Empire Costume/WEI Imperial Guard Briquet
Mar 19, 2016 5:44:57 GMT
Post by Afoo on Mar 19, 2016 5:44:57 GMT
Earlier this year, the WEI Imperial Guard Briquet came up on KoA, along with a bunch of WEI swords with a suspicious resemblance to some of Empire-Costume's offerings, despite their insistence that they have their own supplier that does not work for anybody else. Hmm.
In either case, I ordered the equivalent product from EC to A) confirm our suspicions than both the EC and WEI product are the same and B) because it was actually cheaper when factoring in shipping and the low value of the Canadian Dollar. I do not have any actual experience or knowledge of briquets, since I generally find them too boring and plain. However, this one seemed elaborate and unique enough to be worth it. Time to find out whether that is the case. Since its late, I will post a quick review for now, and have pics up tmrw.
STATS:
The stats mirror closely with what is available on the KoA website, indicating that the EC production and the WEI offering likely come from the same place (shocker). The taper is a bit better than indicated, starting from a respectable 7.5 mm at the base and tapering to 5mm (1.3), 4 mm (2/3) and finally 3 mm at the tip. The blade length is 27.5 inches, and the grip area is 3.5 inches long. The weight of the sword is given as 1.92 punds on KoA, though my example comes in a bit less at 1.87 pounds.
THE BLADE
The blade was what first drew me to this sword - it has a very distinctive, broad blade. The massive 4 cm (1.57 inch) span is broken up by an equally expansive fuller running almost the entire length of the sword, terminating just shy of the clip point. All in all, I like the unique shape and structure. The definition at the clip point is a bit vague, but acceptable. The fullers are a good 1.5 mm deep at the base, which along with their huge girth helps bring down the weight of the sword. 1.5 mm may not sound like a lot, but don't forget that you have two of them, accounting for 3 mm, or nearly half of the blade thickness.
The arsenal markings on the blade are crisp and well done, though nothing exceptional. What I did notice though was that the engraving on the spine of the blade is markedly improved over previous examples (Namely my CS 1830 sabre). While my 1830 had etching that resembled trenches, the etching on the EC briquet was much finer and discrete. When compared to authentic markings (taken from my 1873 Chassepot bayonet), those of the EC briquet come close in terms of finesse and quality. They still look fake, but given a few decades of wear it may become quite hard to differentiate the two.
THE BACK END
The brass guard is simple and well done, but nothing to write home about in terms of quality. What is a bit disappointing are the grips. At 3.5 inches, the grips are a bit small. The KoA stats make no secret about this, and frankly made me hesitant about buying it. I managed to convince myself that 3.5 inches was sufficient for at least a hammer grip, which seemed accurate for how these weapons would have been used, and to a degree that is true. There is room for the hammer grip and, somewhat surprisingly, room for the open-handed grip sans gloves. The tight grip actually helps the open handed grip (at least for me). By being so confined, it really helps lock my hand in there and gives better control. Its not ideal, but its not horrible. With gloves, the hammer grip starts to feel a bit tight, but the open handed grip still works for me. Its a tight fit, but as a consequence I find I can achieve quite a positive degree of control through resting the back of my hand against the back of the knucklebow. As alluded to earlier though, the hammer grip is usable with or without gloves, which I think better reflects how they would have been used in real life.
Open handed grip kinda works. Also a good view of the markings on the guard
Hammer grip works okay, even with gloves.
What I am less of a fan of is the small size of the knucklebow itself. The opening is a bit small, and can make getting your hand inside a bit difficult if you have large gloves. It also makes the piece feel more like a toy and less like an actual weapon. I do not know if this was historically accurate for this model, but it looks kind of silly.
On my example, the wire started to come loose as well, which is a negative aspect. However, it could also just be specific to my example. The wire is a bit rough on the hands, but again better than some other examples.
Wire coming loose :(
SCABBARD
The leather scabbard is floppy - I mean limp-noodle floppy. The seem also feels weak in the hand, and the leather creases easily with even the slightest bend. Not sure these would have survived more than a day or two in the field. Sword retention is good and it is light weight, but man does it feel cheap.
Leather scabbard looks nice, but feels very cheap and flimsy. The leather bends easily, and will crease readily when that happens.
HANDLING
Handling on this is surprisingly good. The taper and the huge fullers make the blade very manageable, and it feels much lighter than its 1. pounds. I have a CS Hybrid cutlass reviewed elsewhere, and the briquet beats it hands down 7 days a week despite the CS having the shorter blade. I am seriously impressed. The only thing that keeps me from recommending this to everyone are those grips and scabbard. Small grips and flimsy scabbards could be an issue for any sword, but I feel like they are particularly harmful here. This is supposed to be an item for elite troops. As such, it needs to have a certain air of quality and seriousness. The small grip sand cheap scabbard undermine this to an extent. Yes, the blade and handling is good, but thats only half of this swords appeal.
That said, it is an improvement over what we have seen previously, both in terms of dynamics, and in terms of craftsmanship, both in the blade (no signs of waviness of hammer marks) and the etchings. Price is pretty good to boot as well!
