Lutel blade type

You can open the image in a new tab.

Right click the picture and click "View Image." The new forum just doesn't resize photos yet.

I'd agree with Mike on this. Could be an XVIa, but looks closer IMO to an XVIIIa.

Thank you for the reply, guys. Appreciate it.

Reason I don't think it's a XVIIIa, is that the fuller is just too darn long for it..
It runs to halfway down the blade on this one.
There's a diamond section starting at the end of the fuller all the way to the tip, but I do see some distal taper (Rabel Dusk: !)
Both would slightly favor to the XVI type, I would think..?
I don't know however, if the XVIa was still used in the early 16th century, to where this sword is classified to.



Lutel seems to make only a few blade types, fits a goodlooking cross guard to it and a riser-less grip with (well done!) leather strapped grip, and classifies it to a certain era based on the combination.
I don't mean this negative by the way, but it does kind of ties them down to the early renaissance period, it seems.

This 15002 shares it's blade with the type (1500x):
4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24.

On if I like the blade and how it handles, well I'm not the guy to write full reviews. Simply lack the experience on handling enough blades to know what I'm talking about :mrgreen:
What I can say however is, I like the blade.
It feels fairly light in hand, with its 3.7lbs.
PoB 3,5" under the guard on my blunt.
I have a real cutter, XIIa, at the same weight, but compared to the XIIa this one almost feels.. feminine

The construction feels very solid.
For example:



The finger ring encourages to actually use it, making the sword feel more agile.
However, the grip is so long (scent pommel adding easely 2" to the gripable length) that when finger griped and wielding one handed, I'm afraid the pommel will hit me in the underarm any moment.
However wielding it with both hands, the thing takes corners far better than my toyota prius.

The only thing I would change if I ever get tired of the looks, is the grip.
The grip half at the cross guard is too thin for my liking.



I have only medium sized, rather slim hands, and when griping it with indexfinger on the ricasso, the tip of my middlefinger finds an uneasy spot on my -how do you call that in English-..thumb area.
I expect people with bigger hands having issues with this.



Holding the sword horizontal, the tip seems to drop no more than 0.5".
When wielding the sword, it is not rigid at all, yet not too whippy at all either.
As said, I have the blunt version, so no cutting experience sorry , but if the blade character would be the same when sharp, it would make for nice straight cuts and a thrustworthy thruster..

Hope this helps!

Regards,
JW

XVI's and XVIa's were gone by 1400.

Looking at that blade, to me it seems flattened diamond all the way, even where the fuller is located. I guess you could say it is XVIIIish more that anything else. Do I see a ricasso at the guard? I don't think that this blade was made to really conform to an Oakeshott type, especially if it is used on quite a few different models.

If it uses the same blade as Lutel 15018, look at this Sword over at KOA. If you can believe the specs there, it has almost no distal taper (and it's a sharp, not a blunt). As I've said before, I wish they would publish a thickness for the middle of the blade. Just at guard and tip can be misleading.