Deepeeka USM 1832 Artillery Short Sword
Jun 28, 2008 19:39:00 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2008 19:39:00 GMT
Deepeeka USM - 1832 Artillery Short Sword
Jessica de Varona (formerly Moore), Idaho, United States
Due to the initial 1832 Artillery Short Sword that was sent to me being in such poor condition that Aurora History Boutique sent me a replacement I am in the unique position of being able to review two copies of the same sword model. (The first sword I was sent is the bottom one in the above picture and the replacement is the sword on the top.)
Reasons for Buying, Initial Impressions and Experience with Seller
I was attempting to expand my horizons and looking for a variety of more uniquely shaped swords or ones that at least looked different from the many medieval and mostly black and silver swords that grace my walls. Shorter swords were a focus in my search because I've got plenty of swords nearly as tall as I am and I wanted to try some lighter fare. I was also just really curious whether I could manage to discover a good sword, or even a remotely okay one, amongst the masses of cheap swords that Deepeeka produces.
There was a fair amount of trepidation as I put this and another Deepeeka sword into the online cart and got out my credit card. You see, I have little faith in low cost swords and the Aurora History Boutique had not even bothered to give the swords individualized descriptions as though they really did not think much of them either. The only thing that was encouraging was Dan's review of the Charlemagne that made me think I might at least get a project blade out of the deal if the rest of the sword turned out to be truly terrible. I thought the USM - 1832 Artillery Short Sword had an interestingly shaped blade so it ended up in my cart despite my gut feelings about its likely poor make.
The box arrived quickly, but a bit beat up. It was crunched and bending to one side which worried me. The messy layers of tape on the outside were a hassle to get through and when I finally did an infestation of my most despised packing material (styrofoam peanuts) spilled out onto my floor. I think foam peanuts are not suitable shipping padding for swords because they crush easily to become nothing more than static-infused foam dust and move aside easily for thin objects like swords allowing for more potential of damage in shipping. The Artillery Short Sword was the first I pulled out of the two in the box, and what I pulled out made my already low expectations sink even more. The sword was poorly packaged and was ripping out of its thin layer of bubble wrap both at the tip and at the guard.
After removing its pathetic shipping protection, I discovered the sword looked like somebody had already run it through tests, though it is unsharpened. The blade was badly scratched and marred. There was a divet in the metal on the edge of one side towards the tip and it had rust spots towards the top of the blade.
I wiped off the thin layer of dirty brown oil left on the blade, frowning at all the scratches. The sword seemed extremely heavy for being so short. I thought immediately that I should research the historical accuracy of the blade because it was so thick compared to everything else I have. (I placed my cell phone next to the blade for comparison in the above picture. The cell phone is 16mm thick and the blade is about half as thick.) The guard, hilt and pommel were poorly made... There was a hideous eagle-like symbol etched into the pommel and the rest of it simply looked like Deepeeka has some quality control issues. The nut on the pommel was not symmetrical and there were grind marks on the brass that make me wonder how exactly they go about putting the sword together.
Due to the poor condition the sword arrived in, aside from the manufacturing defects, I wrote to the Aurora History Boutique requesting that I be allowed to exchange the sword. They responded promptly and, without questions, sent me a replacement which arrived in far better condition. But here is the kicker… there is a great deal of difference between the two swords. Comparisons follow.
SPECS
Sword 1 (first sent)
Blade length: 20”
Grip length: 4"
Overall: 26"
Guard Height: 4"
POB: 4"
Weight: 3.4 lbs
Sword 2 (replacement)
Blade length: 19”
Grip length: 3.5"
Overall: 25"
Guard Height: 3.75"
POB: 3.5"
Weight: 3.2 lbs
Top: Sword 1, Bottom: Sword 2
Historical Observations
An original from an auction, notice the shape of the grooves on the blade
The originals that this Deepeeka sword is a copy of were first produced in 1832, as the name suggests, for the foot artillery of the United States army. The sword was a copy of the French artillery short sword of 1816 which was in turn based on the classical Roman short sword. According to historical records, the swords went out of production around 1862 after the end of the Civil War though it remained in service until 1872.
