termination. I've got several questions: 1.) For manufacturers - It seems to me like the contemporary exucution involves a lot more skill to do and comes out looking pretty shoddy regardless of how it's done. The historical one is a smooth transition rather than a quick termination, which seems to be to be easier. So why use the contemporary? 2.) For buyers - does something like this really matter to you? Am I the only one put off by it? It seems bone jarringly obvious to me now that I've noticed it, and it just seems to interrupt the "flow." Do you feel the same or do you disagree? 3.) For acedmic students of the sword - Are there any historical examples in the medieval times of swords with fuller terminations that end abruptly? Most of us get caught up with how the fuller begins (it should be inside the guard, but most cheaper modern manufacturers ignore this). So....historical examples please? Hopefully acedemic debate and speculation will follow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2008 15:40:25 GMT
Good topic, Rammstein. Are you interested in examples that are from a specific period (medieval, Renaissance, 18th or 19th centuries)? ADDED: Oh, duh, this is posted in the Medieval section!
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 4, 2008 16:05:59 GMT
No worries, go ahead and post examples. I know that that's your topic of interest, and I'd be more than happy to see later examples as well ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2008 17:39:12 GMT
Being what I would consider a "sword newbie", i honestly haven't noticed this issue with fuller termination. Now that you've brought it to light, i agree with you in the fact that, yes, it does break the "flow" of the sword, but seeing as i have started sword collecting only recently, this is not very important to me. (At the moment anyways. Who knows about the future )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2008 18:08:23 GMT
I've not noticed this either. However, now that I do look, I can see it plainly. Of course, most fullers are tapered a little bit more the the one in Ramm's picture, but yes, almost all production swords have an abrupt termination. I would disagree though, Ramm on the historical fuller termination being easier. To make the contemporary termination, all you need to do is use a rounded grinder/sander bit, and just stop at the point where the fuller ends. In fact, I'd bet that the sander/grinder bit that most producers use is the exact same shape as the termination of the fuller. They just grind a line, and move on to the next sword. In order to do the historical termination, I'd suspect a certain amount of hand finishing would be required. However, if you really want to, you could always correct it with some dremel bits, sandpaper, and alot of elbow grease!
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 4, 2008 19:11:58 GMT
hey ramm, personally i dont have a preference...type two appeals to me aesthetically i guess. maybe if i was buying a sword to replicate a historical piece and the fuller was different i might balk but im not that picky. Also my windlass "Sword of Guy" from the kingdom of heaven line has the type 1 and if im not mistaken, the sword of Tiberias, Reynald, Iblin, and one other (not Saladins) all have the same blade and all terminate in the type 1 format....i'll double check on those other ones
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 4, 2008 19:12:02 GMT
None of those tools you mentioned (other than sandpaper)...and foot powered grinders I believe...existed. Historical fullers would have been very easy to make terminate in comparison with today's fullers as they we far more gradual meaning that such an extreme slope (which, lets face it, takes more time than a gradual slope). Here's a picture of 3 of my swords with fullers. Karma if you can guess which ones!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2008 19:19:04 GMT
None of those tools you mentioned (other than sandpaper)...and foot powered grinders I believe...existed. I know. I just meant that if it bothered you so much, you could smoothen out the transition yourself. Also, I believe that elbow grease was quite common in those days. Much more so then now. Are you talking in reference to historical methods of making fullers, or modern methods? Well, the Ritter's in the middle, obviously. Gen2's invariably have fullers that terminate abruptly, so I'd say that would be the Witham on the left. That and the Spatulate tip. So I guess that leaves the Windlass Sword Of War on the right, since it's too thick to be the Shrewsbury. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 4, 2008 19:22:10 GMT
shrewsbury is a diamond x-section no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2008 19:23:18 GMT
That, and the fact that it doesn't even have a fuller. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 4, 2008 19:24:12 GMT
Probably historical. Consider it like this, no matter how peurile it may be! Remember when you were a kid on the beach during a family vacation? you (or me at least ) would always try to dig a deep hole. It was much easier to make a hole that sloped outwards instead of just driving straight downwards. So your hole, to make it easier, would be very wide and would slope down instead of looking like a straight hole with sides that go directly downwards. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! (May also be worth pointing out that all three of those swords should be lenticular not diamond profile. Ritter is the only one that is.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 4, 2008 19:31:11 GMT
yeah the kingdom of heaven swords all have type 1 fullers...chalk one up for windlass
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2008 19:33:39 GMT
Thank-you.
I did dig holes, and build sand castles too! (Quite elaborate ones, at that.)
However, sand is not steel. Steel will not crumble back into the space made it it, even if the walls of the recess are very steep.
