|
Post by Afoo on Aug 10, 2017 21:31:46 GMT
In my experience here on the forums, the CS 1796 is one of the most-requested reviews. Every few months there will be a post asking about how it compares to the original and whether it is a good sword to invest in, potentially reflecting the widespread appeal of the 1796's distinct brutish appearance, along with the scarcity of its antique progenitor. For the same reasons, I purchased a CS 1796 from Ek here on the forums - while the 1796 is not my favorite style of sword, I have to admit it has its own unique charm, and it being a replica means that I can enjoy it more regularly without having to worry about causing wear on an antique. Top to bottom: CS 1796 ,Officer/Mystery 1796, 1873, 1896 Mountain BatteryFor a bit of context, I do not have an original mil-spec 1796. However, I have some antique swords which are good analogues. First, I have a "mystery" 1796-like sword. This sword is likely an officer version, seeing as an aquatic animal of some sort was peeled during the course of its manufacture. The blade width and length matches that of the cavalry trooper's blade, but its relatively thin stock (7-ish mm at the base) suggests to me that this is an infantry officer's custom build. Pino's review here suggests that 7-8 mm at the base is standard for officer's and export models. As such, I am convinced that this is representative of at least a subset of 1796 swords, if not the classic trooper version. I should point out that this example, while being thinner ta the base, is not what I would call "stodgy". Its well made, and it seems to have been made deliberately nose-heavy - the blade actually gets thinner near the middle, and then suddenly gets thicker again at the end to give it more weight at the tip - almost like a falchion. The other examples I have for comparison are the 1873 artillery sabre, and an 1896 Mountain Battery sword bfoo2 wrote about here. These are further removed from the stock 1796, and are included here for the sake of completion. The primary comparison will be with the officer 1796. * Note that the mystery officer's 1796 gets thinner at the narrower near the middle, and then widens again at the tip ** Foible = distance between the start of the foible (as determined by the eyeball test) and the tip of the blade. The story of the 1796 is a long and illustrious one, but not one which will be discussed again here in this review. Of greater relevance to most people is its handling. A lot of people poh-pah CS items as being too over-built and heavy. I would argue that this is a somewhat unfair criticism in general, even more so when applied to the 1796. The taper numbers on the CS are misleading - it starts off at a healthy 9mm, but tapers very rapidly to 5.5 mm - a thickness which it retains until the foible. I suspect this may be a manufacturing defect or a batch-specific mistake in which the blade blanks were not hammered down enough at the ricasso. Even then, the blade is relatively close to the stats on the officer 1796, being somewhat under-built in areas. The foible on the CS also does a good job capturing the paper-thin look of the Officers, though nothing comes close to that 1896 MB sabre - that thing is a freak of nature. In ether case, the taper itself is not bad. The fuller on the CS is suitably broad. However, it lacks definition and I suspect it is too shallow - a plight similar to other Indian manufacturers. The curve of the hatchet point also does not look right - it looks like a semicircle and not....hatchet-y enough Nonetheless, the blade shape and geometry gives rise to a rather pleasant handling sword. Its actually lighter in the hand than the officer 1796, but probably heavier than an original trooper version; I have handled bfoo2 's Sweedish 1796 knock-off and the CS is definitely heavier. That said it is not a bad sword when examined in isolation. I should point out that the Officer 1796 feels heavier in the hand, but this is not a bad thing since it also packs a greater punch due to its falchion-like tip. Again, I