pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 1, 2016 22:57:16 GMT
Pgandy: Whatever you decide on, I hope you will be spared the awefull bureaucratic nightmare you had to go through in the past. Also, if you go for the all iron Princess, you may consider asking KOA to oil the sabre and scabbard and wrapping it up with some shrink plastic foil. If it winds up sitting in some humid customs shed for a couple of weeks you'll need some extra KOA anti rust service. Good luck! Excellent idea. Thanks. PS That made me think of something else. If customs refuses me and I have had KoA sharpen it I'm definitely up the creek with no paddle. With that in mind I'll be sharpening it myself.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 2, 2016 0:33:53 GMT
lol, Never fails to please I meant. I was writing this in the lab, so disappointment is a very common commodity. The other WEI swords which were mentioned here (the Blue and Gold Imp Guard and Scouts models) - while their taper may not quite be up to snuff vs the originals, you have to admit they are a darn sight better than before. I had their Briquet and that was surprisingly good for what it is. Definitely ahead of the CS cutlasses. Their British 1845 Cav Sword (actually an 1822 artillery/infantry model) looks okay - taper of 7mm to 3mm. My only concern here is that the guard may be scaled down. The stats suggest the grip is long enough etc so it should still be functional, it may just look goofy next to an original pattern. Could always e-mail and ask how wide across it is and see from there. Its also cheap if nothing else www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=USS146&name=British+1845+Wilkinson+Light+Cavalry+Saber
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 2, 2016 5:46:42 GMT
Dave Kelly said at one time that WE used original British sabres made for the colonial army, made for the Indian troopers and NCO's, to make the molds for the hilts. According to him this explains the smaller hilts cq grips. Whether U still uses the old molds they confiscated from WE is unclear, so indeed, you better contact KOA. I agree with you. The stuff both branches of the Chouan family turn out lately is way better than before. And on top of that this P1822 one can have for only $150! Awesome! Coming back to the nickel plating issue: the hilt of the P1822 is nickel plated by the looks of it. The P1822 model had a long life. I guess that before 1875 thereabouts some hilts and scabbards were silvered and later on nickel plated because of the hot and humid climate.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 2, 2016 6:01:09 GMT
I'm still looking forward to the day they produce a pipeback that isn't square...
How do they forge pipeback blades by the way? And how hard is it to make them round anyway?
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 2, 2016 11:26:09 GMT
Everything is harder to make than you think. Everything.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 2, 2016 19:53:27 GMT
T'was not a rhetorical question to knock the quality of modern repros.
I'm actually curious how pipeback sabres were/are made back in the day vs today's repros. Did they forge them from a blank, or did they weld a blade onto a steel rod?
|
|
harrybeck
Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 999
|
Post by harrybeck on Dec 2, 2016 20:41:48 GMT
I have a recently bought princess saber, excellent fit and finish. Very live and nimble. It isn't plated, just nicely polished and sharpened.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory P. on Dec 4, 2016 19:26:23 GMT
Not exactly a saber - but i have the Napoleonic French Imperial Guard Briquet (Pics here... sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/post/669740/thread). It's well-made, and, with a respectable amount of distal taper, it handles really nicely . Overall, very pleased with it.
