|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Mar 4, 2017 18:09:44 GMT
Before you read on, I want to stress one thing: I've made several and cut with about a dozen XVIIIb but only one XVII, the Landgraf. So that is the only XVII I can base my musings on and there naturally is quite a bit of variation between swords of the same type, which goes for both XVIII and XVII. That being said:
Main difference I've found is that the XVII cuts better, especially closer to the tip. The thick and narrow diamond cross section of a XVIIIb's tip does very poorly as a cutter. Further down the blade it's not as big a difference, both can deliver an effective cut there but the XVII's ability to do the same with the last few cm is a substantial benefit.
XVIIIb often are even more rigid so theoretically even better thrusters but both are plenty stiff enough for all you would want to do with a sword.
One major factor is grip length though (and to a lesser degree, blade length). Historically, XVIIIb can have very long handles and their blades can also be longer. I don't think you'll find a XVII original that can match the Munich in overall size. A factor to keep in mind...
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Mar 4, 2017 18:54:08 GMT
It seems I have asked the wrong question, after a closer look I noticed that the Munich is also an XVIIb, what I meant was more of an Albion Earl-Langraf for example, since the opinions I've heard reffered specifically to the hollow-ground versions.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Mar 4, 2017 19:17:54 GMT
The Regent/Earl is a substantially better cutter than the Munich. I would put it at about the same as the Landgraf cutting-wise, maybe slightly better. However, I have only cut light targets with the Regent so I can't really say. It is a most rigid sword, more so than the Landgraf. Point control and handling is comparably good, the handle a bit longer. It is a bit heavier overall but not too much. The pommel on the Earl is downright painful to hold (without gloves), the Regent's not exactly the most comfortable design either but works better for me.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Mar 5, 2017 21:56:10 GMT
Yeah, it's not a bad blade design at all. XVIII get all the love but hexagonal cross sections can be quite impressive and it speaks for the type that you can find its shape throughout several centuries.
And thanks ;)
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Mar 5, 2017 22:35:02 GMT
Yeah, it's not a bad blade design at all. XVIII get all the love but hexagonal cross sections can be quite impressive and it speaks for the type that you can find its shape throughout several centuries. And thanks ;) Spanish 1796 Cav Dragoon Spanish 1760 Dragoon
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Mar 6, 2017 15:04:29 GMT
One could fall in love with that Spanish 1760, in fact I think I just did... hexagonal cros-sections are by far the sexiest.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Mar 6, 2017 22:43:17 GMT
Wasn't trying to subborn the Landgraf review; just a sidebar on the utility and successes of hex blades. As to your question will refer it to the historical section, this evening. (Plowing thru email first.)
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Mar 7, 2017 7:40:58 GMT
Keep on hijacking, I don't mind ;)
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Mar 20, 2017 9:08:58 GMT
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Mar 20, 2017 14:27:54 GMT
You get a chance to try cutting with it?
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Mar 20, 2017 14:34:11 GMT
Yes, I cut some light targets yesterday. Objectively the cutting performance stayed the same but subjectively it improved as I prefer the handling now and that leads to more pleasurable cutting.
|
|
|
Post by seventh on Dec 8, 2023 18:10:24 GMT
Don't care if I'm necroing a dead thread, this review has convinced me the type XVII is criminally underrated for a do all high durability cut and thrust longsword I'd wager the Sempach's less ornamented design is more "collectible" for being a fishtail pommel(certain heavy collectors certainly complain about having a million wheel pommels). Depends on which fencing system you use if that's better or worse- probably not worth paying a ~two hundred extra for most people.
The perceived flaw of these """needle point armor wrenches can openers""" is that they're not good cutters or not agile, this video footage shows the type XVII really doesn't have any such deficit 3 lb mass is very light for something this sturdy, I know handling is more about distribution than only looking at POB and mass, but my untrained eye is delighted to see the landgraf in motion
|
|