Windlass 1906 vs Universal 1792
Sept 27, 2015 16:55:51 GMT
Post by Afoo on Sept 27, 2015 16:55:51 GMT
Hello.
Recently, I picked up the Windlass 1906 on closeout from Atlanta Cutlery. I was going to do a standalone review. However, the more I looked at it, the more I started to compare it to another sword in my collection: the Universal Swords Princess of Wales cavalry sword (1792).
There is a bit of a backstory to this – when I first started collecting and frequenting the forums, there were two replicas which caught my eye – the 1906 and the Princess of Wales 1792. To me, both represented the best replica swords available to the saber/Western military swords collector – beautifully made, historically accurate, and priced within the sub-$300 mark we strive for here on SBG. Furthermore, both came to me at almost exactly the same price (I paid $200 for each of them at the time, though both would have cost $250 had I bought them new from their respective suppliers). Both rank as among the favorites of my collection, but there can only be one winner.
Long story short, I decided that a better, more informative piece would be to compare the 1906 to the 1792. Since I have no original examples of either swords, this will provide a more tangible baseline to evaluate the various swords than presenting them alone.
Obligatory stats page:
General images. 1972 is the sword on the top
The Blade:
As you would have expected from the previous reviews, the blades of both the 1906 and the 1792 are well done. The 1906 has a well-defined guide rail/indent running behind the main fuller, which is a nice touch, whereas the 1792 only has the single fuller. In my examples, it appears that the Princess of Wales has a deeper, better defined fuller. The transition between the blade and the ricasso is a bit faded in the 1906. In terms of the tip, both share a very similar shape, with the Princess of Wales having slightly better definition, with a clear ridge down the middle as opposed to the amorphous hump on the 1906. While the Universal Swords has the slight edge here, both blades are generally well done and aesthetically pleasing.
View down the blades, showing the fullers
View of the tips. Note the central peak on the 1792, whereas the 1906 looks a bit more nebulous and ovoid in profile.
In terms of dynamics, the blade on the 1906 feels stiffer, despite having similar stats – likely due to the increased depth of the fuller. A mentioned before, the taper on both swords is similar, though I suspect that the 1792 is overbuilt compared to the originals, at least going by Dave’s review. It should be noted that the taper on my version is a bit weaker than on Dave’s, which might negatively affect the performance, though the PoB on both swords remains managable. The 1792 has a greater curvature and, to my eyes, looks more aesthetically pleasing. The 1906 dimensions are historically correct, but it just *looks* a bit too thin, especially when compared to the CS ANXI which I have. The 1906 is the same width at the base as the British 1897 Infantry Officer’s Skewer for goodness sake. I was somehow expecting there to be more blade here.
Both blades are made from stock of the appropriate thickness and show good taper
Comparison with the CS 1830 sword (bottom)
The Handle:
View of the guards and ricasso. Note the better definition on the 1792 in the blade-ricasso transition
The grips on the 1792 are wooden panels riveted onto the tang. Note that the 1792 does NOT actually have a full tang design – the tang runs through the handle. What we see on the top and bottom of the tang are steel plates which are snapped onto the grips, rather than part of the tang itself. Apparently they do it for balance, but it also means that these plates can come loose and rattle about, as mine did (slightly). The rivets do mean that the tang itself is very securely held in place within the grips, and will not come loose. The grips on the 1906 are the standard leather wrapped wood core. Not as strong as the 1792, but easier to repair if something does go wrong. The seam of the leather seems to be a bit loose, and some corners were cut when fitting the leather to the ends of the grips. However, the wire wrap looks nice, and the leather feels much fancier than the fake stuff they use on other replicas I have seen.
Less than ideal leather work on the 1906
In terms of ergonomics, the 1792 wins hands down. Both grips are similar lengths. However, the simpler guard on tthe 1792 lets you stick your thumb out, something that is not possible on the 1906. In terms of size, the grip on the 1906 is not small, but it is also definitely not as wide and chunky as the wooden slabs we have on the 1792. Overall, I find the 1792 gives you more to hold onto and is better shaped to my hand, in turn facilitating handling in both open and closed conformations.
Side view of the various grips. The cylindrical grips on the 1906 do not provide as much support as the simple wooden ones on the 1792
The metalwork on both the 1792 and 1906 is very well done, with intricate detail on the grips and langets of the 1792. Unfortunately, nobody in India seems to understand how langets are actually supposed to work. The 1906 is much more discrete than the 1792. However, there is also an air of quality here. There are no gaps or clumsy drops of solder here – everything looks sharp and ready for duty. I also like the faded, antique look they gave this sword – really gives it character. The guard of the 1906 is much more utilitarian, and gives better protection.
Detail on the 1792 grip (left) is excellent. The guard on the 1906 (right) is very well formed, with no sign of the clumsy soldering or visible weld marks we have come to expect on replicas from India.
