|
Post by legacyofthesword on Aug 5, 2016 5:07:20 GMT
The basic requirements: under $400, and able to take fairly heavy use. I looked at the Hanwei Lowlander Sword, but didn't like what I heard about the tang being too thin. The Hanwei Claymore looked a lot better, but somewhere I read about one breaking when it hit a wooden stand. That could have been a defective product though. Cold Steel looks too heavy and poorly balanced. I found this: irongatearmory.com/swords/two-handed_swords/english_two-hand_sword It looks great, but I don't know anything about it. Is the blade whippy? Thoughts? Thanks in advance for all and any help.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Aug 5, 2016 5:35:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 6:13:51 GMT
A sword is by no means designed to hit a massive wooden object...hard. I wouldnt put my hand into fire for ANY sword if that happens. Under 400 USD this ones worth a try...IF you can find one! www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=501060I have that one, cool sword, one of Windlasses best, not whippy at all. Might also be worth a look... www.amazon.com/Cold-Steel-MAA-Fontaine-Sword/dp/B019RSY2SQThe Hanwei Claymore is a fine sword, while Hanwei swords are often a little on the "light side"...some models just feel too fragile in hand. A DSA would make a sturdy appearance, but QC is meh...might run into some lemons. Over 400,- anyway. Unjustified. DelTins are very solid, but also above 400,- mark.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 5, 2016 9:40:59 GMT
@davekelly owns and reviewed the English Longsword you posted. sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/39332/windlass-english-longsword?page=1#post-555702Nice sword in my opinion and one that was on my 'to buy list' before it got discontinued. It's got a pretty pointy blade though so I'm not 100% it'd be the cutter you're looking for. Its a replica of a sword that post dates the Oakeshott typologies but if I were going to classify it, I'd say it falls more in line with a Type XVII style blade type. Seems from Irongate, this sword will run you about $444.00 US shipped, which is pretty high for this sword. Then again since it's discontinued what else can you do right? Your other option with the Hanwei Highlander seems to be you're best bet for a decent 55" great sword. It's received good reviews over the years and is full tang and peened as opposed to their Lowlander which is pure junk. Though if you like the Lowlander style over the Highlander style, there is always the option of the Windlass Hero's Warsword. I love mine and feel it is the best sub-$300 Greatsword/Claymore on the market today. It is quite larger than either the English Longsword or Hanwei Highlander ( a good 10" longer than the other two mentioned at 64" overall) but isnt really that much heavier (between 5 1/2-6lbs) and is also full tang and peened. Here's my review of mine plus a link to my customization thread to show what can easily be done to pretty it up. sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/39461www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=501228&name=Hero%27s+Warswordsbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/45581/windlass-heros-warsword-demi-scabbard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 9:56:57 GMT
hey nddave, what about the "not-at-all" distal taper on that Hero? Not that i care too much about it, i always get sceptic when people claim to know everything about how things were made in the middle-ages, but isnt it kinda saggy? Always liked the design...gives a "father of swords" feeling... ;-)
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 5, 2016 12:16:19 GMT
OH man I love the English Long sword too! Ebay has one that is being sold from Poland. I checked a whole bunch of other websites as I am sure you did but none of them have any in stock.
|
|
|
Post by Jussi Ekholm on Aug 5, 2016 12:32:35 GMT
Hanwei Claymore is pretty good sword for the money.
I would ask Irongate Armoury if they are willing to ship sword of this size to USA. As the sword is so long it will have to be shipped as EMS (which also has size restriction of 152) and it shows me 93€ as postage cost from Finland to USA. Maybe companies will get discounts compared to private.
Windlass English Longsword has been on my buy list for several years as I like it a lot and I think it's fairly nice sword for the usual price it sells for in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 5, 2016 17:46:26 GMT
hey nddave, what about the "not-at-all" distal taper on that Hero? Not that i care too much about it, i always get sceptic when people claim to know everything about how things were made in the middle-ages, but isnt it kinda saggy? Always liked the design...gives a "father of swords" feeling... ;-) I researched Claymores and other great swords of similar blade type and you'd be surprised by how many had little to no distal taper. Yes Windlass is quite notorious for their lack of distal taper in many of their swords but this is a sword that's historical counterpart had none either (pics in my review thread of the original) as apparently did other large great swords over 45". Most had lenticular or hexagonal cross sections with most (especially claymores) having broad blades ending with spatular tips. With the later period Germanic and Swedish great swords having smaller blade widths and some times even longer blade lengths (60"). Point being even the more tapering of the great swords had some "whip" to them due to being so long and thin in cros section. This whip is less detrimental to the battlefield function of these sword types anyway as their primary function was an overhead vertical strike from behind the first line of the front line. Primarily to counter pikes and other long reaching pole arms. This can be seen though as a norm with even the more higher end great swords (even Albion's Maximillian and Tyrolian swords) having whip to them. As long as the production swords in question have a good heat treatment and hilt contruction (decent tang especially) the whip shouldn't be an issue anyway as it's just something to be expected with a very long blade like those of a great sword to keep the weight manageable. Most great swords had an average weight of 5-8lbs so any of these great swords (to note the English Longsword is technically more warsword/longsword than actual great sword, irony of the Windlass being named a warsword lol) in question in this thread have reasonable weights and balance points to their historical counterparts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 20:47:11 GMT
Thanx! I hope the distal taper junkies are not gonna jump on you right now...you are not allowed to worship the "sharpened crowbar"...xD Seriously, that were my thoughts too...to make such a thing stiffer/give it more taper you have to start thicker/wider = adding even more weight to a already hefty weapon!