These swords probably saw very little combat use, but they were reportedly used for other purposes such as clearing brush and cutting paths. Considering that the originals were not exactly meant for combat, the Deepeeka replicas should probably not be listed as “battle ready”.
The originals had solid brass hilts with guards measuring about 4 inches in length and 19 inch blades. Deepeeka also comes close on matching the scaled grip design and the eagles cast into the pommel, but I must say that Deepeeka’s eagles look pretty sad… more like scrawny pigeons. The biggest difference I noticed is that the Deepeeka blades have much smoother grooves where the originals have much more rigid looking and defined grooves. Also, the pommel nut on the Deepeeka swords protrudes annoyingly and looks very different from the wider, flatter ones found on the originals, and there are not rivets on the grips of the Deepeeka versions whereas you can see three rivets in pictures of the originals.
Original pommel
DESIGN, FIT & FINISH
The Blade
Ignoring the scratches, rust spot and other marks, the blade of the first sword is a pleasing shape. It does seem a bit thick and rigid, but I could find no information on the historical accuracy of this element. The length is nice, but it is far too heavy. Worst of all is the “made in India” stamped into the blade.
The replacement sword has a blade shaped much more like the one in the online shop pictures, though this design seems to stray more from that of the originals. The grooves on this blade are also thinner and more pronounced than those on the first one, and it has a different sheen than the first sword which I think may be the result of very different polishing jobs. Also, there are no “made in India” stamps on this one… Lucky me since there is hardly anything I dislike more than that sort of manufacturer mark on a sword.
Replacement blade is on top, notice difference in sheen.
The Grip
The grip fits well in my hands and is easy to hold onto, though I think a man with larger hands may find it too small and uncomfortable. The scaled design is true to the originals, but not executed as handsomely.
The Pommel
The pommel is horrendous. Aside from the silly eagle-like symbols already mentioned, it is an ugly and inconsistent shape and the nut on top is poorly made and fitted on the first sword and too prominent on the replacement sword. The size of the pommel, however, is such that it does not get in the way when swinging the sword around.
The Guard
View of replacement sword’s guard.
The guard looks to have suffered from poor quality control on both swords. Somewhere in the molding and shaping process things have gone wrong. It looks cheap and ugly close-up. On the first sword, the ridges of the rings on the edges are uneven and rough and it has machine marks all over it. The polishing job also seems to have missed parts and the guard bears the same “made in India” stamp as its blade. On the replacement sword, the ridges are wide and smooth giving the impression that a bit too much brass was poured into the mold. The shape and design of the guard are nice at least, if only Deepeeka could make them look better and be more consistent.
The Scabbard
The scabbard is substandard and looks a bit shoddily made. Once again I think it is suffering from quality control issues. It seems to be made of inner layers of leather glued together with the outer layer stitched together in the back. At least the sword slides easily into it, though it seems to overpower the small stature of the sword and its guard. The scabbard that came with the replacement sword is in worse condition than the first, with a large rusty fingerprint on the brass and brass moldings that were not quite formed properly. The mouths of both scabbards are too wide to fit properly on the replacement sword with its slightly shorter guard.
Testing
I’m going to have to think long and hard whether I want to bother sharpening the blade of the replacement sword in order to do some test cuts. It does feel lighter and better balanced in my hands than the first one and looks a bit better put together, but I’m still unsure I want to risk it.
I did swing the sword around a bit and hit it on the ground (not something I would normally do, especially not with a sharpened sword or one I cared more about) to see if it would loosen or break apart as the Deepeeka Charlemagne sword did for Dan, but perhaps because it is a smaller sword it will take more to discover any weaknesses. The blade does appear to be glued into the hilt and I would guess that the tang is about a fourth to one third the width of the blade from the looks of it, not a rat-tail at least.
Conclusion and SBG Ratings
I will say in short that I think Deepeeka may have some serious quality control issues and that while you may be lucky enough to get a good, low cost project blade, you are definitely running a risk at getting a hunk of metal unworthy of the title “sword”. (This sword may have scored just a bit higher had I not seen the first one that was sent which was a very poor example of the model.)
