|
Post by foxmartialarts on Dec 24, 2015 4:46:12 GMT
www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=CS88FBS&name=Cold+Steel+Officer%27s+Five+Ball+SpadroonHey all. I've been eyeing the cold steel 5 ball spadroon for awhile, but there is a disheartening lack of information about the sword, especially considering that it was released almost four years ago. Has anybody handled it, or heard anything about it? I can't find any other spadroons besides the Universal Swords model, which I have heard is unsuitable for contact. Thanks for any input!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2015 15:11:45 GMT
They are probably ok, for what they are.The grips are some plastic. Of several period spadroons here, some are clunky and others wonderful but any way you look at them, they are still spadroons. The five ball hilts tend to be a bit fragile. Another inherent fault to floating pommel types with slim tangs is that heavy blows will loosen things up, cracking grips and deforming guards. This is somewhat corrected in those that have backstraps. The plastic grip of the Cold Steel probably stronger than the ivory, bone, horn and wood of the period swords.
The blade form of the CS more reflects the continental European blades than the British, which most often had a fuller to the tip. I have a couple of period pieces with similar fuller properties. The CS reads as stiffer than many period spadroons but there was a wide variation. Some of mine have distal as thick as 9mm at the hilt with a rapid concave distal ending at 2mm at the tip.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 29, 2015 19:57:42 GMT
For a little more you could try to find the French Infantry Officers M1882. They are quite common. It will handle much better than the, probaly, overweight CS. CS swords tend to be overbuild and are not really what the tag, here ,,Spadroon'' says it is. So, for your money you get a sword that is not really what it supposed to be + that the spadroon was not very good in the first place.CS doing one could only make it worse, is my guess.
I have some period spadroons and the French M1882 and have to concur with what Matt has to say in the following video.
He has some more spadroon related videos on youtube too.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Dec 29, 2015 22:05:29 GMT
It will handle much better that the, probaly, overweight CS. CS swords tend to be overbuild and are not really what the tag, here ,,Spadroon'' says it is. How light/heavy should a spadroon be? The CS appears to be the lightest big brand name replica spadroon out there. (Of course, there's more to handling than weight alone, but looking at taper as well as weight, the CS still looks better than most replicas.) The "CS = overbuilt" thing appears to be mostly myth. Some of their swords are overbuilt, but one shouldn't overgeneralise from them. I blame CS advertising for much of this.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 30, 2015 0:47:31 GMT
It will handle much better that the, probaly, overweight CS. CS swords tend to be overbuild and are not really what the tag, here ,,Spadroon'' says it is. How light/heavy should a spadroon be? The CS appears to be the lightest big brand name replica spadroon out there. (Of course, there's more to handling than weight alone, but looking at taper as well as weight, the CS still looks better than most replicas.) The "CS = overbuilt" thing appears to be mostly myth. Some of their swords are overbuilt, but one shouldn't over generalise from them. I blame CS advertising for much of this. I have a french 1845 senior officers sword, and a British 1897. I believe these two swords represent the two extremes of spadroon design in function, if not form. The 1845 has a double-sided straight blade (the junior officers had the curved blade we are more familiar with). Its very broad, but very thin and kinda floppy for serious point work. In short, it has all the weaknesses of the spadroon as highlighted in Matt Easton's video on the topic. The British 1897 is, in my eye, an evolution of the 1882 in that it has a shorter, but more manageable blade. It has a more conventional profile, and is set up mainly for thrusting. Its stiff and lethal, while being light enough to wear comfortably, and regal enough for a proper gentleman officer. It also has a much better hand guard than the CS offering. Very nice sword, and its very easy to find - especially since they are still issued to most Commonwealth officers today. I got mine for 350 cdn a while back, but good examples can be had from around $300 and up. I will get some pictures and stats of both up tonight to compare with the CS numbers if that would be of any help - just so we have an idea of how far off they are. Also of note: I found that lately, the CS offerings are getting better. Their ANXI was better than the Universal Swords version, but it still does not match an original. So yes, the CS weapons in general are not as over-built as some other offerings, but they are likely more over-built than their historical counterpart.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 30, 2015 2:53:07 GMT
