Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 2, 2018 16:58:25 GMT
Hey thanks althesmith. I did not know that.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 2, 2018 17:50:47 GMT
Day 7. Today I started on the other side and stipped the upper layer off. Only when the dark grey and black is removed you can really see what is going on. Again it looks like the most severe damage is centered in the area 15 cm down from the end of the fuller and the tip section, but the damage is much worse on this side of the blade. Underneath the grey and black was a lot of active rust. No wonder, because where the first side was very fatty, this side is cork dry. Underneath the grey and rust is an orange peel like surface. And in the middle of the orange peel patches are always those nasty little pin prick pits. Anyway. I started sanding at the most affected spot, near the end of the fuller. Once the worst is removed all work down the blade towards the ricasso is much easier. It took 5 hours solid to turn the orange peel on about half the blade into pit free, healthy metal. Even when performing the mopping up operation on fresh metal there is still a lot of rust in the dust pile on the left. One thing I must say and maybe there are folk who do not like that, but the situation with the damage here is really borderline. If this blade would have fallen into the hands of the ,, Muh lovely patina '' fraternity, in a couple of years it would have been beyond restoration. I am not saying this because I regard myself as some ,, Look at me, I am the Blade Jesus ''. No. But one thing is for sure. This blade now has a second lease on life in the marked. As long as people are willing to plunk down hard earned cash for it, it will survive. Once it is not longer attractive, as in ,, a pile of patinated rust '', it will be thrown in the bin. End of story. Getting the job done.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 2, 2018 18:48:33 GMT
Man, I hate seeing blackened and rusty swords offered up with their "pleasing patina". You're an excellent writer Uhlan.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 3, 2018 7:57:03 GMT
Well, I do not have problems with sellers. They just want to sell, so use any argument in the book to try to enhance the value of their wares. Hence ,, patina '' and not ,, rusty barrel''. That is part of the game and well understood. I do however have problems with a segment of the sword collecting community, frequenting a certain sister site, that is propagating the ,, Muh patina '' fallacy, based as it is on a not very well understood and incorrect 19th C. notion stemming from the then just developing archaeological conservational science, a doctrine at that time widely accepted in the then new middle class amateur antiquarian societies and clubs. This is the same group of self righteous ,, experts '' and snobs who talk down to us as being just blue collar cheap repro collectors too dimwitted to partake in their exalted discussions, where some of them and this is no joke, confess, in post after post in a discussion of French sabres I once stumbled upon, that they do not have any knowledge of the Klingenthal marking system. Then having the gall to try and lay down rules as to what is done or not and speak sternly from on high against anyone over there who merely suggests they might want to try to clean up their own property a little bit, because ,, Muh patina '', is taking the cake. There are plenty of reasons for me being here and not ,, over there '' and this is one of them. And now my dear friend, after this ,,Morning chat with the Ulahn '', which chat cleared the cloying early morning fog from my dim little blue collar brain, it is time again to depart to the attic and severely and mercilessly scrub any ,, Muh patina '' left from my Swedish HC. See you later.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 3, 2018 9:41:47 GMT
For what it's worth, I am continually amazed at both the level of knowledge posted here on bladed weapons from everywhere in all times. I am also, by the way, astonished at the patient work you put into restoring your swords, too. With regards to making up the rules, that usually seems to be the prerogative of the first ones in the game. They control the knowledge, hand out the licenses and permits and so on. The only alternative is to go out and start your own game, in a manner of speaking.