suspect that this is an intentional design feature. The CS feels heavier that some other swords, but I do not think that weight scales with hitting power like on the Officer's 1796, if that makes sense Initial taper of the CS (left) and original (right)MB - 1873 - Officer - CS 1796. The foible on the 1796 can stand wit the best of them! CS-Officer-1873-MB The handling of the CS is not helped by its grips. The feel of the thing is fine, but it comes up at an angle relative to thf officer 1796. It also "humps" out at the end which makes it slightly less comfortable. In this regard it is more similar to the Prussian 1873. The 1896 mountain battery has cast iron grips so a comparison with those is moot. The grips do not effect comfort much - they have ample room for my hands + leather gloves, and they are wide enough to get good traction. The odd angle may effect ppl who are more into test-cutting though. The quillon is a bit strangely shaped, but its not a huge issue - its only really noticeable when placed next to some originals. Overall, this sword is a mixed bag. It does not match the handling of the originals. However, a new 1796 goes for at least $800 in my area, whereas the CS is a $250 Indian-made replica used to cut pigs and the like in cheesy promotional footage. Thus, I think it would be foolish to expect the CS to match the handling of a trooper's original 1796 in the first place. However, when considered in isolation its not bad at all. I am quite pleased with it for the price I paid for it. For $250 I may start questioning its value since you are getting into the price of lower-end antiques, and I would personally go for the antiques 10 times out of 10. However, if you have a reason to want this over an antique - maybe you really want a 1796 style sword or want to do test cutting, then this is a good buy. I would also argue that the CS provides a good replica of some historical 1796 models, if not the full-fledged trooper sword. Also, be warned that the Prussian 1873 Artillery sabre can be had for around $250 if you look hard enough. While its not a full-fledged cavalry sabre it is a nice ball of fun and I would serious consider that over the CS if I had the two options. In terms of the replica market though, I would rate it under the Universal Princess of Wales in terms of quality and value; the Princess of Wales looks sharper and had better build quality, though its looks may not appeal to some. I do like it more than the Windlass 1906, though personally I like the look of the 1906 better. At the end of the day, its about what you want to get. If you want to spend $250 on something that is 1796 and is repro, then this is not a bad option. Its certainly not a poor handler in its own right, and its historical inaccuracies are easily overlooked and do not fill you with disappointment like the CS ANXI or "pipe"back 1852 Full link to pics here
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Aug 11, 2017 18:18:40 GMT
Well this goes back to the age-old question of what people should expect and demand from repros vs. the actual antiques and you bring up a good point.
Of course, very few budget repros will handle exactly as an antique. The former are consumer items made on a budget and the latter were serious weapons of war with no expense spared. Kind of like comparing your Kia to a Hummer.
However, I argue that it is a reasonable expectation that a repro captures the overall aesthetic and character of an antique. Obviously the visual appearance and fit & finish are important, but how important is the handling? I tend to be a bit more forgiving in this department- I don't mind if a repro handles worse than the antique so long as it is not god-awful terrible and fills me with rage.
With regards to the CS 1796: In the review, afoo says that the knucklebow, langets and top quillon are slightly off compared to the antiques. His antique models appear to be based off the Prussian M1811 which had slight differences from the British 1796. Compared to pictures of the original 1796LC, the CS matches up.
