|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 15, 2015 5:27:00 GMT
I hope you like it
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Oct 15, 2015 6:16:18 GMT
Serves you right! I can't count how many times a sabre sold for dirt-cheap I can't get it because of "shipping to US only" Hard to suggest a place to start with regards to sabres. As a rule of thumb, never take anything for granted; ask questions! For example, I've found that antique sabres can have issues with grips becoming loose and wobbly and it if the thing is peened, it's a bit of a pain to fix. It's something that isn't obvious from pictures, and sellers will not mention this defect in their item descriptions (absolving themselves of liability by saying "caveat emptor") Also, lots of sketchy "antiques" from China and India. Unfortunately, I'd say 99.9% of them are fakes. I'm in Australia so the posts to US only thing gets me too. Guess I'll have to start looking around and asking questions. I did assume any 'antique' coming out of China was fake, reminds me of a comment about buying antiques in Nepal. "What's he doing? " "He's making it very old."
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Oct 15, 2015 8:44:43 GMT
Thanks for the answers guys, looks like I've got some research ahead of me. Vinland, congratulations on the 1907, hope it's a good one.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 16, 2015 4:05:15 GMT
The "Argie" 1889 is possibly the happiest sword I ever handled (at least on foot). Either that or the Czech 1924...
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Oct 16, 2015 4:49:55 GMT
On my break today I went and had a look at a windlass 1860. They had an original in stock, so I had a look at that too. They felt pretty similar in hand, is that just me not knowing much?
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 16, 2015 5:11:19 GMT
My impression is that the Windlass 1860/1906 (an 1860 with a steel hilt) is pretty representative of an original. However, I also understand that the originals weren't particularly light or lively, so....
I own a Windlass 1906 and whilst it isn't bad, it's kinda dim-witted.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Oct 16, 2015 5:12:03 GMT
On my break today I went and had a look at a windlass 1860. They had an original in stock, so I had a look at that too. They felt pretty similar in hand, is that just me not knowing much? Not really. The original handles like a bloody crowbar, so there isn't much for Windlass to screw up.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Oct 16, 2015 5:14:45 GMT
The 1860 is of course a refinement of the 1840, which was itself a blatant (and poor) copy of the French M1822 LC. Somehow the American designers managed to ruin perfection. Which is why I suspect that the designers were actually Cold Steel employees and/or Indian forge employees who traveled to the past.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 16, 2015 5:18:06 GMT
Yeah, it's hard to screw up a crowbar.
I really don't want to know how bad an 1840 is. On the other hand, owning one might make me appreciate my cold-steel crowbar repros that much more!
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 16, 2015 5:20:17 GMT
The 1860 is of course a refinement of the 1840, which was itself a blatant (and poor) copy of the French M1822 LC. Somehow the American designers managed to ruin perfection. Which is why I suspect that the designers were actually Cold Steel employees and/or Indian forge employees who traveled to the past. Maybe they also designed the Austrian 1904?