I referring as to why modern production swords don't have the smooth transition.
The modern sword manufacturer tries to streamline as much as the process as possible. Even if the work is done mostly by hand, (ie: cheap skilled labor) they still try to keep things moving as quickly as possible.
Now, I don't know the exact way manufacturers(ie: Windlass or Gen2) make their fullers, but I bet it involves some sort of rounded sander bit that is just ground in a line along the blade to make the fuller. Different shaped sanding bits would result in different shaped fullers.
Since the manufacturer wants to move as many swords out the door as quickly as possible, it would make sense to me that the sander bit would just move to the point where the fuller ends, and abruptly stop. The round shape of the bit would leave that round end of the fuller. After that, it would require someone to go an smooth out the transition, thus taking more time and adding cost. Since the average sword buyer probably wouldn't notice the difference, manufacturers don't bother.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 4, 2008 19:35:08 GMT
just re reading your statement rammstein....were you referring to a contemporary reproduction of a historical sword?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 4, 2008 19:39:58 GMT
Yes, I believe so, Jak ;D
Di, You're probably right, but I still can't help thinkin that it takes a lot less work to just ease up a bit on the grinding and work your way back up than to keep going at the same thickness and then...stop.
But honestly, this isn't my strong point in swords - manufacture.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 4, 2008 19:59:56 GMT
Keep in mind that this picture is HEAVILY exaggerated. Pleae correct if wrong The two blue lines that meet in a point at the left represents distal taper of a sword. You are looking at this sword from the side, so distal taper is evident but profile taper is NOT. We are assuming the edge of the sword are parellel. The red lines are the fullers and are present on both sides of the sword. The lines terminate both at the same point and the distance apart from each other represents how far they "gouged" into the blade - the closer the are, the deeper the fuller. As the blade gets thinner due to distal taper, the fullers get shallower and shallower until they eventually meet up with that blade's decreasing thickness (where the blue and red lines cross) and no longer exist. That's how my ritter is, I'm not sure how realistic this is on other swords. I'd appreciate it if Dan or someone could tell me I'm full of BS ;D
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 4, 2008 20:34:13 GMT
On most of the modern, lower-end swords where the fuller terminates abruptly, the distal taper is usually 20-35%. That means the fuller would likely extend all the way to the tip if extended like fullers on A&A and Albion blades. Also, the fullers on these modern swords are cut with a ball-nosed end mill. Think "rounded tip drill bit with cutting sides" if you aren't familiar with end mill bits. The blades lies flat in the vise and the mill runs back and forth while cutting the fuller to depth. It just stops when it reaches the ends and reverses. That's why the fullers terminate abruptly. For the record, I am firmly in the "tapering out fuller" camp, ala Albion, for two reasons. One is that I think they look much more like a museum piece. But the big reason is, every time I've bent a fullered sword (probably 6-8, including ATrims) the blades have taken the set at the abrupt terminus of the fuller. It seems to create a stress point that's weaker than the rest of the blade. AND I DON'T LIKE THAT!!! I discussed this with Gus at one time. He said he could do it the tapering way, since it's just part of the machining program on the CNC mill. But he likes the look of the abruptly stopping fuller. And based on the 100s of museum originals he and Tinker have examined, both ways are "historically accurate" and can be observed on swords of the same time period. I have an early AT/CF Heavy Type XII with a fuller that ends in an extremely abrupt fashion. I have been planning on taking the time to regrind it into a tapering finish. This might be the motivation I need to just do it.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jan 4, 2008 20:44:33 GMT
A karma to you, Rammy, for starting this thread. I had no idea about the historical fuller issue. If it was just a matter of historical accuracy, I must admit I wouldn't care much but as it affects the function it has caught my interest. For myself I prefer no fuller at all, I'm of the more steel the better persuasion. I do understand the purpose tho. In the future this will be a consideration.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 4, 2008 20:45:23 GMT
I haven't "personally eximined" any swords, but I have seen hundreds, and I've yet to see any the quickly terminate. If there are any, I think it's safe to say that they wouldn't be appropriate for a sword the same reaon black wouldn't be appropriate for clothing - just because it existed doesn't mean that everyone and their respective moms should go to the ren faire dressed in black clothing with quickly terminating swords.
That's not to say don't make them at all - but why do they ALL have to be this way?
And if gus wishes to point out swords that have fullers that end by running into a wall, by all means give examples. That's not a combattive assault, it's a genuine request.
Thanks for the Karma, Ric.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 4, 2008 20:49:43 GMT
As long as there is distal taper, can't one simply control the angle of the fullers? They don't have to be parallel if depth as I drew them, but they could actually be reverse tapering in their thickness. If that makes any sense at all ;D.
|
|