Modern-day collectors of just about anything would be horrified to know of the things that were done by the original users and owners to their rare finds or by those whose hands the items passed through not long after they were disposed of by the first owners. Pre-war automobiles made into hotrods, glass photographic plates used in greenhouses, swords cut down to make knives and so on. Never actually heard of a sword being made into a plowshare but I read about it in some old book.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 3, 2018 11:42:26 GMT
,, The only alternative is to go out and start your own game, in a manner of speaking. '' That is another reason I and I am sure many more, want to be here on SBG. Open of mind and free to discuss. Those that do not have valid arguments tend to shut down discussion and lay down dogma. As to the second part of your post: The notion of cultural heritage, preserving the past, is a relative fresh one. Some date the developement of this idea to the late 19th C. Of course the elites had for a long time collected artifacts for their ,, Wunder Kammer '' and Popes had and still have enormous collections, as did the nobles. One of the first though to sort out old stuff in a scientific way was Laurentz Beger in the 17th C. He was running the library of the German Prince of Brandenburg who had a large collection of Roman and Greec coins and gems. Beger published this collection in truly magnificent engravings in large folio volumes, The Thesaurus Brandenburgicus, all paid for by His Highness as he probably saw this effort as good public relations and confirmation of his power and to be sure, it was much cheaper than waging war. Not to boast, but I have these folios and other works by Beger in the original editions, because yes, I am a book freak too. It was, before I started with the sabres, my first love. Anyway, Beger and contemporaries founded what we now call archaeology. In the second half of the 19th C. the notion of collecting and reading about it, etc, seeped down to the new middle class and from there slowly the idea asserted itself in society in general that, maybe, old stuff was worth preserving. This does not mean everybody sees value in preservation and not everything can be preserved. But yes, reading about the wholesale destruction of what we now call antiques, willfuly or out of ignorance, makes one want to puke. Sorry if I bore you. I get preachy at times. Some of my books. All three volumes of the Thesaurus Brandenburgicus. It certainly is a privilege to have direct access to these beautiful books. And a burden too. I often shiver at the thought of what might become of them when I am gone. Seeing kids with their noses glued to the screens of their phones does not inspire confidence in the future appreciation of antiquarian effort.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 3, 2018 13:09:09 GMT
I often see comments on "uncluttering" blogs about taking a picture of something and then throwing it away.
I have a few books, too, and my wife even more. I have a large accumulation of other stuff, too, relating to hiking and camping, military things and I don't know what all. Now that we're both retired, we are supposed to be going through everything and getting stuff sorted out, discarding the surplus and so on. That's just the theory; we aren't making much progress. I should say, my wife isn't making much progress.
An irony here is that sometimes reproductions of things cost more than originals. The idea is to use reproductions and save the originals, which are collectables. It's funny. Imagine how many service dress uniforms were manufactured by the British in WWI. The numbers are in the millions. But surviving garments are scarce, even when you realize that such things were still being manufactured in the 1950s (not everyone wore battledress).
There are a surprisingly large number of things that have continued in production for over a hundred years or more, or nearly so. That raises the question about when something is an original and when it becomes a reproduction. I am of the firm belief that everything ever produced by man is still in production somewhere. Doesn't follow that I can afford any of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 21:27:50 GMT
Truth be told, once we are gone, it is of little relevance what happens to our collections, including libraries. We can leave a will, which I have taken care of but what that next generation does with those gifts is somewhat beyond our reach. I gave a nephew four guitars, other gear and a now expensive antique amplifier. I am glad he did not immediately dispose of that amplifier as well but the other gear and those four guitars were recycled by him in trade. Those guitars lost are irreplaceable in today's market but down the road they went. As he used the funds/trades to further his own musical interests, I can only be proud to have helped him.
Regarding atmospheres of discourse and conservation vs restoration, I do find some of your lectures regarding other venues as distasteful as you must feel when reading abroad. The real issue, as I see it is snob vs snob wherever one reads. Honestly, I feel your rants do border on that at times.
I am sure we have gone down the road of conservation vs restoration and there is a middle ground as well. Also true that these are your swords to deal with as you choose to. I can spot your work easily enough to know how far past the original finish was. In fact you make mention of it at times in that you are making improvements on that original finish.
Anyway, the justifications are a bit moot in the process of your working on this particular blade. If one were to choose a candidate for such grinding, that would surely qualify. I might have gone a different route to get to 120 or so but those were some pretty deep pits.
With the light cavalry, I see an imbalance unless you were to regrip the sword. It is that part of a restoration that irks me when I go beyond stabilizing antiques for conservation vs full restoration. I try not to burn off those original warts and I revel at being often able to clean and even grind some without losing the original definitions.