There's a disheartening lack of information because none of us has bought one yet! Unfortunately, "professional sword critic" is not a profitable line of work, especially since we have to pay for the wares we review . That being said, if you do go out and snap this one up, always feel free to let us know what you think! Cold Steel Universal Historical I'm not sure about you, but to me, the CS seems small compared to the Universal (which to my eye better captures the look of the 5-ball), and an original. It almost looks like a smallsword Also, the blade is pretty narrow. The 1897 Brit Inf and 1840 US NCO swords clock in at around 22 - 25mm wide. The CS is 18mm, which is closer to a piquet-weight 1897 (which handles almost like a fencing epee). Although as mentioned earlier, lot of variation here, so I'm hard-pressed to actually call this ahistorical. Handling-wise, this "diet" blade could buck the trend of overbuilt cold-steel products. (For the record, I don't think it's a blind generalization- we have plenty of empirical evidence to support that).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2015 4:15:42 GMT
The weight of the CS spadroon isn't that far off from many of my spadroons but the blade properties look a bit dismal in comparison. Dave Kelly had a Weapon Edge review of one of their spadroons. Some listing a sword as a spadroon may be regarding an epee or other infantry sword, such as the French 1882 or British 1897 and the evolution anything but clear. Go back a century before that and look at the English 1796 dress heavy cavalry, which is basically a scaled down pallasch blade, then look at a French 1882 again I feel the similarities more of a coincidence but, whatever. A French 1882, nor an English 1897 are not really spadroons by any stretch of the imagination (aside from capability). sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/44064/spadroonsThen you'll find anything with a stirrup hilt listed as a spadroon or spadroon hilted. Go figure
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 30, 2015 5:19:07 GMT
Perhaps, which begs the question of what properties of a spadroon does thou seek? If you are after aesthetics, or after the functionality and capability. In regards to the later, I would argue that the 1897 is a good example of a very capable spadroon. Its got thrusting oriented blade, but the overall sword is built for lightness and carry-ability rather than brute combat as its primary objective. Its certainly easier to find an original 1796 than a spadroon at any rate, and an all-round joy to handle What would you make of the US 1840 NCO sword? Its very similar to the 1796 inf officer sword, but with a much more workmanlike blade In either case, here are pics of the three. Not the best quality since I am using my ipod, but hey. As bfoo said, professional sword reviewer is a job title which has proven to be elusive 1897 (top), 1840 (middle), 1845 (bottom)The 1840 tapers from 9 mm to 3.5 mm, with a 2.2 cm wide/32.25 inch long blade. The 1845 goes from 8 mm to 3 mm with a 3.1 cm wide/ 33.75 inch long double-edged blade, and the 1897 goes from 8.5 mm to 3 mm with a 2.7 cm wide/32.5 inch long blade. Both the 1840 and the 1897 are very stiff thrusters. The 1845 on paper has a very thick blade, but the profile of the blade itself means that it tapers off very quickly to either edge. As such, thickness measurements may be a bit misleading. It is noticeably more flexible, and a much more compromise design. The CS goes from 5.3mm to 3.5mm according to KoA, so you may get a ore flexible and lightweight blade than expected. The 1840 is almost double that. The slim profile of the blade (1.9 cm/31 inch) is also smaller any of my spadroon-esque examples. Don't have any weights, but suspect the CS would be under that as well. Looks more like a dress weapon than a service weapon. .It reminds me of the piquette-weight 1897 actually, though I don't have access to that at the moment
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2015 6:19:52 GMT
Here is the Dave Kelly old Weapon Edge review sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/14505/weaponedge-3-british-napoleonic-swords?page=1&scrollTo=244117The US m1840 is a French 1816 epee hilt with a slim spadroon blade. Stiffer than a lot of 18th century spadroons by virtue of less distal properties. We've gone back and forth on the definition of spadroon a few times and you are welcome to call an English 1897 and French 1882 swords spadroons while ignoring what an 18th century slim backsword was. You can lump French infantry swords of all types as spadroons as well but it is to your own understanding of things. The English 1796 a continental form to begin with but definitely a shearing backsword that can thrust. Neumann lists them as short sabers Then again, you might wonder why the French would differentiate between an English form as a spadroon d'Anglais instead of a monture or epee. Whatever warms your heart. Neither a French 1845, 1882 or English 1897 will be found in books listed as spadroons. A lot of folk would regard the US m1840 as an epee by virtue of the hilt having been designed after the French 1816.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 30, 2015 6:29:30 GMT
Okay :P They are pointy things which are somewhat more pointy than hit-y. Was not aware the slim backsword classification existed, though not quite sure were you would put the 1897, since it has no edge for half of it at all?