Briquet next to a Swiss 1867. The blade in the briquet is wide compared to the Swiss, and the Swiss is no slouch itself. You can also see the diminutive dimensions of the briquet grip compared to a real sword
In either case, I ordered the equivalent product from EC to A) confirm our suspicions than both the EC and WEI product are the same and B) because it was actually cheaper when factoring in shipping and the low value of the Canadian Dollar. I do not have any actual experience or knowledge of briquets, since I generally find them too boring and plain. However, this one seemed elaborate and unique enough to be worth it. Time to find out whether that is the case. Since its late, I will post a quick review for now, and have pics up tmrw.
STATS:
The stats mirror closely with what is available on the KoA website, indicating that the EC production and the WEI offering likely come from the same place (shocker). The taper is a bit better than indicated, starting from a respectable 7.5 mm at the base and tapering to 5mm (1.3), 4 mm (2/3) and finally 3 mm at the tip. The blade length is 27.5 inches, and the grip area is 3.5 inches long. The weight of the sword is given as 1.92 punds on KoA, though my example comes in a bit less at 1.87 pounds.
THE BLADE
The blade was what first drew me to this sword - it has a very distinctive, broad blade. The massive 4 cm (1.57 inch) span is broken up by an equally expansive fuller running almost the entire length of the sword, terminating just shy of the clip point. All in all, I like the unique shape and structure. The definition at the clip point is a bit vague, but acceptable. The fullers are a good 1.5 mm deep at the base, which along with their huge girth helps bring down the weight of the sword. 1.5 mm may not sound like a lot, but don't forget that you have two of them, accounting for 3 mm, or nearly half of the blade thickness.
The arsenal markings on the blade are crisp and well done, though nothing exceptional. What I did notice though was that the engraving on the spine of the blade is markedly improved over previous examples (Namely my CS 1830 sabre). While my 1830 had etching that resembled trenches, the etching on the EC briquet was much finer and discrete. When compared to authentic markings (taken from my 1873 Chassepot bayonet), those of the EC briquet come close in terms of finesse and quality. They still look fake, but given a few decades of wear it may become quite hard to differentiate the two.
THE BACK END
The brass guard is simple and well done, but nothing to write home about in terms of quality. What is a bit disappointing are the grips. At 3.5 inches, the grips are a bit small. The KoA stats make no secret about this, and frankly made me hesitant about buying it. I managed to convince myself that 3.5 inches was sufficient for at least a hammer grip, which seemed accurate for how these weapons would have been used, and to a degree that is true. There is room for the hammer grip and, somewhat surprisingly, room for the open-handed grip sans gloves. The tight grip actually helps the open handed grip (at least for me). By being so confined, it really helps lock my hand in there and gives better control. Its not ideal, but its not horrible. With gloves, the hammer grip starts to feel a bit tight, but the open handed grip still works for me. Its a tight fit, but as a consequence I find I can achieve quite a positive degree of control through resting the back of my hand against the back of the knucklebow. As alluded to earlier though, the hammer grip is usable with or without gloves, which I think better reflects how they would have been used in real life.
Open handed grip kinda works. Also a good view of the markings on the guard
Hammer grip works okay, even with gloves.
What I am less of a fan of is the small size of the knucklebow itself. The opening is a bit small, and can make getting your hand inside a bit difficult if you have large gloves. It also makes the piece feel more like a toy and less like an actual weapon. I do not know if this was historically accurate for this model, but it looks kind of silly.
On my example, the wire started to come loose as well, which is a negative aspect. However, it could also just be specific to my example. The wire is a bit rough on the hands, but again better than some other examples.
Wire coming loose :(
SCABBARD
The leather scabbard is floppy - I mean limp-noodle floppy. The seem also feels weak in the hand, and the leather creases easily with even the slightest bend. Not sure these would have survived more than a day or two in the field. Sword retention is good and it is light weight, but man does it feel cheap.
Leather scabbard looks nice, but feels very cheap and flimsy. The leather bends easily, and will crease readily when that happens.
HANDLING
Handling on this is surprisingly good. The taper and the huge fullers make the blade very manageable, and it feels much lighter than its 1. pounds. I have a CS Hybrid cutlass reviewed elsewhere, and the briquet beats it hands down 7 days a week despite the CS having the shorter blade. I am seriously impressed. The only thing that keeps me from recommending this to everyone are those grips and scabbard. Small grips and flimsy scabbards could be an issue for any sword, but I feel like they are particularly harmful here. This is supposed to be an item for elite troops. As such, it needs to have a certain air of quality and seriousness. The small grip sand cheap scabbard undermine this to an extent. Yes, the blade and handling is good, but thats only half of this swords appeal.
That said, it is an improvement over what we have seen previously, both in terms of dynamics, and in terms of craftsmanship, both in the blade (no signs of waviness of hammer marks) and the etchings. Price is pretty good to boot as well!
Briquet next to a Swiss 1867. The blade in the briquet is wide compared to the Swiss, and the Swiss is no slouch itself. You can also see the diminutive dimensions of the briquet grip compared to a real sword