The Scabbard:
I bought the 1792 pre-owned. In this state, the wood inside the scabbard had cracked. It works perfectly find most of the time, but it still prevents me from giving an accurate assessment of its functionality. However, this does not bode well for the long term durability of the 1792 scabbard, though that is inherent to its wood and leather design. The sword retention however is very good, and there is no rattling. Again, no signs of cutting corners here. The 1906 scabbard is much more utilitarian – clean steel through and through. Sword retention is also good, though I did notice the lower blade does rattle a bit while inside, so I would give the advantage to the 1792 on this front.
Both scabbards have a reasonable drag, unlike the comically large ones found on many CS replicas in the similar price range. I should also note that the two CS scabbards I have are massively thick and bulky compared to the originals. In contrast, both the 1792 and the 1906 scabbards look sleek and appropriately fitted to their respective swords.
The scabbard for the 1792 (right) and 1906 (middle) are reasonably proportioned, unlike the monstrous thing that came with my CS 1830 sword (left)
Both scabbards also show excellent workmanship – no rough areas, blobs of solder or glue etc. The rings of the 1906 were brazed onto the scabbard rather than welded, though I am not sure how historically accurate this is.
Handling:
The 1792 handles better, plain and simple. Most of this is down to the chunkier grips on the 1792, though the extra weight of that steel guard isn’t helping the 1906. By the numbers, both blades are similar in terms of taper and dimensions that they should be comparable, but yet the 1792 just feels lighter. The 1906 actually feels somewhat similar to the CS ANXI. This may be historically accurate for the 1906, but doesn’t make it less true.
Overall:
If I only had money to buy one of these swords, it would be the 1792. It handles better than the 1906, the scabbard is of better quality, and you get a much more detailed weapon compared to the plainer, trooper’s 1906. That said, the edge of the 1792 is not so great as to over-rule personal preference; the more utilitarian 1906 has a certain grunt appeal to it, while the 1792 is much fancier and refined look. While the 1792 handles better, the 1906 probably handles closer to the historical originals, so it depends on which aspect you value more. The 1906 does have issues with workmanship in *some* areas such as blade rattle in the scabbard and the leatherwork on the grips. However, they are in no way deal-breakers, and may be just one-off mistakes on this specific example. You also have to balance this against the fact that the 1906 is slightly cheaper (It used to be $200 at KoA). At the end of the day, this is an irrelevant exercise, since both swords are good value for money. The 1792 is my personal favorite, but it may not be yours.
Compared to Dave's data, my 1906 also seems to be on the heavier side in terms of taper and weight, so my conclusions may not be entirely reflective of the product line. At the end of the day though, at $200, both of these are better buys than the CS swords, or at least the ones I have owned. Better historical accuracy, better scabbards, better overall quality…and all at a comparable price.
Recently, I picked up the Windlass 1906 on closeout from Atlanta Cutlery. I was going to do a standalone review. However, the more I looked at it, the more I started to compare it to another sword in my collection: the Universal Swords Princess of Wales cavalry sword (1792).
There is a bit of a backstory to this – when I first started collecting and frequenting the forums, there were two replicas which caught my eye – the 1906 and the Princess of Wales 1792. To me, both represented the best replica swords available to the saber/Western military swords collector – beautifully made, historically accurate, and priced within the sub-$300 mark we strive for here on SBG. Furthermore, both came to me at almost exactly the same price (I paid $200 for each of them at the time, though both would have cost $250 had I bought them new from their respective suppliers). Both rank as among the favorites of my collection, but there can only be one winner.
Long story short, I decided that a better, more informative piece would be to compare the 1906 to the 1792. Since I have no original examples of either swords, this will provide a more tangible baseline to evaluate the various swords than presenting them alone.
Obligatory stats page:
General images. 1972 is the sword on the top
The Blade:
As you would have expected from the previous reviews, the blades of both the 1906 and the 1792 are well done. The 1906 has a well-defined guide rail/indent running behind the main fuller, which is a nice touch, whereas the 1792 only has the single fuller. In my examples, it appears that the Princess of Wales has a deeper, better defined fuller. The transition between the blade and the ricasso is a bit faded in the 1906. In terms of the tip, both share a very similar shape, with the Princess of Wales having slightly better definition, with a clear ridge down the middle as opposed to the amorphous hump on the 1906. While the Universal Swords has the slight edge here, both blades are generally well done and aesthetically pleasing.
View down the blades, showing the fullers
View of the tips. Note the central peak on the 1792, whereas the 1906 looks a bit more nebulous and ovoid in profile.
In terms of dynamics, the blade on the 1906 feels stiffer, despite having similar stats – likely due to the increased depth of the fuller. A mentioned before, the taper on both swords is similar, though I suspect that the 1792 is overbuilt compared to the originals, at least going by Dave’s review. It should be noted that the taper on my version is a bit weaker than on Dave’s, which might negatively affect the performance, though the PoB on both swords remains managable. The 1792 has a greater curvature and, to my eyes, looks more aesthetically pleasing. The 1906 dimensions are historically correct, but it just *looks* a bit too thin, especially when compared to the CS ANXI which I have. The 1906 is the same width at the base as the British 1897 Infantry Officer’s Skewer for goodness sake. I was somehow expecting there to be more blade here.