Either way, I just figured that if the OP is going after items which might feel and handle similar to the CS spadroon, here are some viable options regardless of what they are called.
Also, since the blade profile and function of the 1897 and 1840 are similar to the CS, it provides a good foundation for a comparison between their stats. Yes, the 1897 and 1840 may not be spadroons per say, but you could make worse comparisons, especially if you consider only the blade.
And indeed, if the OP is after something which has similar handling and performance rather than aesthetics, then what we call it isn't as important as its function, in which case I maintain that both the 1840 and the 1897 are good analogues of the CS offering, with slim, thrust-centric blades. I would prefer the 1897 - it may have a much larger guard, but it looks nicer, and it has a good wiff of the old country around it. Personally, the 1897 is one of the favorites in my collection, regardless of what you want to call it ;) Its light and nimble, and that point is just scary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2015 7:10:55 GMT
Yet, the CS sword is a backsword blade, where some others are not. There are a great many left over US m1840 nco and musician swords and they provide a great bargain . Many in great shape, as never having been issued. The others you mention plentiful as well. There is a spadroon on Ebay that just went beyond reason in price. www.ebay.com/itm/262206077920?The blade in pretty dismal condition but it might have been a good buy for some. An opportunity to feel them out. Returning to the CS piece, there must have been some draw/appeal if there was an interest for more information. My initial response was to that end. Beating out a lot of my other swords would be my 1826 Bavarian hilt on a backsword blade Yet, that somehow doesn't fit the bill of a five-ball spadroon. My latest roach
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 30, 2015 13:25:30 GMT
Of what I can see in the pictures I would suggest that the CS is more like a Degen qua blade with an overbuild, for a Degen, hilt. It may be fast because of that and the blade might be stiff, but it does not resamble a spadroon blade, nor a spadroon,in my view. Like Matt Easton, I do see more of a spadroon blade in the M1882 Infantry blade and even the dismal, for a Cavalry pallash blade, M1882 Cavalry, also the M1896 and the M1923 come to mind. The main difference is that these blades are better designed than the typical spadroon blade and so make an interesting alternative. That is why Mr. Easton is so enthousiastic. They are 19th C. slim backsword blades and could be fitted to spadroon hilts without looking out of place, although the Cavalry blades have to be cut back a little. Whether they are listed in books as such is no argument. The French call everything ,,SABRE'' for instance. The M1845 Officers has more of a medieval, one handed, two sided, sword in the blade than anything else. Still it is called a sabre, just like the straight M1882 Infantry and Cavalry M1882/96/23 or the M1854 pallash, with a blade that would make a very good medieval HaH backsword, or a 17th C. - 18th C. Felddegen. As 25 mm width is the minimum for a field grade blade, the CS 19mm makes it a Degen or Epee. What we got here, I think, is a Degen with a too thin blade (4,7mm thick, even for a Degen that is not much), so that the overbuild, for the too thin blade, hilt, will pull the POB back a lot. It has just so much to do with a spadroon as the CS Colichemarde with a smallsword. Nada. But as a modern implement, it might not handle that bad at all. It might feel almost weightless. That is not good for cutting stuff and CS knows this, as they have not sharpened it, as they tend to do with their cutters. The Universal is in my opinion the better one. The blade starts out 81mm thick and has actual taper to 3,5 mm. That is still about 2mm too much, but I have to applaud the effort. Also the width is adequate for a field grade blade, 25,6mm. It might be good for light cutting, just like the period one and with the KOA sharpening