The grip appears to be a bit "squished" in order to accommodate the 3/8in long pommel nut at the end.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 11, 2017 22:13:44 GMT
Of course, very few budget repros will handle exactly as an antique. The former are consumer items made on a budget and the latter were serious weapons of war with no expense spared. There was plenty of expense spared. While the major design goal was to produce a working sword, a secondary goal was to produce a cheap sword. For the 1796HC and 1796LC, they achieved improvements in both, compared to their 1788 predecessors. For cheaper, leather instead of fishskin, and a simplified guard on the 1796HC. Cost: 17 shillings (note that a cavalry trooper was paid 2s per day, and in 1796 the Board of Ordnance was paying 34s for new muskets and 25s for serviceable used muskets). In principle, it's easy to make repro 1796s that handle similarly to antiques: just get the weight distribution right. Start with sufficiently thick stock, and take it down to under 2mm near the tip. When they leave the tip at 3mm to 4mm, that's a lot of extra weight right at the tip, and it's going to be tip-heavy compared to antiques. Take it down to antique thickness at the tip, and it won't be too bad. Even if they start with thinner stock, as long as the thickness of most of the blade is correct, it'll handle OK.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 11, 2017 23:03:06 GMT
Of course, very few budget repros will handle exactly as an antique. The former are consumer items made on a budget and the latter were serious weapons of war with no expense spared. There was plenty of expense spared. While the major design goal was to produce a working sword, a secondary goal was to produce a cheap sword. For the 1796HC and 1796LC, they achieved improvements in both, compared to their 1788 predecessors. For cheaper, leather instead of fishskin, and a simplified guard on the 1796HC. Cost: 17 shillings (note that a cavalry trooper was paid 2s per day, and in 1796 the Board of Ordnance was paying 34s for new muskets and 25s for serviceable used muskets). In principle, it's easy to make repro 1796s that handle similarly to antiques: just get the weight distribution right. Start with sufficiently thick stock, and take it down to under 2mm near the tip. When they leave the tip at 3mm to 4mm, that's a lot of extra weight right at the tip, and it's going to be tip-heavy compared to antiques. Take it down to antique thickness at the tip, and it won't be too bad. Even if they start with thinner stock, as long as the thickness of most of the blade is correct, it'll handle OK. True, but the primary goal was still to produce a good sword, whereas the primary goal of CS (and for most consumers) is to produce a cheap sword. Its like how a mil-spec M16 is built by the lowest bidder, but its still likely better than the cheapest bargain basement civilian equivalent. And this shows in the price, with the historic 1796 costing almost 9 day's wages, whereas the CS costs roughly 4-5 days on minimum wage here. Also, in defense of the CS it does taper down to 2.5 mm at the tip, which is quite close to historical. Its not just a matter of taper though - if you look at the raw numbers the CS compares favorably to my antique across all points on the blade. The issue is that - one does not make a good handling sword by grinding down the edge. I mean, my 1906 only tapers to 3 mm at the tip, but handles better than the CS 1796. The Prussian 1873 has HORRIBLE taper relative to the CS, or indeed anything short of a brick. I mean, 9 mm to 4 mm? If we saw those numbers on a repro at KoA we would scoff and move on....but it still handles better than the CS 1796. Conversely my Officer 1796 tapers worse than some repros, but it handles nicely in its own right. Its a complex mixture of physics and geometry - the shape of the fullers the distribution of weight along all three axis, rotational inertia, biomechanics of the grip and the hand etc. That takes skill and experience. to make these things work. Its like making a car - in general VW's and Honda's handle very well on the road. You can take a cheap Hyundia and beef up its engine and suspension to your heart's content, but it will not capture the spirit of a Honda civic or VW golf. I agree that the CS could be improved, but I felt like I should give credit where its due - this is not a bad repro at all. In fact, I would rate it as a mediocre service sword, especially if they made some small changes to the grip angle, but thats just personal preference. Its not just an issue with the taper - again the numbers look within spec for the officer 1796, and match with some of my antiques. However, more research into the minutiae of sword design and attention to the smaller details is required. Yes, you can mass-produce a good handling sword, but it will cost you.....about 9 day's wages.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 12, 2017 0:41:50 GMT
