|
Post by Robert on Feb 4, 2017 18:19:03 GMT
Hello,
For some time now I've thought about getting a viking and if I do decide to get one I want to know which one would be the best in the ~$400 range. I was considering the H/T Viking as supposedly the H/T line is very good for the money but it appears to have a diamond cross-section and I don't know how historically accurate it is.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory P. on Feb 4, 2017 18:48:09 GMT
Albion's Squier line 'The Viking' is about as accurate as you can get in this price range i think (yes the pommel is one piece). It’s a bit pricier - But the weight and balance are noticably more refined than any $300 viking sword i've encountered. It feels great in hand and looks great as well. www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/squire/sword-squire-viking.htmOnly downside is the long wait time. Mine was about nine months - like a baby! Viking Shield also carries the other available Squier Line Vikings - all of which i'd recommend - when you can find them in stock.
|
|
|
Post by bloodwraith on Feb 4, 2017 19:01:27 GMT
You can only have two of those things, you will never find all three in your budget.
|
|
|
Post by Faldarin on Feb 4, 2017 19:27:37 GMT
The old triad of craft work - good quality, cheap, or fast, you only get two. Though with swords, it seems to be good/cheap/historically accurate... with the 'may take a long time' thrown in as a bonus. Ahem. On a more serious note, I may not be a Viking-style sword aficionado, but I've heard some people say better things about the Hanwei-Tinker Norman than the H/T Viking. Obviously I couldn't speak to the historical accuracy, but someone else may be able to.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 4, 2017 19:49:05 GMT
Sorry but the only way you're going to get all of that in a Viking sword for $400 is to look for something used and even that you're going to have to be lucky..
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,091
|
Post by LeMal on Feb 4, 2017 20:38:02 GMT
Keep in mind that rounding off that point and turning the diamond section lenticular isn't THAT complicated. My own opinion is that the great price on the HT Viking would make that bit of elbow grease worth it for you.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 4, 2017 21:25:17 GMT
I was considering the H/T Viking as supposedly the H/T line is very good for the money but it appears to have a diamond cross-section and I don't know how historically accurate it is. Everything (or at least almost everything) in your price range has a diamond-section tip. The H/T less obviously so than others (because the tip is thinner, and the ridge isn't sharp). Keep in mind that rounding off that point and turning the diamond section lenticular isn't THAT complicated. This. Stone/sandpaper and/or a file. A little effort and time. Done! The other useful mods include shortening the grip to fit your hand, and making the scabbard more Viking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 21:44:57 GMT
What about the Del Tin and Hanwei Cawood repros on KoA? Granted, they're late period Vikings, but at least visually, they don't look too far off from the original.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 4, 2017 22:10:53 GMT
AFAIK, those all have lenticular section tips.
The Del Tins are good, but above the budget of $400 in the OP; when you get to Del Tin, you can add in the Abion Squire Line Viking(s).
The Cawood is exceptional in its price range. Nice scabbard, but I wonder if it would satisfy authenticity mavens (the throat piece, and I don't know how late scabbard slides/strap bridges were used). It comes down to whether you like the style.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 22:44:20 GMT
What exactly is supposed to be wrong with the H/T Viking?
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 4, 2017 23:04:22 GMT
Diamond-section tip rather than lenticular, and the suspension mounts on the scabbard. The first is easy to fix.