Historical Accuracy: 1/5
Fit and Finish: 1/5
Handling: 1/5
Structural Integrity: 1/5
Value for Money: 1/5
OVERALL: 1/5
Jessica de Varona (formerly Moore), Idaho, United States
Due to the initial 1832 Artillery Short Sword that was sent to me being in such poor condition that Aurora History Boutique sent me a replacement I am in the unique position of being able to review two copies of the same sword model. (The first sword I was sent is the bottom one in the above picture and the replacement is the sword on the top.)
Reasons for Buying, Initial Impressions and Experience with Seller
I was attempting to expand my horizons and looking for a variety of more uniquely shaped swords or ones that at least looked different from the many medieval and mostly black and silver swords that grace my walls. Shorter swords were a focus in my search because I've got plenty of swords nearly as tall as I am and I wanted to try some lighter fare. I was also just really curious whether I could manage to discover a good sword, or even a remotely okay one, amongst the masses of cheap swords that Deepeeka produces.
There was a fair amount of trepidation as I put this and another Deepeeka sword into the online cart and got out my credit card. You see, I have little faith in low cost swords and the Aurora History Boutique had not even bothered to give the swords individualized descriptions as though they really did not think much of them either. The only thing that was encouraging was Dan's review of the Charlemagne that made me think I might at least get a project blade out of the deal if the rest of the sword turned out to be truly terrible. I thought the USM - 1832 Artillery Short Sword had an interestingly shaped blade so it ended up in my cart despite my gut feelings about its likely poor make.
The box arrived quickly, but a bit beat up. It was crunched and bending to one side which worried me. The messy layers of tape on the outside were a hassle to get through and when I finally did an infestation of my most despised packing material (styrofoam peanuts) spilled out onto my floor. I think foam peanuts are not suitable shipping padding for swords because they crush easily to become nothing more than static-infused foam dust and move aside easily for thin objects like swords allowing for more potential of damage in shipping. The Artillery Short Sword was the first I pulled out of the two in the box, and what I pulled out made my already low expectations sink even more. The sword was poorly packaged and was ripping out of its thin layer of bubble wrap both at the tip and at the guard.
After removing its pathetic shipping protection, I discovered the sword looked like somebody had already run it through tests, though it is unsharpened. The blade was badly scratched and marred. There was a divet in the metal on the edge of one side towards the tip and it had rust spots towards the top of the blade.
I wiped off the thin layer of dirty brown oil left on the blade, frowning at all the scratches. The sword seemed extremely heavy for being so short. I thought immediately that I should research the historical accuracy of the blade because it was so thick compared to everything else I have. (I placed my cell phone next to the blade for comparison in the above picture. The cell phone is 16mm thick and the blade is about half as thick.) The guard, hilt and pommel were poorly made... There was a hideous eagle-like symbol etched into the pommel and the rest of it simply looked like Deepeeka has some quality control issues. The nut on the pommel was not symmetrical and there were grind marks on the brass that make me wonder how exactly they go about putting the sword together.
Due to the poor condition the sword arrived in, aside from the manufacturing defects, I wrote to the Aurora History Boutique requesting that I be allowed to exchange the sword. They responded promptly and, without questions, sent me a replacement which arrived in far better condition. But here is the kicker… there is a great deal of difference between the two swords. Comparisons follow.
SPECS
Sword 1 (first sent)
Blade length: 20”
Grip length: 4"
Overall: 26"
Guard Height: 4"
POB: 4"
Weight: 3.4 lbs
Sword 2 (replacement)
Blade length: 19”
Grip length: 3.5"
Overall: 25"
Guard Height: 3.75"
POB: 3.5"
Weight: 3.2 lbs
Top: Sword 1, Bottom: Sword 2
Historical Observations
An original from an auction, notice the shape of the grooves on the blade
The originals that this Deepeeka sword is a copy of were first produced in 1832, as the name suggests, for the foot artillery of the United States army. The sword was a copy of the French artillery short sword of 1816 which was in turn based on the classical Roman short sword. According to historical records, the swords went out of production around 1862 after the end of the Civil War though it remained in service until 1872.
These swords probably saw very little combat use, but they were reportedly used for other purposes such as clearing brush and cutting paths. Considering that the originals were not exactly meant for combat, the Deepeeka replicas should probably not be listed as “battle ready”.
