Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2008 15:16:37 GMT
Somehow I doubt that the Castille will fall in the X-XII range (which is what I am looking for). The Classic Medieval was balanced right at about 6". Not too whippy or heavy, but not balanced like I am looking for. Really the most "awkward" thing about it was what I describe as the "swing point". Holding the blade at a 45" angle (halfway between horizontal and vertical), and then bringing your hand or hands to the other side of your body (essentially reversing the sides that the point and your hands are). The "pivot" point is where the sword doesnt seem to move. The grip wasn't an issue, as I do enough leatherworking that I could have redone it myself (personally dont like tennis racket grips).
I understand I am being extremely picky about this, and that there might not be a sub-$300 sword that can work. Is there some magical equation about designing a blade to help figure out what the PoB will be?
|
|
|
Post by rhfay on Feb 19, 2008 16:32:14 GMT
Wouldn't a balance point of six inches be about right for a sword like the Classic Medieval? I would think that it wouldn't handle like a more tapered sword, with a closer CoG.
|
|
|
Post by rhfay on Feb 19, 2008 16:36:37 GMT
Here are the reviews asked for. Schloss Erbach: This sword is sweet. The PoB is about 3.5-4" from the hilt, and it just comes alive in your hands. Easily able to be wielded one handed, from a weight perspective, though with two, it flowed from one guard to the next. Great work on the etching for the pommel and guard. It has a decent amount of taper, though not as much of a thruster as others, more of a "big sword" overall. I would classify the blade as "springy" instead of "whippy". There was a decent amount of flex, along with a bit of wobbling when struck on the pommel (about 1" overall). Great looking sword. Ah, another one to add to my list when have no money to spend on swords right now. The lightness of the blade doesn't bother me much because I'm not really a "backyard cutter". It sounds like a really nice looking piece. I hope this one sticks around for a while.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2008 17:33:30 GMT
Yet most of the swords from the era seem to have a slightly closer PoB. Look at most of the Albions that fall under the Type X. I tend to trust Albion to get the handling closer to extant pieces than a Windlass "Classic". There is only one or two sword which they produce which have a CoB over 5.75" from the blade. Maybe I am putting unrealistic expectations onto these. I will try and take a closer look at them, and see if I can get some better numbers.
|
|
|
Post by rhfay on Feb 19, 2008 17:53:34 GMT
Just for the sake of reference, Albion Xa CoGs off their web site:
Norman: 6.125"
Senlac: 5.75"
Templar: 6"
Oakeshott: 4.375"
Not that the Windlass would handle like an Albion (been through too many of those discussions), but the CoG seems to be in the ballpark.
However, I can understand the desire for a closer CoG than the Classic Medieval's 6 inches.
|
|
|
Post by rhfay on Feb 19, 2008 18:04:39 GMT
By the way, as an interesting side note, I have actually seen a photo that may have been the direct inspiration for the Windlass Classic Medieval. It was in Gerald Weland's A Collector's Guide to Swords & Daggers. The caption calls it a medieval sword of 1360 (?) of unknown origin. It lists its blade length as 33 inches. I think the photo came from Sotheby's.
The sword in the photo has a blade, cross, and pommel very similar to those of the Classic Medieval, but it is a bit more elegant than the Windlass replica.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2008 18:09:50 GMT
I agree that Windlass and Albion are in two different categories, but it helps to use Albion's stats as a quick reference, especially without having to go home and dig through the library. But point taken. Thanks for the reference photo. Dating it to 1360 would put it way out of my expected timeperiod though. Looking for something that could be common in the mid-12th century.
The other (purely selfish reason) is that I am completely used to an overall length of 39", as that is my SCA sword, which balances about 3.5-4". I am starting to more consider both that and the Naumberg. Anyone know how much extra room there is, if I were to grind off the peen to redo the grip? If I get the Naumberg, I would definitely be removing the pommel and guard, to re-shape them.
|
|
|
Post by rhfay on Feb 19, 2008 18:18:14 GMT
Personally, I would question the date of 1360. Oakeshott did feel that many swords were dated wrong by museums and collectors. However, it could also be an old blade (it looks like a type Xa) re-hilted at a later date.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2008 21:07:04 GMT
Yeah, the only thing that is throwing me for a loop is the curve to the quillions. That alone wouldn't put it in 1360, but more into the 13th century.
BTW, karma for going the extra mile, and pulling the stats together above.
|
|
|
Post by rhfay on Feb 19, 2008 22:35:47 GMT
Interestingly enough, the Windlass Classic Medieval also looks a bit like the sword held by the figure of Guillaume Wenemaer in his brass, as shown in a drawing in Oakeshott's The Archaeology of Weapons. The brass is dated to the early fourteenth century.
The cross of the sword in the brass is more "angled" than the one in the Classic Medieval, but overall the sword looks similar in general outline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2008 2:30:55 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2008 3:55:20 GMT
Sorry, was thinking of the Coustille. That looks interesting. Any idea of the timeframe, or price point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2008 15:29:53 GMT
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy lately.
As for timeframe, going by the disc pommel and curved cross guard. I'd say post- 1100, but pre- 14th century with the blade type. It's not an undocumented type, and would fall well within the crusading period.
As for price, I think the Paul's Sword Manufacturers Guide says that they'll be 250-300 without the belt and nice scabbard, (but they'll still have a wood core scabbard, just not as pretty.) and around $450 with scabbard and accurate belt.
This is a pretty damn good deal as far as I see, since Mr. Fletcher said that the Chinese copies are almost exactly the same as the prototype made by him and Gus Trim. So it's almost like getting a $1000+ sword for half the price.
|
|
|
Post by rhfay on Feb 20, 2008 16:58:36 GMT
Based upon the hilt, the Castile is similar in general overall shape to the sword found in the tomb of Sancho IV of Castile. Sancho died in 1298, but Oakeshott suggested in Record of the Medieval Sword that the sword may actually have belonged to Sancho's father, so it may date over twenty years earlier.
The blade of the Castile is a bit different than that of Sancho's sword. Oakeshott classed Sancho's sword as a Type XII, the blade on the Castile appears like a X or Xa. There is one Type XII in Records that has a "Viking"-style hilt, and that Oakeshott dated to circa 950-1000. There is another type XII in Records, that of Count Raymon Berengar III, that Oakeshott dated circa 1170. Type Xs and Xas might be seen as "earlier" blades, but old swords could be used a long time. Again, from Records, Oakeshott described a sword with a Type Xa blade from circa 1100 that had a hilt of circa 1450.
Personally, I would date the Castile to the mid to late 13th century.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2008 1:40:56 GMT
have you seen the English two -hand sword a big 57" sword . similiar to the A&A two handed sword ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2008 2:31:21 GMT
So, I just have to say that the picture on Valiant's website is now my new background.
|
|