Modern vs Napoleonic cost vs minimum wage is somewhat imprecise - the factor of 2 difference is basically no difference. (FWIW, a cavalry lieutenant was paid 9s per day.) The CS is not made to be cheap as the first goal. There are reasons why it's over double the price of the Deepeeka. In short, I would argue that making a good sword is not just a matter of making it taper more. Sure. But if you want it to look like the antique, it needs to have the same profile as the antique. If you want it to handle like the antique, it needs to have the same weight distribution as the antique. If the profile is the same as the antique, and the corss-sectional shape is the same as the antique (which means getting the fuller right, etc.), you need to have the same taper as the antique to get the same weight distribution. This isn't about getting "good" handling, but about getting "antique" handling. For many swords, it's quite feasible to get better-than-antique handling. IMO, that makes it an inferior replica. Maybe a better sword, depending on what it sacrifices for better handling, but a worse replica. The CS carries about 1oz extra at the tip due to the extra thickness - tape 1oz extra at the tip of a sword and see how much difference it makes. (And the CS is the best major production replica - the Universal and Weapon Edge carry about 3oz extra at the tip.) CS has a goal other than making accurate replicas. They also want their swords to survive backyard cutting (often by the unskilled). For their purposes, a thicker tip might be better. Making the tip 0.5 to 1mm thinner is not the level of difference between a Hyundai and a Honda. It's just a matter of forging and/or grinding the blade thinner at the tip. Not something that should double the price. Getting the weight distribution closer to that of an antique would take more effort: some research (at minimum, an antique to measure, and the time and effort to measure it), and quality control that includes checking whether a close enough weight distribution has been achieved. But for a start, simply aiming for antique thickness at the tip will make a significant difference where it matters the most. Sure, the 1873 can get reasonable handling, but it's a quite different sword. Being shorter immediately shaves about 1oz off the extreme tip compared with a 1796. The narrow diamond section tip makes up for the thicker tip (that's not done for handling, but for cut vs thrust). A smallsword would do even better in terms of handling. the blade actually gets thinner near the middle, and then suddenly gets thicker again at the end to give it more weight at the tip - almost like a falchion. Do you mean wider, rather than thicker? Common enough on very cutting-oriented swords, and common enough on 1796LC-type swords (I have a British officer's 1796LC which has a minimum width of about 32mm, and widens to 41mm at the tip). Not to give more weight at the tip, but to give a thinner blade at the tip without losing strength or too much weight. Your Officer 1796 looks German. The German versions are usually more robust. Yours is a typical weight for a Prussian 1811 trooper's sword - heavier than a British 1796LC trooper's (and officer's swords are more likely to be lighter than heavier).
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 12, 2017 1:34:16 GMT
The CS 1796 is great looking on the wall, $200 dollars, and can destroy a bad guy with anything (who with knife or machete would charge you if ya had the 1796 in your hand) short of a firearm at distance...what's not to like? I suppose one could mod it to handle more like the originals (grind some off the tip), if they wished. And lets face it, nothing...and I mean NOTHING...brings out ones inner pirate more than this beasty in your hand.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 12, 2017 5:40:27 GMT
Modern vs Napoleonic cost vs minimum wage is somewhat imprecise - the factor of 2 difference is basically no difference. (FWIW, a cavalry lieutenant was paid 9s per day.) The CS is not made to be cheap as the first goal. There are reasons why it's over double the price of the Deepeeka. In short, I would argue that making a good sword is not just a matter of making it taper more. Sure. But if you want it to look like the antique, it needs to have the same profile as the antique. If you want it to handle like the antique, it needs to have the same weight distribution as the antique. If the profile is the same as the antique, and the corss-sectional shape is the same as the antique (which means getting the fuller right, etc.), you need to have the same taper as the antique to get the same weight distribution. This isn't about getting "good" handling, but about getting "antique" handling. For many swords, it's quite feasible to get better-than-antique handling. IMO, that makes it an inferior replica. Maybe a better sword, depending on what it sacrifices for better handling, but a worse replica. [..] With regards to the wages, that was just me trying to be clever, though the wage I used to calculate that figure is based off my pay as a graduate student, which certainly feels downright medieval. Also for consideration as well is that historical 1796's were produced