|
|
|
Post by demiurgex on Dec 6, 2016 14:18:33 GMT
I own the Napoleonic French Imperial Guard Scout Officer's Sword by WeaponsEdge India and I must say, for the most part, it is a decent repo. It appears to be damn close to the original. Other than the difference on the langets (repo being textured, original smooth) and that the original appears to be peened and the repo is secured with a nut there really is no difference, visually anyway. I think that the original is some 3 or 4oz lighter and I am guessing that it handled better. I wouldn't say that the repo handles like a sledge hammer but it doesnt feel like a sword that is under 2lbs. Oh, it is light, but the POB is just too far out. Usable? definitely. optimal..nope. Personally I will never buy an Indian repo with a POB out past 7'' again. The blue and guilt are fairly well done and it is certainly very nice to look at. I would buy another WE sword, though only if the POB is under 7'' I also own the 1798 Russian light Calvary Sabre by Universal Swords. Another impressive piece but with the same caveat as above- POB way too far out. This one is more like a sledge hammer. It definitely cuts through anything it meets but swinging the thing is a chore. Again, very nice to look at but really not an effective weapon. The scabbard is quite impressive as well. A very nice display piece. Now, I must ask what is the problem with getting a better distal taper on these weapons? I am not a bladesmith so I do not know if it is just that hard to get this right? This seems to be the main problem with the Indian repos and they seem reluctant to change to a more adequate and historically correct taper. I am thinking that they would do a better buisiness if the all the weapons were actually usable? As it stands it looks like 80% to 90% of the stuff they produce is for show only with a few gems thrown in, the often noted Princess of Wales comes to mind. I would pay more for their weapons if the swords actually handled like the original. Dave K. has put up specs for many original weapons on the forum and the POB for all of the originals are almost always under 6'', even large cavalry sabres. I see that Cold steel has slightly better POB on some of their weapons but they dont have nearly the variety of Universal and most of what they offer doesn't appeal to me. As it stands I only see 2 Sabres offered by Universal that I want to take a chance with- The afor mentioned Princess of Wales and the US Model 1850 Army Staff & Field Officer Sword aside form those I really dont see anything else that I wouldn't be wary of. I hope they, or another manufacturer, will begin to create weapons that are true to the originals in all aspects, not just appearance. I would guess there is some money to be made by those who produce historically correct repos.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 6, 2016 15:57:58 GMT
Bfoo: I do not know how the pipeback was made. Do not even know whether it is an actual (hollow) pipe either. If it's not, than the way they did the fullers comes to mind. They hammered the fuller in with the help of a die placed on the hot steel. Maybe they had a die for forming the pipe too. By the way, a hollow pipe should be stiffer than an solid spine.
demiurgex: We had endless discussions about the taper issue and why replica producers do not do the distal taper right. I believe the main conclusion was that they do not give a sh#t. As long as their products sell the way they do, they do not budge. We are just a fraction of a marginal market as it is and that is why the taper freaks can be ignored. They are not going to risk and run havoc on their production methods of very long standing, 30 to 40 years, Windlass what 80 years?, where everything runs smooth to a tee and where all involved can do the job with their eyes closed. Their margins are very small as it is, so there is no room for experiments. Certainly not to cater to the ideas of a few people from some obscure forum. They do know very well that the first one who offers a better taper on his sabres will have to sell those at a loss for the first years, because of that marginal market only that smallest faction of idiot fanatical nerds even knows what distal taper is and why it is needed and nobody wants to and can risk that. It is a miracle that the replicants survived this long with a niche product 99% of potential consumers do not want anyway. And with Campusses full of ret@rd SJW'S adored by a sell out press and so having a rather much too large influence on what some young people regard as ,, cool'', it would not surprise me one bit if statistics would show the market is actually shrinking due to the ,, old dudeness '' effect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 16:09:51 GMT
in period, rollers to form the pipe section, then more forging. The modern square section likely machined before more work.
There are some Wilkinson videos and notes regarding the use of rollers, also mentioned in the Peterson forward iirc maybe it's Neumann but I think it's Peterson's old testament.
0
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Dec 6, 2016 16:14:36 GMT
Thanks edelweiss. How are you anyway. Rather long time no see?
|
|
|
Post by salanizi on Dec 6, 2016 18:48:15 GMT
Hello, I spoke numerous times with Arvind Chouhan, the guy in charge of the Universal Swords Factory, he is a very nice decent fellow. I mentioned the issue of the distal taper to him, and the response I got every time was, that they have to make the blades this thick in order to grind the deep fullers in. Language was also a barrier as he was trying to explain to me how they grind the fullers in, and I think I understood what he meant. Normally, historically a saber blade is forged out, and the fuller is ground in and then it fades out as the blade tapers. Our Indian friends do not get this. They forge out a blade with very minimal taper (historically indian sabers had little taper as well) and then set a depth for their fullers. I had a couple of custom jobs made by Universal Swords for me, and every time as it was pointless trying to explain to him how a proper distal taper should be, I just told him to reduce the entire thickness (their steel and temper is quite good btw). The answer was they cannot due to them grinding the fullers in with double wheels (?) and they could run the risk of cutting the blade in half and injuring the chap behind the grinder. It is quite visible in their swords, that you can see a bulge in the thickness right where the fullers end, this show improper technique in the entire forging/grinding process. Needless to say in both instances I go crowbar handling swords
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 6, 2016 19:09:10 GMT
It sounds like he has the idea that if they used to do something in a certain way, then everyone else did, too, and that it must be the right way to do it.