Great efforts, to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 4, 2018 12:12:07 GMT
I assume your comments are only about genuine antiques and collectibles and that such things should only be kept behind glass and never touched except with gloved hands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2018 18:01:46 GMT
I assume your comments are only about genuine antiques and collectibles and that such things should only be kept behind glass and never touched except with gloved hands. I am not expressing an extreme one way or another. If I were to be expressing real displeasure in someone restoring old swords, I can only state (as I have in the past) that scraped and refitted antiques are often dimly regarded in the market. I used the parallel before of 19th century Colt revolvers and that refinishing rarely brings added value. Perhaps more common but a case in point is a friends Colt 1903 .32 acp. He had inherited it in very worn condition, with much of the bluing gone and multiple general handling scars. A smith went through it to check mechanical issues and was then left to ask my friend what he wanted to do about appearances. It wasn't a question of cost but it was explained that the effort would not really add much value, certainly not enough to put it in the four figure bracket. Smoothed and reblued, it would not magically be elevated to some wonderfulness aside from personal preferences. The piece is now used regularly and was simply buffed of the remaining blue. There is a good case in point that swords headed for the rust bin deserve being saved and we should then, once again, choose to conserve or restore. There is a difference between rust and dirt being regarded as patina and general wear being regarded as patina. Then there is the difference between original condition and enhanced condition. It is this latter that doesn't really disturb me and the efforts undeniable in result. I'm sorry but I'm not in the camp of "oh wow, that's amazing" as a selling point, nor the way a great many collectors feel about antique swords. I have polished out a few blades. I have repaired a few hilts. However, I have done my best not to go beyond the original condition (as new back then) and actually sad that I polished out my yataghan blade further than it had ever been in its original state. I have not tig welded and ground down cracked blades. I have not used plastic modeling clay to simulate ivory (yet) but I have used polystyrene beads from a styrofoam cup, mixed with a dab of superglue and coffee for age to repair/restore a Japanese ray skin grip, and superglue, shoe polish with coffee grounds to repair/restore a horn grip. In both of these latter cases, full restoration to "as new" or beyond simply not how I care to conserve my antiques. I have never touted my own little shop of horrors as the only way to go, nor claimed to have all the solutions and programs to be followed. I did a stag repair after a sad chip arose on a knife more expensive than a lot of swords here and it was deemed seamless in viewing but I didn't then go and redefine filework on the blade due to asymmetry. I am a bit of a pot calling a kettle black in regard to various venues but for different reasons. Again, it can get to be snob vs snob at times and I am my own snob at times. In the case of conserve or restore, I'm still an "it depends" voter but leaning more to conservation for my own stuff. Uhlan's efforts are tireless and he is presenting a lot of useful techniques. It is the lecture that gives me pause at times and do feel somewhat affronted at times when reading them (not that there is anything wrong with that). If I were to sum up the completed swords in one word, I might use the word "hazy", as in unclear. I don't reply to distract more from this project, so that's it.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 4, 2018 18:30:16 GMT
Didn't mean to perturb you. Restoring things like have been described here is both over my head and out of my league and besides, I really don't collect much of anything.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Oct 4, 2018 21:02:28 GMT
Uhlan, A question. Have you ever done a before and after weight when doing a restoration? Part of me wonders how much the gunk weighs. Add a little steel and brass, and it might be noteworthy. Not gonna weigh in on restore or preserve, as I am of the mind that if its mine, I wanna use it etc. And *that* is why I failed out of archaeology so long ago...
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 5, 2018 18:07:47 GMT
Your question came just at the right time. Today I finished with the 60 grid. I collected the rubbish under my polishing stand, sifted out stuff that does not belonged there, like bits of sanded off news paper and God knows what, so only the mixed sanding paper particles and metal dust remained. I do not run a labratory, but most of this dust is residue from the sanding paper. But let us say for arguments sake the balance would be 50 - 50. I am quite sure however, through what I have observed during my long hours of polishing, that in reality the metal content is more like 30 % or even less. The dust I could collect is from the LC and the HC, so two sabres. The polishing stages following the 60 grid will not take off such an amount of material as to make a significant difference. I weighted the dust and got 10 grams for two sabres. So, 5 gram per sabre of which at most 2.5 gram would be metal. Again, I think that in reality this amount is less, but okay. So, a thorough polish does not, if done carefully and by hand, remove such an amount of material as to change the blade in a way that is measureably negative, change the character of the blade, the handling or whatever. You polish. You do not grind. What I try to do is more like what a Japanese polisher does, only with Western materials. Grinding is the first stage after the blade left the smithy floor. Grinding fixes the shape, the fullers, the ricasso, all the lines. The polishing stages are just to add the finishing touches. Even when your question is interesting, it is moot in a way. I'll try to explain: The reality is that for a given sabre only a maximum and minimum weight requirement is stated in the specifications I know of. For instance yesterday I read l'Hoste about the French AN IX and the AN XI Light Cavalry sabres because there is an An Troopers for sale over here that had an interesting price tag