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Aug 6, 2016 14:14:11 GMT
I'd agree if we were talking Viking era swords but from what I've read, antique two handers had a great deal of flex and distal taper. myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.25739.htmlIt stands to reason that any fighting sword would want a thinner area where the cutting happens and a thicker area where the cutting does not happen to help support the thinner part. I only know of executioner's swords having no distal taper. Anyway there are exceptions of course.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 6, 2016 16:19:23 GMT
I'd agree if we were talking Viking era swords but from what I've read, antique two handers had a great deal of flex and distal taper. myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.25739.htmlIt stands to reason that any fighting sword would want a thinner area where the cutting happens and a thicker area where the cutting does not happen to help support the thinner part. I only know of executioner's swords having no distal taper. Anyway there are exceptions of course. I think my post on lack of distal taper was miss interpreted because the thread you linked pretty much agrees with my points about the lack of distal taper. The lack of distal taper isn't from these swords being thick in profile but from the fact they're thin in profile all the way with no actual taper, which gives the discussed bow and whip in swords of these types. Most did in fact have riccassos, but still those that did didn't have any tapering past the riccasso and had the usual thin profile.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 6, 2016 21:21:08 GMT
I think my post on lack of distal taper was miss interpreted because the thread you linked pretty much agrees with my points about the lack of distal taper. The lack of distal taper isn't from these swords being thick in profile but from the fact they're thin in profile all the way with no actual taper, which gives the discussed bow and whip in swords of these types. Most did in fact have riccassos, but still those that did didn't have any tapering past the riccasso and had the usual thin profile. ?? "What has surprised me is how much distal taper even the huge bearing swords out of Hanover had. ... so thin for the last seven or eight inches of the blade that they almost seem to disappear viewed sideways, and will bow under their own weight when rested on their tips. It makes quite a contrast with the thickness at the ricasso, which is typically over a quarter inch." Some measurements of thicknesses of blades from www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.htmlBase to tip: 8mm to 2mm, 7mm to 2mm, 10mm to 4mm, 10mm to 2.5mm I'd call that a lot of distal taper.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 6, 2016 23:23:50 GMT
I think my post on lack of distal taper was miss interpreted because the thread you linked pretty much agrees with my points about the lack of distal taper. The lack of distal taper isn't from these swords being thick in profile but from the fact they're thin in profile all the way with no actual taper, which gives the discussed bow and whip in swords of these types. Most did in fact have riccassos, but still those that did didn't have any tapering past the riccasso and had the usual thin profile. ?? "What has surprised me is how much distal taper even the huge bearing swords out of Hanover had. ... so thin for the last seven or eight inches of the blade that they almost seem to disappear viewed sideways, and will bow under their own weight when rested on their tips. It makes quite a contrast with the thickness at the ricasso, which is typically over a quarter inch." Some measurements of thicknesses of blades from www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.htmlBase to tip: 8mm to 2mm, 7mm to 2mm, 10mm to 4mm, 10mm to 2.5mm I'd call that a lot of distal taper. Yea when comparing the riccasso to the rest of the blade, which again I mentioned in the post you quoted. Riccasso were normally 6-13" in length and were thick and squared without edges. Past the Riccasso though there is no actual taper to these blades (in most circumstances pending sword) as for the remainder of their length the cross section is even with no distal taper. Again I think some are confusing distal taper with an already uniform thin cross section and considering that as distal taper. Take a 60" blade of a great sword. minus the apparent riccasso that is thick and takes say 10" of the blade length from the guard to the end of the Riccasso. You have 50" inches of a thin uniform blade from the end of the Riccasso to the tip of the blade. Again in that sword the thin cross section encompasses the entire edged blade length so even though thin, the blade in fact does not have any actual distal taper, as again the blade is uniform throughout. If you want to count the Riccasso as part of the blade, then I guess yes, you can say that the blade tapers down after the first 10". Though most consider the Riccasso (especially in regards to the 15-16th century great sword) actually part of the hilt and not part of the true blade.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 7, 2016 2:07:25 GMT