in large quantities on government contracts. The CS is produced for a relatively niche market, so the inaccuracy of a direct price comparison cuts both ways. The factor of two also puts it conveniently close to Del Tin's and Lutels - companies which are capable of producing relatively accurate reproductions in their own right. I agree that they could easily make a repro to spec, but that would also involve doing a lot more research into originals etc, something which would still cost money at the front end. Furthermore, the thinner blade stock base allows you to make more swords - if you start with a 8 mm billet vs a 10 mm billet, you are saving up to 20% of your material. The thicker foible would also make it easier to manufacture - the thinner the material the easier it is for someone to screw up perhaps by over-grinding it or over-hammering it or otherwise damaging it during manufacture, especially if your workforce is not the best trained. Would it also be possible that the thinner blade may help with tempering and achieving an even heat distribution as well? Perhaps someone who actually makes swords can tell My logic is that there must be a reason why the replica handles like a replica and not the original. Nobody wakes up one day and sets out to make a rubbish sword if they could have made themselves a good sword for the same price. Especially when the 1796 is so well documented and there is so much reference material available. There has to be a cost reason why the CS is the way it is. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of sword design or process engineering can tell us. My working hypothesis is that the process is more complicated than we give it credit for, and its not simply a matter of taking the measurements and passing them off to your smiths. Production shortcuts and limitations of the manufacturing methods as discussed above may be one factor. The Universal is cheaper than the CS yes, but it is likely easier to manufacture for the issues listed above - thinner stock, less taper translates into fewer manipulations and less materials. Hopefully with CNC machines this point becomes moot, and it will become economical to actually replicate historical models down to the micrometer - already with the Hanwei stuff I notice their blades are very well made with good taper and balance - and any issues with their performance is with their design rather than their execution. In either case, I am not trying to defend the CS too much, I just think it has a bad rep - the moment you mention Cold Steel people start talking about how its overbuilt rubbish for backyard ninjas and flaying dead pigs to the sound of hard rock. I agree some of their models fill me with disappointment - such as the Prussian 1852 and Napoleonic ANXI I named earlier, but some of them are pretty good. The Thompson sabre handles reasonably well, and the 1796 discussed here is not bad given the price. Its not an accurate depiction of the standard 1796, but it captures some of the essence and, at its best, will come close to the actual 1796 at its worse. I think thats a good achievement for a replica given the economic realities of CS, but others may not. I also give the caveat that the $250 price tag, while being reasonable given the economics of replica sword production, do make it less competitive against other antiques on the market such as the 1873, or some of the more obscure South American stuff - Argentine 1889's and Brazilian 1890's - I saw a Spanish 1860 go for around $250 this past week. Personally I think those are better buys than the CS in my view - clearly since I didn't buy this CS new myself. However, individual mileage may vary. I just don't want people to say its rubbish just because its a CS. ~~ Also, we have taken a belt-sander to a CS in the past to bring its foible down to reasonable levels. Aesthetics improved, but handling was not significantly effected. The extra 1 mm at the tip is a) I would argue within error, especially if you compare this to an 1811 or export versions of the 1796 because, lets be honest at this price range I would be happy with an approximate assumption of ANYTHING 1796-related and b) does not significantly effect handling, especially in the face of other issues such as the fullers being too shallow. That I feel would contribute to a lot more weight, and its a bigger culprit than foible thickness. Again though, shallow fullers are cheaper and easier to make so with the decreased performance comes reduced cost. ~~ Yes, the officer 1796 is likely German. I called it a 1796 out of habit and apologize for any confusion. And I meant wider - it starts off wide, gets narrow, and then wider again. I suspect that on this particular model the widening at the tip is for smacking power, since the 2.5 mm foible feels like it should have enough strength even without the widening. On something with a ~1.5mm foible I can see that being a factor, though curiously the Mountain Battery does not have this feature and its foible is thinner than stink.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 12, 2017 5:43:02 GMT