and I would like to have one to compare it with the Swedish LC. Now, l'Hoste states that the specifications at the time demanded for the AN IX sabre and scabbard combo that the maximum weight ,, may not to exceed 1650 grams. For the AN XI this was, due to the almost doubling of the thickness of the scabbard sheet material from 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm thick, 2769 grams max. So there is enough room here to fiddle with the weight of the combo components at the factory level already. I doubt there are two sabres of a model that will weigh exactly the same. There where some limits of course in the minimum and maximum but then again 100% enforcement of the specifications would have resulted in a major disaster. These sabres and scabbards where made by hand and not by CNC, so you can have a perfectly fine M1822 that weighs like 50 grams less than the ideal, or a Blucher with a blade thickness at the ricasso of 8.5 mm instead of the 11 or 10 mm it should be. Tolerances were pretty wide. As the man said at Deutsche Blankwaffen when I complained about the weight of a sabre: Aww, you must not worrie. Those tolerances were only guidelines...But to return to the AN XI for sale: Here the total weight was given as about 2200 grams. That stinks. Something is not what it should be here and no wonder the sabre does not sell even for that most attractive price. Looking at the pictures of the scabbard I am quite sure somebody did some heavy grinding on it and reduced the 2.5 mm sheet back to 1.5 mm or even less. It was an AN XI scabbard so it was not changed for a spare AN IX or a Restoration period scabbard. So, if you polish and not start grinding half your sabre or scabbard to dust, you will still be within the specifications and no harm is done. What is also important to notice in this discussion is that most undesirables are only skin deep. Fractions of millimeters. Another thing is to remember you handle an antique. Even with a good polish some nasties will and should remain. You can in most cases, but you should not, bombard the thing to perfect new state again. A 200 years old blade should show its age here and there. It is expected. You only decide what goes and what stays and where. Do your due diligence and find a perfect example of your sabre on the net, look at your blade and formulate a plan of action. You do not want to change your sabre into a replica.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Oct 5, 2018 18:31:29 GMT
All good points, thanks! I would not have tried to measure the dust, I'd just measure the sword if I were playing the weight game. I had forgotten these had a range of specs to be between, so it definitely makes the point moot. One other thing I'd do (maybe) is weigh the sword separate from the scabbard, and also together, just for data points.
And yes, there's almost no way to restore them to perfect without doing something extreme...and the little blemishes add character.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 5, 2018 19:31:39 GMT
In other words, we should not apply 21st century standards to a 200-year old sword. In real life, as opposed to either the reproduction world or the collecting world, anything issued and used in military service will fairly quickly pick up plenty of character. In addition to the dings and scratches, a metal object will eventually acquire a shine from constant handling. That might be called a patina, same as your good silver. But there should be no rust. Rust is not a patina. It's just rust.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Oct 5, 2018 20:14:32 GMT
Rust is not a patina. It's just rust. What he said!
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 5, 2018 20:32:15 GMT
Thank you both for your comments. And bluetrain: your comment remembers me again of the American genius with words. As an European I need to write this long winded text. You come on with this ultra dry statement: ,, Rust is not patina, it's just rust ''. Could have saved myself hours of careful composition. Darn you Yanks. :D
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 6, 2018 9:39:43 GMT
Perhaps you were never trying to say that.
Americans generally do not have any particular way with words, that is, in English. But I've long admired writers who could say a lot with just a few chosen words, carefully worked over and polished. Thoreau comes to mind and so does H.L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore. Wallis Simpson was from Baltimore, you know. Neither wrote novels, though, the sort of thing you read for enjoyment, and Mencken seems never to have enjoyed anything, except for when prohibition was repealed.
And speaking of swords, not to change the subject, knights and the better off men at arms would not have had to maintained their own arms, that being the work of his squire and other spear carriers. Later, in the British system, he would have a batman, which I presume is still the working system. In the American system, referring here only to the rich who maintained hunting lodges somewhere, it was the job of the guide to do those things.
Garnet Wolseley, upon whose statue I have gazed (briefly), recommended that the revolver be plated but he only says that the sword be light and sharp. So, that should settle one question.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 6, 2018 19:10:27 GMT
,, Perhaps you were never trying to say that. ''
Could be, but it sure focuses the mind.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 6, 2018 22:22:28 GMT
I must tell you that some Americans do not like being called Yanks.
Maybe you could answer this question, since you probably know more about swords than anyone else here. When were swords that were originally intended to be used in combat, at least by officers, first plated? The ones you so carefully restore were apparently never plated. I don't mean gold or silver plated ones like the generals carried but the ones carried by the lieutenants and captains. Nickel-plated, presumably. As far back as before 1900? I do not think that the regulations state whether officer's swords were to be plated or not.
Curiously, British infantry swords, the 1897 pattern, from WKC are available with either an unplated carbon steel blade, a nickel-plated carbon steel blade or a stainless steel blade (which they recommend). Only a few swords are available in carbon steel these days from WKC. Most are stainless.
|
|