Some measurements of thicknesses of blades from www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.htmlBase to tip: 8mm to 2mm, 7mm to 2mm, 10mm to 4mm, 10mm to 2.5mm I'd call that a lot of distal taper. Yea when comparing the riccasso to the rest of the blade, which again I mentioned in the post you quoted. Riccasso were normally 6-13" in length and were thick and squared without edges. Past the Riccasso though there is no actual taper to these blades (in most circumstances pending sword) as for the remainder of their length the cross section is even with no distal taper. Again I think some are confusing distal taper with an already uniform thin cross section and considering that as distal taper. Take a 60" blade of a great sword. minus the apparent riccasso that is thick and takes say 10" of the blade length from the guard to the end of the Riccasso. You have 50" inches of a thin uniform blade from the end of the Riccasso to the tip of the blade. That would require a sudden reduction in thickness from, e.g., 8mm to 2mm at the end of the ricasso. I've never seen that on an antique two-hander. It would also sag far under its own weight than the real swords do (it would sag about 1 foot). Can you point to an antique two-hander with a blade like this (i.e., about 2mm thick all the way to ricasso (or hilt, if no ricasso)? You can get away with no or little distal taper if the blade is thicker (maybe 6mm and more), at least in terms of sagging. Here is an example with little taper: www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/ZEF-1.pdfSince the fullered part of the blade past the ricasso is the same thickness as the diamond section part, it should be stiffer, which will help reduce sagging. Another example is sword KZ1030 on: www.thearma.org/spotlight/swiss-swords.htmlwhich only tapers from 7mm to 4.6mm. I don't think it's feasible with 2mm.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Aug 7, 2016 12:25:06 GMT
Yea when comparing the riccasso to the rest of the blade, which again I mentioned in the post you quoted. Riccasso were normally 6-13" in length and were thick and squared without edges. Past the Riccasso though there is no actual taper to these blades (in most circumstances pending sword) as for the remainder of their length the cross section is even with no distal taper. Again I think some are confusing distal taper with an already uniform thin cross section and considering that as distal taper. Take a 60" blade of a great sword. minus the apparent riccasso that is thick and takes say 10" of the blade length from the guard to the end of the Riccasso. You have 50" inches of a thin uniform blade from the end of the Riccasso to the tip of the blade. Again in that sword the thin cross section encompasses the entire edged blade length so even though thin, the blade in fact does not have any actual distal taper, as again the blade is uniform throughout. If you want to count the Riccasso as part of the blade, then I guess yes, you can say that the blade tapers down after the first 10". Though most consider the Riccasso (especially in regards to the 15-16th century great sword) actually part of the hilt and not part of the true blade. That simply isn't the case. I've seen plenty of two handers in Graz Zeughaus and Wallace collection in London and they all had gradual distal taper.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 8, 2016 7:55:48 GMT
I never said none of them had zero distal taper just that some didn't. Arguing that fact is beyond the point I was trying to make. Again never did I say none of the historical Great Swords lacked distal taper, that would be just as false as stating all did.
Truth is there is no exact definite to any sword profile or typology, to believe so would be asinine. Enthusiasts and researchers who do are doing nothing but walling themselves in their own opinions and conclusions. For example take the argument of of fullers on certain types. There are some who believe that the Type XV and XVa types all lacked fullers when in fact there are Type XVs that in fact do have fullers. So which is it? A fullered Type XV or something else? Does the fuller make it a XVI or XVIIIa? Obviously it cant be a XVIII because they too are said to have no fullers either, or do they? Again nothing is exact and the only evidence we have is evidence built on the number of XVs or even XVIIIs we have, which the majority lack fullers. So does that somehow refute fullered variants that are in existence? If it does it shouldn't.
In the end again I'll make the point that some have distal taper of various amounts and some did not. Anyways back on topic, has the OP decided on a sword yet?
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Aug 8, 2016 16:48:51 GMT
Rather thin blade with little distal taper is sometimes present in XIIIa swords, but really not true twohanders. 16th century twohanders are always thick at the base, no matter if they have riccasso or not, and they always have a rather drastic distal taper in the first third of the blade and than again drastic reduction in thickness in the last third. Actually quite similar to long cavalry sabers but drawn through even longer blade. Let's say 7-10mm at the base, getting to about 5-6mm after first third, than gradual taper to about 4 at the 2/3rds and than reduction to 2-3mm in the last third. It could be a more linear taper, but no blade around meter long is going to be thinner than about 6-7mm at the beginning and it would handle really bad if it didn't get to about 3mm in the last at least 20-30cm.
ANYWAY, for the original poster, I would recommend Hanwei Claymore for a modest size two hander, or Del Tin and Lutel for bigger ones...
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Aug 10, 2016 4:38:51 GMT
Thanks for the help everyone. I think I'll go with the Hanwei Claymore. Once again, got to wait for enough cash to pile up first - it doesn't help that I also have a pathological addiction to books, surpassing my sword collecting urge by far.
|
|