The CS 1796 is great looking on the wall, $200 dollars, and can destroy a bad guy with anything (who with knife or machete would charge you if ya had the 1796 in your hand) short of a firearm at distance...what's not to like? I suppose one could mod it to handle more like the originals (grind some off the tip), if they wished. And lets face it, nothing...and I mean NOTHING...brings out ones inner pirate more than this beasty in your hand. P-) Inner pirate? Try their cutlass. People joke about the CS crowbar....that thing really is a crowbar. Its not the foible which is the big deal I think - its the fullers. We tried to thin the foible on the CS Thompson sabre, but it did not significantly alter the handling. Those shallow fullers however retain a lot more mass than the extra 1 mm at the foible. I like the spirit though. The CS is not accurate, but it is fun in its own right! If its your thing, pirate on.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 12, 2017 6:22:48 GMT
The thicker foible would also make it easier to manufacture - the thinner the material the easier it is for someone to screw up perhaps by over-grinding it or over-hammering it or otherwise damaging it during manufacture, especially if your workforce is not the best trained. This, and not wanting to go too thin to maintain beefy strength, and wanting it to live up to the popular image of a heavy cutter. Keeping it thicker gives a much bigger margin for error. Accidentally forging/grinding it 0.7mm thinner than spec isn't that big a deal if the spec is 2.5mm. If the spec was 1.5mm, you have a problem. And the cost/effort of proper research, too. Just consider the Windlass German Bastard Sword - it's the wrong size due to (understandably) bad research. The total length of the Windlass is the blade length of the original - it's a tiny replica. If they can get the size of a sword wrong by 20%, what's a few mm in thickness here and there? Hopefully with CNC machines this point becomes moot, and it will become economical to actually replicate historical models down to the micrometer - already with the Hanwei stuff I notice their blades are very well made with good taper and balance - and any issues with their performance is with their design rather than their execution. However, the up-front cost is formidable, and Indian workshops where labour is cheap and CNC is but a dream (or just completely unimagined) will continue to forge by hand. In either case, I am not trying to defend the CS too much, I just think it has a bad rep - the moment you mention Cold Steel people start talking about how its overbuilt rubbish for backyard ninjas and flaying dead pigs to the sound of hard rock. I think the CS 1796 can be defended for what it is: the best production replica 1796 currently available. Yes, it suffers from the negative impact of Cold Steel's advertising. Plenty of CS stuff is not overbuilt. Doesn't seem to affect the popular perception, though.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 12, 2017 15:37:07 GMT
Hopefully with CNC machines this point becomes moot, and it will become economical to actually replicate historical models down to the micrometer - already with the Hanwei stuff I notice their blades are very well made with good taper and balance - and any issues with their performance is with their design rather than their execution. However, the up-front cost is formidable, and Indian workshops where labour is cheap and CNC is but a dream (or just completely unimagined) will continue to forge by hand. True, but Hanwei managed to do it, and China is not much different with regards to labour. Though its possible that the different clientele of Hanwei makes that possible - I do not know anything about katanas, but I suspect that their higher end stuff drove adoption of CNC's. I am surprised though that Windlass does not have one, at least for its production of service swords for the world's militaries. I can't imagine an officer being satisfied with a sub-par blade. Mind you, that may explain why all the current officer swords I have seen are from WKC instead....
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Aug 12, 2017 20:01:55 GMT
Afoo in my recollection, whether the higher-end Windlass items are DoD spec is still ambiguous. On their website it is implied that their stuff is military parade-quality, but it is never explicitly mentioned. Should also note that the modern military-issue WKC swords do not appear to be designed for handling anyway. The blade profiles look mushy and I think most are stainless steel designed for parade anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Aug 12, 2017 20:13:59 GMT
I've always had a growing suspicion that we are putting too much emphasis on blade taper and that the main culprit of dodgy repro handling is the fullers.
Most antiques have seriously deep fullers which completely dwarf repros. Sure, the fullers aren't at the tip of the sword, but the sheer amount of area they cover translates into a significant weight differential. Gaining/loosing 2mm at the fullers is a massive amount of material.