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Oct 16, 2015 5:22:16 GMT
The 1860 is of course a refinement of the 1840, which was itself a blatant (and poor) copy of the French M1822 LC. Somehow the American designers managed to ruin perfection. Which is why I suspect that the designers were actually Cold Steel employees and/or Indian forge employees who traveled to the past. Maybe they also designed the Austrian 1904? Yes. Afoo and I have discussed this very issue before.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 16, 2015 5:27:09 GMT
I'm his brother, so should be no suprise we think alike
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 7:14:07 GMT
The 1860 is of course a refinement of the 1840, which was itself a blatant (and poor) copy of the French M1822 LC. Somehow the American designers managed to ruin perfection. Which is why I suspect that the designers were actually Cold Steel employees and/or Indian forge employees who traveled to the past. It was the US ordnance board that was at fault. During the 1840 trials, the French patterns were adopted but rejected the French bid. Schnitzler & Kirshbaum got the bid on the cavalry swords With the primary American manufacturer gearing up for production of them, they more or less used the S&K spec. Part of the Prussian ideal was a stiffer point but at the same time cost cutting by reducing stock thickness and dumping the age old mass distribution and concave distal of the olde tyme formula that had been used for centuries. S&K continued to fulfill ordnance orders through the 1840s. Production numbers of the Ames 1840 and the S&K numbers can be found in Hicks' guide for collectors of Ames contract swords. One of the suggestions of the term "wristbreaker" was with dismay, some troopers that had liked the French made sword were then handed the Prussian and Ames m1840. Another possibility in that the m1840 replaced the much more lithe m1833, which had been based on the British 1821. Also in Hicks is the actual timeline of the light cavalry sword. In the late 1850s, the ordnance board requested of Ames a lighter version. For all intents and purposes, they looked once more to French styling and you see the French officer humped grip then appear on the thinner, straighter "1860". Technically, there was never an m1860 designation, simply labeled the light vs the m1840 dragoon. It is kind of like giving up trying to tell people modern damascus is just folded steel. I am still maintaining a "show me" stance if someone can actually find the term m1860 cavalry sword in ordnance books. The first Ames deliveries of the light predate the war. More Prussian swords poured in with the outbreak of the ACW. Many hundreds of thousands of both the heavy and light were imported from various Solingen shops. At any rate, one man's pickle is another man's endive. My generic Solingen "wristbreaker" is a toy in my hand compared to my French 1854 dragon. I like my dragon. Many French troopers despised the 1822 bancal. Different strokes and all that. ~~~~ I think many find their own path in time. It may take more time with some and preference can change. I have more found it worthwhile to adapt to swords that appeal visually and pleasantly surprised when I find another more pleasant of a genre I collect more than one of. Not all can support more than one ideal sword. we are at a different point in history and if it is a case of "there can be only one", then consumer reports such as sword message boards can be valuable but weigh the consequences well, or one becomes a flip merchant, or needing more space (or spousal approval). I tend to pair a sabre with a straight job of the same genre, whether cavalry swords or infantry swords. I get carried away with spadroons and eagle pommel swords. Eagle pommel swords a life long study and passion but my favorite sabre and straight jobs are not eagles. Go figure. Happy hunting.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 20, 2015 3:47:49 GMT
I think @edelweiss is on to something. Once you've narrowed it down a bit, you can probably choose any sword and not be disappointed. That being said, it's good to get advice and avoid known lemons (such as the Spanish 1895 piece of sh*t, but even those aren't all bad), and if you find any listings you like, you can definitely ask around to see if it's worth the price. I remember the first sword I got was a brit 1885 Cav. When I first picked it up, I found it heavy, slow, and most un-joyful. Over time, I got used to it (and others like it) and now I find it a pretty nice piece of kit! I guess it took time for me to go from fencing foils to full-sized sabres...(on the flip-side, none of the students in my fencing class want to fence sabre with me after seeing what I can do with my antiques ) Also, mirroring edelweiss' post (and undoubtedly mentioned in sword reviews before), not every sword of a particular pattern are the same! Both Afoo and I own P1885 cavs. Mine was made in 1887 by WKC, and his was by Mole. His is much more dynamic and swift whereas mine is more percussive and assertive. The difference is so stark, if I were blindfolded and given both in turn, I would think they were different patterns!
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Oct 20, 2015 23:43:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Oct 21, 2015 0:09:54 GMT
That particular weapon was infamous for its uselessness. Save your money, and buy an M1822 LC or any of the post-1845, pre-1892 British sabres (either can be had for as little as $450 in decent shape), and you won't be sorry.
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Oct 21, 2015 1:22:42 GMT
Thanks for that, I'll leave that one. Part of the appeal was that it's in Australia so I wouldn't be paying through the nose for postage.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 21, 2015 2:05:33 GMT
Also, its a commonly reproduced pattern, which makes it more avoid-worthy.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Oct 21, 2015 2:22:33 GMT
Yes. The Napoleonic-style briquets fall into that category as well, though they do handle well and are excellent for practice in restricted spaces. One just needs to be well-informed.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 21, 2015 4:49:03 GMT
|
|