The originals had solid brass hilts with guards measuring about 4 inches in length and 19 inch blades. Deepeeka also comes close on matching the scaled grip design and the eagles cast into the pommel, but I must say that Deepeeka’s eagles look pretty sad… more like scrawny pigeons. The biggest difference I noticed is that the Deepeeka blades have much smoother grooves where the originals have much more rigid looking and defined grooves. Also, the pommel nut on the Deepeeka swords protrudes annoyingly and looks very different from the wider, flatter ones found on the originals, and there are not rivets on the grips of the Deepeeka versions whereas you can see three rivets in pictures of the originals.
Original pommel
DESIGN, FIT & FINISH
The Blade
Ignoring the scratches, rust spot and other marks, the blade of the first sword is a pleasing shape. It does seem a bit thick and rigid, but I could find no information on the historical accuracy of this element. The length is nice, but it is far too heavy. Worst of all is the “made in India” stamped into the blade.
The replacement sword has a blade shaped much more like the one in the online shop pictures, though this design seems to stray more from that of the originals. The grooves on this blade are also thinner and more pronounced than those on the first one, and it has a different sheen than the first sword which I think may be the result of very different polishing jobs. Also, there are no “made in India” stamps on this one… Lucky me since there is hardly anything I dislike more than that sort of manufacturer mark on a sword.
Replacement blade is on top, notice difference in sheen.
The Grip
The grip fits well in my hands and is easy to hold onto, though I think a man with larger hands may find it too small and uncomfortable. The scaled design is true to the originals, but not executed as handsomely.
The Pommel
The pommel is horrendous. Aside from the silly eagle-like symbols already mentioned, it is an ugly and inconsistent shape and the nut on top is poorly made and fitted on the first sword and too prominent on the replacement sword. The size of the pommel, however, is such that it does not get in the way when swinging the sword around.
The Guard
View of replacement sword’s guard.
The guard looks to have suffered from poor quality control on both swords. Somewhere in the molding and shaping process things have gone wrong. It looks cheap and ugly close-up. On the first sword, the ridges of the rings on the edges are uneven and rough and it has machine marks all over it. The polishing job also seems to have missed parts and the guard bears the same “made in India” stamp as its blade. On the replacement sword, the ridges are wide and smooth giving the impression that a bit too much brass was poured into the mold. The shape and design of the guard are nice at least, if only Deepeeka could make them look better and be more consistent.
The Scabbard
The scabbard is substandard and looks a bit shoddily made. Once again I think it is suffering from quality control issues. It seems to be made of inner layers of leather glued together with the outer layer stitched together in the back. At least the sword slides easily into it, though it seems to overpower the small stature of the sword and its guard. The scabbard that came with the replacement sword is in worse condition than the first, with a large rusty fingerprint on the brass and brass moldings that were not quite formed properly. The mouths of both scabbards are too wide to fit properly on the replacement sword with its slightly shorter guard.
Testing
I’m going to have to think long and hard whether I want to bother sharpening the blade of the replacement sword in order to do some test cuts. It does feel lighter and better balanced in my hands than the first one and looks a bit better put together, but I’m still unsure I want to risk it.
I did swing the sword around a bit and hit it on the ground (not something I would normally do, especially not with a sharpened sword or one I cared more about) to see if it would loosen or break apart as the Deepeeka Charlemagne sword did for Dan, but perhaps because it is a smaller sword it will take more to discover any weaknesses. The blade does appear to be glued into the hilt and I would guess that the tang is about a fourth to one third the width of the blade from the looks of it, not a rat-tail at least.
Conclusion and SBG Ratings
I will say in short that I think Deepeeka may have some serious quality control issues and that while you may be lucky enough to get a good, low cost project blade, you are definitely running a risk at getting a hunk of metal unworthy of the title “sword”. (This sword may have scored just a bit higher had I not seen the first one that was sent which was a very poor example of the model.)
Historical Accuracy: 1/5
Fit and Finish: 1/5
Handling: 1/5
Structural Integrity: 1/5
Value for Money: 1/5
OVERALL: 1/5