|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Jun 20, 2016 1:28:23 GMT
Oh! Yes, of course. The original drawing does not, indeed, feature a ricasso; I took it she's having second thoughts about whether to include one. I might just have to hire you as my translator. I thought this was pretty damned obvious, but maybe I give people too much credit. Go with your gut feeling, your work always looks great, dare to be different!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jun 22, 2016 0:44:13 GMT
Whew, I'm glad that got straightened out; cause I didn't want to have to admit that I've never had sex before with a ricasso.
HI FERAL!!!!
(Obviously a lost soul with nothing to contribute to the discussion...)
|
|
|
|
Post by william m on Jun 22, 2016 7:35:27 GMT
Have you decided which way you are going with the Ricasso?
In my opinion it is something that just will look a bit rubbish on a Seax. Ricasso's always remind me of SLO's and tatty knives that always seem to have one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Jun 22, 2016 21:24:14 GMT
I don't see a ricasso in that pic so maybe I'm missing something? Either way: I would recommend NOT going with a ricasso. Seax with ricasso is a faux-pas in my opinion. As is a V-grind/Scandi-grind btw as pictured. Full flat or convex grind is the only appropriate blade geometry for a seax. If you want do give the blade a ricasso, scandi grind etc, that's all cool. I can image it looking great. But don't call it a seax then. The blade shape and geometry is the fundamental characteristic of the seax, as is the handle. If you deviate from those points, the piece stops being a seax. There is more than enough leeway for interpretation to make it "your style" and still have it be a perfectly fine seax. But adding a guard, ricasso or scandi grind in my opinion is not compatible with the term seax. Your mileage may vary. Nobody Cares. It gets old when you keep trying to tell people their stuff is "wrong" just because its "not historical" She never said she was making a Museum piece or historical copy. |
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Jun 22, 2016 21:28:11 GMT
Alana, i say go for it if thats what you think will work for you artistically and safety wise. i put a small ricasso area on all my seaxes, I've sold at least 30 of them by now and nobody seems to mind them, they sell as fast as i can make em.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Jun 22, 2016 21:36:53 GMT
I don't see a ricasso in that pic so maybe I'm missing something? Either way: I would recommend NOT going with a ricasso. Seax with ricasso is a faux-pas in my opinion. As is a V-grind/Scandi-grind btw as pictured. Full flat or convex grind is the only appropriate blade geometry for a seax. If you want do give the blade a ricasso, scandi grind etc, that's all cool. I can image it looking great. But don't call it a seax then. The blade shape and geometry is the fundamental characteristic of the seax, as is the handle. If you deviate from those points, the piece stops being a seax. There is more than enough leeway for interpretation to make it "your style" and still have it be a perfectly fine seax. But adding a guard, ricasso or scandi grind in my opinion is not compatible with the term seax. Your mileage may vary. Nobody Cares. It gets old when you keep trying to tell people their stuff is "wrong" just because its "not historical" She never said she was making a Museum piece or historical copy. Well, if you call it "seax" that implies historical accuracy. Simple as that. What you are making is not, in my eyes, a seax. It is a modern spin-off. Which is totally fine! As I've said, it doesn't mean it can't be a cool piece and a very functional weapon. And if you like the looks, go for it! Absolutely. But if you want to give it a historical term, you need to stick to the historical "rule-set". If you give it a ricasso, scandi grind and pinned full tang handle you can call it "seax" all day long and claim it's loosely based on the seax of Beagnoth, it doesn't make it true. There is enough crap out there that tries to disguise itself as being authentic and many people believe it. All I would like to see is for manufacturers to be honest about their work to counter that problem. I think that could go a long way in clearing up misconceptions about swords/daggers/etc and that would be a good thing for our hobby indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by william m on Jun 23, 2016 7:37:54 GMT
Indeed, I agree with chenessfan here. If you call it something then it should follow the rules, as that is what defines it. No use making a pocketknife and calling it a katana.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jun 23, 2016 9:04:55 GMT
Honestly I sometimes wonder how these discussions get here.
I myself love historicity and the respect we have for authentic originals. However, we can get a bit too high strung about it. Case in point: a historical seax would not have a ricasso. Agreed. But a historical seax would not be made of 5160, 1095, or any kind of modern steel. Even pattern-welded steel. Even modern-made crucible steel with a wrought iron core. Maybe there’s a chance that a modern smelt somewhere in the Nordic or Germanic countries contain the actual ore used by Viking-era warriors, but how are we to know?
So I can’t see why we have to be incredibly demanding in keeping things “historical.” There are different degrees. I myself belong to the camp of those who desire as much authenticity in my blades as possible. However, some people want “tactical” longswords or katana and even if somehow I wince inside, I wouldn’t tell them they were wrong to call these “longswords” or “katana.” Let’s not get too fixated on words that were (1) not original to begin with – for instance, longswords are not a generally medieval term after all, they were renaissance an the term was not even in modern English, nor referring to what we currently understand longswords to be, (2) shift in meaning based on era.
So yeah, that’s it. This has gone a bit off course. I just wanted to say that maybe those of us who are into the history and authenticity of swords may tend to be a bit offensive by pushing our views on others. Let’s not get too worked up about it. Maybe if we’re asked specifically on authenticity? Maybe if that was important in the build? But otherwise, maybe it’s best not to be too argumentative about it.
As for the original question, I think the simplest answer is that while not historical, it would look great so go for it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Jun 23, 2016 9:25:36 GMT
You may be right, a bit more tolerance probably wouldn't hurt. I admittedly tend to get a bit worked-up when this topic is discussed...
Still though, I think the discussion of authenticity is understandable here. After all, the original question was "how do we feel about a seax with a ricasso". Well... I feel it's not a seax then. Naturally, and I think I have stated that many times, that doesn't mean it can't be a great piece and if the OP wants to make it, there's no reason not to.
|
|