Both blades are made from stock of the appropriate thickness and show good taper
Comparison with the CS 1830 sword (bottom)
The Handle:
View of the guards and ricasso. Note the better definition on the 1792 in the blade-ricasso transition
The grips on the 1792 are wooden panels riveted onto the tang. Note that the 1792 does NOT actually have a full tang design – the tang runs through the handle. What we see on the top and bottom of the tang are steel plates which are snapped onto the grips, rather than part of the tang itself. Apparently they do it for balance, but it also means that these plates can come loose and rattle about, as mine did (slightly). The rivets do mean that the tang itself is very securely held in place within the grips, and will not come loose. The grips on the 1906 are the standard leather wrapped wood core. Not as strong as the 1792, but easier to repair if something does go wrong. The seam of the leather seems to be a bit loose, and some corners were cut when fitting the leather to the ends of the grips. However, the wire wrap looks nice, and the leather feels much fancier than the fake stuff they use on other replicas I have seen.
Less than ideal leather work on the 1906
In terms of ergonomics, the 1792 wins hands down. Both grips are similar lengths. However, the simpler guard on tthe 1792 lets you stick your thumb out, something that is not possible on the 1906. In terms of size, the grip on the 1906 is not small, but it is also definitely not as wide and chunky as the wooden slabs we have on the 1792. Overall, I find the 1792 gives you more to hold onto and is better shaped to my hand, in turn facilitating handling in both open and closed conformations.
Side view of the various grips. The cylindrical grips on the 1906 do not provide as much support as the simple wooden ones on the 1792
The metalwork on both the 1792 and 1906 is very well done, with intricate detail on the grips and langets of the 1792. Unfortunately, nobody in India seems to understand how langets are actually supposed to work. The 1906 is much more discrete than the 1792. However, there is also an air of quality here. There are no gaps or clumsy drops of solder here – everything looks sharp and ready for duty. I also like the faded, antique look they gave this sword – really gives it character. The guard of the 1906 is much more utilitarian, and gives better protection.
Detail on the 1792 grip (left) is excellent. The guard on the 1906 (right) is very well formed, with no sign of the clumsy soldering or visible weld marks we have come to expect on replicas from India.
The Scabbard:
I bought the 1792 pre-owned. In this state, the wood inside the scabbard had cracked. It works perfectly find most of the time, but it still prevents me from giving an accurate assessment of its functionality. However, this does not bode well for the long term durability of the 1792 scabbard, though that is inherent to its wood and leather design. The sword retention however is very good, and there is no rattling. Again, no signs of cutting corners here. The 1906 scabbard is much more utilitarian – clean steel through and through. Sword retention is also good, though I did notice the lower blade does rattle a bit while inside, so I would give the advantage to the 1792 on this front.
Both scabbards have a reasonable drag, unlike the comically large ones found on many CS replicas in the similar price range. I should also note that the two CS scabbards I have are massively thick and bulky compared to the originals. In contrast, both the 1792 and the 1906 scabbards look sleek and appropriately fitted to their respective swords.
The scabbard for the 1792 (right) and 1906 (middle) are reasonably proportioned, unlike the monstrous thing that came with my CS 1830 sword (left)
Both scabbards also show excellent workmanship – no rough areas, blobs of solder or glue etc. The rings of the 1906 were brazed onto the scabbard rather than welded, though I am not sure how historically accurate this is.
Handling:
The 1792 handles better, plain and simple. Most of this is down to the chunkier grips on the 1792, though the extra weight of that steel guard isn’t helping the 1906. By the numbers, both blades are similar in terms of taper and dimensions that they should be comparable, but yet the 1792 just feels lighter. The 1906 actually feels somewhat similar to the CS ANXI. This may be historically accurate for the 1906, but doesn’t make it less true.
Overall:
If I only had money to buy one of these swords, it would be the 1792. It handles better than the 1906, the scabbard is of better quality, and you get a much more detailed weapon compared to the plainer, trooper’s 1906. That said, the edge of the 1792 is not so great as to over-rule personal preference; the more utilitarian 1906 has a certain grunt appeal to it, while the 1792 is much fancier and refined look. While the 1792 handles better, the 1906 probably handles closer to the historical originals, so it depends on which aspect you value more. The 1906 does have issues with workmanship in *some* areas such as blade rattle in the scabbard and the leatherwork on the grips. However, they are in no way deal-breakers, and may be just one-off mistakes on this specific example. You also have to balance this against the fact that the 1906 is slightly cheaper (It used to be $200 at KoA). At the end of the day, this is an irrelevant exercise, since both swords are good value for money. The 1792 is my personal favorite, but it may not be yours.
Compared to Dave's data, my 1906 also seems to be on the heavier side in terms of taper and weight, so my conclusions may not be entirely reflective of the product line. At the end of the day though, at $200, both of these are better buys than the CS swords, or at least the ones I have owned. Better historical accuracy, better scabbards, better overall quality…and all at a comparable price.