WKC in Solingen makes just about every modern sword you can think of and chances are, they are correct down to the thousandths of an inch or centimeter. But most of their swords are of stainless, though a few are apparently still available in carbon steel and at least one (1897 infantry officer's sword) is even available unplated. Naturally, they're all expensive. And for some reason, leather-covered scabbards for British swords are very expensive for sabers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 19:19:28 GMT
Thanks edelweiss. How are you anyway. Rather long time no see? I am well, thanks. Gearing up for the holidays and likely moving in the spring (over busy filling applications). I am around most of the time reading but often have little to add. Still adding to an image bank.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 19:44:03 GMT
The problems with mass distribution began with an economy of production. Solingen was actually the root of many evils regarding that. Even though a Solingen "wristbreaker"/1822 had a similar weight, the French made 1822 retained the drastic concave distal taper.
The centuries old formula continued to wane in British and American manufacture as well. From slim epee to large sabres, thick stock reduced in thickness at the center of gravity by at least a third, if not 50%. A linear distal from there to the foible where once again the cross section dropped off to 1mm-2mm. There are/were some swords where they were never applicable to that formula but after owning, handling and measuring quite a number of swords back to the 17th century, the basic formula was often present. True even of measurements being done of a number of medieval swords.
My American 1818 Starr sabre retains the old formula while a mounted artillery sabre of the same period I own made in Solingen lacks the formula. The compromise for that one was thinner stock and a linear distal taper. As a flyweight, handling is still good but but not nearly as stiff overall.
There is truly no substitute in studying the antiques to understand the compromises in production that isn't really new news but more of it is what it is, if that makes any sense. Another maxim might be to get the best out of what one has. In isolation, any first sword might seem quite good, only to be astounded when compared to what is better. I have 18th century clunkers in the same family of wonderfullness between similar siblings. Cousin Joe just doesn't dance like cousin Irene.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 6, 2016 20:18:36 GMT
While it is possible that they might sell more swords if they were usable, the truth is, there really haven't been any swords produced that were actually intended to be used as weapons since the inter-war period, with few exceptions. So what can we expect?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 20:40:58 GMT
While it is possible that they might sell more swords if they were usable, the truth is, there really haven't been any swords produced that were actually intended to be used as weapons since the inter-war period, with few exceptions. So what can we expect? Please clarify when you are dating an interwar period and what relationship does that bear in regard to 18th and 19th century swords. Again compromises of production is not a new phenomena and the methodology starting to lapse two centuries ago. It is true that a majority of reproduction post 18th century sword types are targeted at reenactors and collectors, not backyard cutters and practitioners. While some are using thicker stock and ending with a thin foible, they simply aren't taking the time to grind a concave distal taper. The matter is as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 7, 2016 6:58:33 GMT
I think a lot of people suspect that with modern tooling and computer-controlled machinery it would be fairly easy to turn out blades with great taper. I'm not an expert on machining, but the fact that you can buy freakin' jet turbines (which must be finely balanced with low tolerances) for a few thousand these days is a testament to modern mass manufacturing capabilities. On the other hand, I've noticed that there's a fair amount of lot-to-lot variability between reproduction weapons. Afoo and I have two Princess of Wales sabres from Universal and although both are similar (and brilliant as far as repros go), the blade dimensions are noticeably off by a few millimeters in some places. Same goes for our US 1906 from Windlass vs one owned by Dave Kelly . Bottom line is that these repros don't seem to be made with tightly controlled, high-precision techniques. Probably not some guy with a hammer and hot metal, but also definitely not some CNC mill in a Toyota factory either. With that in mind, it's easier to understand why getting taper might be more difficult...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2016 7:15:35 GMT
A real truth is that this discussion repeats just about monthly and few really need to convince anybody regarding anything. It becomes a bit of a snore fest. There are makers that pay attention to dynamics but it is generally not the case for the India producers. Wail as we might month to month, it is little different than noticing the phases of the moon. After awhile it is a bit like watching paint dry. Or in this case kind of staring at a blank page waiting for the same text to repeat itself again and again
|
|