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Feb 4, 2017 23:09:14 GMT
I was considering the H/T Viking as supposedly the H/T line is very good for the money but it appears to have a diamond cross-section and I don't know how historically accurate it is. Everything (or at least almost everything) in your price range has a diamond-section tip. The H/T less obviously so than others (because the tip is thinner, and the ridge isn't sharp). Keep in mind that rounding off that point and turning the diamond section lenticular isn't THAT complicated. This. Stone/sandpaper and/or a file. A little effort and time. Done! The other useful mods include shortening the grip to fit your hand, and making the scabbard more Viking. The H/T norman seems to have a lenticular cross-section judging from the photos so idk why they did it on the viking as well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 23:23:15 GMT
Diamond-section tip rather than lenticular, and the suspension mounts on the scabbard. The first is easy to fix. Oh, no... Did i just wake up on Myarmory? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by hypurr on Feb 4, 2017 23:47:16 GMT
Hello, For some time now I've thought about getting a viking and if I do decide to get one I want to know which one would be the best in the ~$400 range. I was considering the H/T Viking as supposedly the H/T line is very good for the money but it appears to have a diamond cross-section and I don't know how historically accurate it is. If you don't mind not having a scabbard then Del Tin has a choice in that price range. The 4th through 7th on this page are all in that price range with lenticular cross sections. www.kultofathena.com/deltin.asp
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 5, 2017 0:36:56 GMT
Diamond-section tip rather than lenticular, and the suspension mounts on the scabbard. The first is easy to fix. Oh, no... Did i just wake up on Myarmory? ;-) Is it better to just ignore flaws and inaccuracies? Pretend it's 100% historically accurate? Surely it's better to say what's wrong with it, especially when somebody asks. Whether it's a deal-breaker is up to the potential buyer. They might not care at all - some people buy the Cold Steel Viking, at a similar price, and it's much less historically accurate. Better for the buyer to make an informed choice. So it's useful to say what's good or bad about handling, build quality, and historical accuracy. Especially if people ask about something specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Feb 5, 2017 0:56:28 GMT
Everything (or at least almost everything) in your price range has a diamond-section tip. The H/T less obviously so than others (because the tip is thinner, and the ridge isn't sharp). This. Stone/sandpaper and/or a file. A little effort and time. Done! The other useful mods include shortening the grip to fit your hand, and making the scabbard more Viking. The H/T norman seems to have a lenticular cross-section judging from the photos so idk why they did it on the viking as well Im dumb. "Why they did not do it on the viking" is what I meant to say
|
|
|
Post by KaOsBlaKbLaDe on Feb 5, 2017 1:07:42 GMT
I have to give a nod to the cawood Viking sword here as well. The feel of mine in hand is easily the best of the Vikings ive tried in the budget range. Handling is quick with an attentive tip and a well managed balance. The only issue for me with it is the blade has just a little too much flex to make a good thruster. I'll also throw a good word in for the Albion squire line Gotland. It has all the same pros as the Cawood with the added bonus of better balance,fit and finish and rigidity. Its probably gonna run a little over 400, but that's what I got mine for.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Feb 5, 2017 4:30:27 GMT
I (also) really like the Hanwei Cawood. Gorgeous blade, good steel, good temper, good balance, handles like a dream. Sharp. Mine definitely has a spring temper, but I think it would thrust ok (not thru metal plate or anything insane - but I think a denim-clad watermelon would be a goner). Solid construction. Peened pommel, but I kinda doubt it's keyed because mine is very slightly off-line.
I like the scabbard. I have no idea if it's historical. Most online information kinda says something like, "good scabbard in a price range that usually comes with NO scabbard," or, "a decent scabbard would be 5 to 10 times the price of the sword anyway."
Unnecessarily orange leather. Shows dirt ...er.... use and dedicated practice time.
As for historical accuracy (and really any technical, historical, cultural, or other issue), as always, I defer to Timo. That said, the Hanwei Cawood looks and feels pretty close to the images and descriptions of the genuine Cawood Sword (and other historical type XII blades) I have managed to find online.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 5, 2017 5:28:34 GMT
The Cawood looks really good as a sword of the type. Whether it's late Viking or post-Viking depends on your cut-off date (e.g., 1066 makes it post-Viking). As an exact replica of the original, it falls a little short. Visually nothing too bad, but the handling will be nothing like the original. The main visual issue would be that the fuller looks quite a bit longer (longer fuller combined with a shorter blade on the Hanwei). The main handling issue would be the balance and weight. The grip is 4", which is not bad for a modern Viking grip, but longer than the original (and longer than the average Viking). The difference in balance and weight suggests that the original blade is thicker (and therefore stiffer) than the Hanwei. The original pommel is hollow, and thus lighter than the Hanwei; this accounts for part of the difference in the POB, but a lot of it will be a thicker blade on the original. The weight listed below is without grip, and the blade is corroded. Add those back on, and the original might have been 3lb. Total length: original 37.5", Hanwei 36" Blade length: original 32", Hanwei 30" Blade width: original 59mm, Hanwei 50mm Fuller length: original 20", Hanwei 23.4" (estimated) Guard width: original 6.2", Hanwei 6.9" (estimated) Grip length: original 3.4" (85mm), Hanwei 4" POB: original 8.9", Hanwei 4.6" Weight: original 2lb 11.5oz, Hanwei 2lb 7oz Data for original from myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=22670 and commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cawood_sword_-_diagonal_-_YORYM_2007_3086.JPG , Hanwei data from KoA.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Feb 5, 2017 10:06:53 GMT
The OP/Robert spoke of a diamond cross-section, but I see no pictures or reviews of the H/T Viking with a hint for this. I have the Norman and the EMSHS and both have a lenticular cross-section. Timo spoke of a diamond section tip and I'm not sure whether he meant the cross-section there or the really pointy tip in contrast to a spatular tip like the Norman has.
|
|