Let's say that the average fuller runs 640mm (25in) of a 840mm (33in) blade and that the foible composes the last 8in (200mm), and that the fuller spans 25mm of the 35mm width. Loosing 2mm at the fullers is a volume of 32 cubic centimeters (640 x 25 x 2), whereas 2mm at the foilble is only 14cc (200 x 35 x 2)
Granted, taper is still an important characteristic (especially with rapiers and medievals which don't tend to have massive fullers) but I suspect that the fullers are the main culprit for sabres
This is a shame since blade taper can be relatively easily addressed using a belt-sander and some patience. Short of a milling machine I cannot really think of a way of deepening fullers.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 12, 2017 20:15:34 GMT
The CS 1796 is great looking on the wall, $200 dollars, and can destroy a bad guy with anything (who with knife or machete would charge you if ya had the 1796 in your hand) short of a firearm at distance...what's not to like? I suppose one could mod it to handle more like the originals (grind some off the tip), if they wished. And lets face it, nothing...and I mean NOTHING...brings out ones inner pirate more than this beasty in your hand. Inner pirate? Try their cutlass. People joke about the CS crowbar....that thing really is a crowbar. Its not the foible which is the big deal I think - its the fullers. We tried to thin the foible on the CS Thompson sabre, but it did not significantly alter the handling. Those shallow fullers however retain a lot more mass than the extra 1 mm at the foible. I like the spirit though. The CS is not accurate, but it is fun in its own right! If its your thing, pirate on. Oddly, it's the CS machete cutlass that is actually somewhat near historical size and weight, and one of the best inexpensive options for one handed home defense. I think few things would make a man defecate themselves more than the sight of a 1796 hanging obscenely from an opponents paw. Something about the size and curved blade says..."I want your head and hands, give them to me"...gulp.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Aug 12, 2017 20:18:46 GMT
And the cost/effort of proper research, too. Just consider the Windlass German Bastard Sword - it's the wrong size due to (understandably) bad research. The total length of the Windlass is the blade length of the original - it's a tiny replica. If they can get the size of a sword wrong by 20%, what's a few mm in thickness here and there? This seems to be a recurring issue. The CS 1796 seems okay in this regard (except the slightly squished grip to accommodate the pommel nut I mentioned earlier) but other repros have really unforgivable lapses in research. The CS Prussian 1852 has hilariously misshapen grips, and a lot of Indian repros have inexplicably small grips (the dreaded "microgrip"). Boggles my mind how such basic lapses in observation stand... * EDIT* an important consideration to add: Afoo tells me that the CS 1796LC scabbard does NOT fit his Prussian M1811. This is consistent with other reviews I've seen saying that the CS repro scabbards don't fit antique 1796s and 1811s (so it's not just a case of our 1811 being a bit funky... other people have had the same experience). So it you're thinking of buying one of these to scrounge up a spare scabbard, think again.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 12, 2017 20:31:07 GMT
I've always had a growing suspicion that we are putting too much emphasis on blade taper and that the main culprit of dodgy repro handling is the fullers. Most antiques have seriously deep fullers which completely dwarf repros. Sure, the fullers aren't at the tip of the sword, but the sheer amount of area they cover translates into a significant weight differential. Gaining/loosing 2mm at the fullers is a massive amount of material. Let's say that the average fuller runs 640mm (25in) of a 840mm (33in) blade and that the foible composes the last 8in (200mm), and that the fuller spans 25mm of the 35mm width. Loosing 2mm at the fullers is a volume of 32 cubic centimeters (640 x 25 x 2), whereas 2mm at the foilble is only 14cc (200 x 35 x 2) Granted, taper is still an important characteristic (especially with rapiers and medievals which don't tend to have massive fullers) but I suspect that the fullers are the main culprit for sabres This is a shame since blade taper can be relatively easily addressed using a belt-sander and some patience. Short of a milling machine I cannot really think of a way of deepening fullers. I guess lots of things beyond POB affect handling characteristics, including fuller and blade tapering. You almost have to handle the items in person to really know. Naturally, the 1796 is designed to chop in the skirmish after the initial charge, being a cavalry saber and all, and it did so very well. Cold Steel is probably forced to take the side of robustness, due to people wanting to mindlessly hack, slice, and chop stuff up in their back yards. So, for a few hundred dollars, you may lose a bit of subtleness of movement in going against another swordsman, but I never assumed going against such a foe in the first place. I plan to deal with jerks (in my home) who are armed with clubs, knives, machete, and even guns (though I'd have to be in an ambush situation).