service added, it is still cheaper. Even the soft scabbard is period. There is more spadroon blood there than in the CS. My advise: Go for the Universal. It will handle more like a period piece than the CS will ever do. As for that Bavarian M1826, just looking at the blade I think the width is about 33 - 35 mm. That is more like a backsword blade, not a spadroon blade in any sense I now of. I bet if you were to stick it to an old Scottish basket, many a dealer would accept it. Even with the German marks. Solingen provided the Scots with quite a few blades at times. I think a more precise term to describe the straight ,, sabre '' would be ,, sabre hilted (back)sword ''?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2015 18:29:15 GMT
Yes exactly as I described it, a backsword.. certainly not described spadroon like, as some here infer the French 1845 and 1882 have spadroonish character. I have the specs up somewhere, likely SFI I have encountered several examples since acquiring this one. Some marked to Horstmann NYC, others not. Some etched, others not. Some gilt plated. Some listed as cavalry, others infantry. There is yet another older half basket like these with the langets that preceed the British 1821 cavalry swords. The 1826 hilt (no langets) lasts to the end of the 19th century. As to semantics and terms, look to the German use of the term spadrone I would put David Critchley at the head of the class in describing the English use of the word spadroon. There is this old thread from a dozen years ago. www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?21913-Spadroon-bladeThe English fairly cut and dry when describing slim flatish swords as either backswords and broadswords. Their 1796 infantry typically a backsword and the 1796 heavy cavalry dress a broadsword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2015 18:43:25 GMT
And....then this that I have dug up in the past for others in the past but again, whatever warms your heart The back sword, of which so much is heard in connection with gladiators' stage fights, had a basket hilt similar to that of the claymore, but a very much slenderer blade, deprived of point, like the modern Schlaeger. A cutting sword of still narrower dimensions, and with a much simpler guard, approximating to that of the small sword, was called "Spadroon" in England; it was, in fact, similar to the German cut-and-thrust rapier of the eighteenth century, which had been called Spadane or Spadrone since the disuse of the regular two-handed swords, in the same way as the claymore retained the old name of a very different weapon. The German Spadroon was a regular double-edged sword, but any very light back or shearing sword was so called in England. Its play was essentially that of our modern single-stick, with a free use of the point, and the addition of a few drawing cuts with the false edge.page 342 books.google.com/books?id=BnE9AAAAYAAJ
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 30, 2015 21:43:16 GMT
The Swordforum one is an interesting article for sure, but I still would like to call the M1882/96/23 sword blades spadroonish. They may not fit the bill in a strict sense, according to some books, since the fullers differ from the original spadroon and maybe on some other minor points, but in essence they fit the bill quite well. And there seems to be much confusion as to what makes a spadroon blade anyway. If one would say: a blade 31-32" long, with a width of around 25mm, a spine of about 7 to 10mm thick, with or without fullers, the above swords fit in very well. They not even fit the backsword ticket, nor slender backsword really. They are too iffy for what I would call a sword. Just like the spadroon they do not cut, but they do the thrusting thing much better. In the end it does not matter very much. The Italians were very smart with questions like this. For them a spada was a spada. This attitude may not do much for interesting discussion, but it saves a lot of trouble and time. What is also interesting, is that the OP seems NOT to be interested in answers, after posting his question. Ah well....