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Aug 13, 2017 1:34:40 GMT
More than that mate. In my market a "proper" 1796LC from a known maker and in good condition will set you back roughly $1000 bucks. There were many 1796LC lookalikes and variants (see here and here for a full review): export models, custom models for cavalry officers, infantry officers and flank infantry officers, and of course different versions for the Prussians, Swedes, Coast guard, and artillery. Some of the "cheaper" quality pieces (export models and certain officer models as noted in the original review) can be had for $700USD or even less if you're willing to do some digging, but are slightly worse in handling. The one Afoo has handles pretty heavy, and Pino had a similar experience with his officer and export 1796LCs. So bottom line: a lower quality antique that handles comparably to the CS 1796LC will cost you more than 3x as much. A proper 1797LC will cost you 5x more. Is all that extra handling worth an extra $800? I'm not sure. Best road is to buy the CS 1796LC is you want to have something that captures the essence of the 1796 in your collection, and take that $800 you saved to buy a real antique and you'll probably have $400 left over. Use the CS for posing, and the antique for handling For perspective the 1811 Officer's sword in afoo's review cost me $500USD and I had to wait almost a year for that deal to show up. And it handles about the same as the $200 CS
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 13, 2017 19:51:05 GMT
More than that mate. In my market a "proper" 1796LC from a known maker and in good condition will set you back roughly $1000 bucks. There were many 1796LC lookalikes and variants (see here and here for a full review): export models, custom models for cavalry officers, infantry officers and flank infantry officers, and of course different versions for the Prussians, Swedes, Coast guard, and artillery. Some of the "cheaper" quality pieces (export models and certain officer models as noted in the original review) can be had for $700USD or even less if you're willing to do some digging, but are slightly worse in handling. The one Afoo has handles pretty heavy, and Pino had a similar experience with his officer and export 1796LCs. So bottom line: a lower quality antique that handles comparably to the CS 1796LC will cost you more than 3x as much. A proper 1797LC will cost you 5x more. Is all that extra handling worth an extra $800? I'm not sure. Best road is to buy the CS 1796LC is you want to have something that captures the essence of the 1796 in your collection, and take that $800 you saved to buy a real antique and you'll probably have $400 left over. Use the CS for posing, and the antique for handling For perspective the 1811 Officer's sword in afoo's review cost me $500USD and I had to wait almost a year for that deal to show up. And it handles about the same as the $200 CS Lots of variations, showing the popularity of the breed. It would be nice to have a historical specimen on the wall. An infantry would be more nimble (being smaller). Like a lady, it's the curves that attract me to the 96's.
|
|
|
Post by rjodorizzi on Aug 14, 2017 16:39:20 GMT
I had one and thought it carried a lot of value for the money. Liked how it handled, ending up selling it for other toys, but my only real problem I had was that it was a bit of a rust-o-matic. That being said I take a lot more care with my pieces now so the issue was likely user based :-).
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Aug 22, 2017 16:17:24 GMT
I had one and thought it carried a lot of value for the money. Liked how it handled, ending up selling it for other toys, but my only real problem I had was that it was a bit of a rust-o-matic. That being said I take a lot more care with my pieces now so the issue was likely user based :-). That's another factor to consider when debating whether to get a repro or an antique. The resale value of repros is not strong so you always end up loosing money. On the other hand, antiques retain their value and you can generally get most (if not all) of your money back when it's time to move on if you so choose.
|
|