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 30, 2015 23:24:22 GMT
Just because the OP is not interested doesn't mean we can't have our fun. I think spadroonish is a good word for the 1882 family and the 1897. They have many elements of the spadroon, though may not meet all the criteria and/or were not called a spadroon at the time. For the purpose of technical comparison, they work well enough.
Describing the CS as a Dengen seems quite a good idea. The 1.9cm blade is exceptionally thin - not sure I have anything that matches it asides from my piquette weight 1897 (not pictured). I don't have it on hand, but I remember it being 0.75 inches, or about 1.9 cm wide, so almost bang on in that dimension. Certainly has a thicker blade and more taper, with the same vicious point as the full sized 1897.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 31, 2015 12:54:27 GMT
,,Just because the OP is not interested doesn't mean we can't have our fun''.
No, of course not. But I would have liked it if he would have read about the, much better, Universal alternative. I meassured a Prussian IOD '89. The blade is 5,5mm thick and it has a width of just under 23mm. Barely field grade. Without the double fullers it would behave like wet noodle. That CS almost falls into the smallsword class. A late 18th C. French Officers sword, made in Metz, I could desintangle from the rack, has an ever so slightly curved and shallow fullered blade. 83x25x7mm. This is a field grade blade, but it is set into a silver boat hilt. Much too fragile. Another one: 83x27x8,6mm. Straight, shallow fullered blade, set into a pierced guard, gilded bronze hilt. Again what is supposed to be a field grade blade. Again set into a hilt way too fragile. These smallsword hilts, though smart looking, undercut the functionality of the blade and make this kind of spadroon totaly useless. That is what bothers me about the spadroon. They ARE, for the most part, totally useless. A more martial looking variant of the smallsword, without its qualities. Those swanky looking hilts carry teeny tangs too. As these objects of fashion were carried by people who, I suppose, lived with swords their whole life, so had to know very well what a good reliable sword or sabre looked like, there must be another argument than mere functionality or the lack thereof. The one thing I can think of is status. The symbol of. To be cast aside when things got unpleasant. Another thing is that these spadroons could be carried in town as well, hence the smallsword hilts. A blade to impress the ladies with. Bigger semprini. More substantial than the smallsword blade. Handy in crowded interiors,because they were hung straight down from the belt. That 83 cm blade length is there for a reason. Whatever. Be it what it may, I still like them. Not as swords, but as memories of a time gone by, as cultural objects. Objects d'art. An ode to the thousands of unnamed artisans who did their work with such great skill.
Amen.
|
|
|
Post by foxmartialarts on Jan 20, 2016 4:28:32 GMT
Wow, I got a ton of information and new leads to follow on this thread. Sorry about being absent for so long, I was in the field and completely off the grid. If I do pick up the CS "spadroon", I will get a review on here as fast as possible. Now, to look at these other swords; I like the look of the 1897. sadly, I'm in the position where a new computer has priority over a new sword, so it may be awhile!
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jan 20, 2016 13:35:00 GMT
I like the look of the 1897. sadly, I'm in the position where a new computer has priority over a new sword, so it may be awhile! Ya, sadly it seems to be that something always gets in the way.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 21, 2016 7:27:35 GMT
I still like to point your attention to this one: www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=USS106&name=5-Ball+SpadroonUniversal has the whole top row filled with spadroons, so there is much to choose from. Build quality, I have some U. sabres, is good, nothing to worrie about. The price is quite low. That said, to get their 5 ball in optimal condition the blade needs some work. It starts at 8 mm thick, which very good, but as you can see, it tapers to 5 mm. If you were to grind off the blade, starting just where the fuller stops and grind it down to 1.5 - 2 mm at 1" from the tip, you'd have the perfect spadroon blade for little money. It has a nut assembly, so the hilt is easy to remove. The Cold Steel does not give you that chance to improve it and is much more expensive. Just my 2 Cs.
|
|