Comparative review of 5 Albion Xa
Apr 6, 2019 11:11:15 GMT
Post by Bryan Heff on Apr 6, 2019 11:11:15 GMT
Albion makes a lot of swords with blade type Xa..the subtype of the X. Its essentially a longer, slightly slimmer...maybe A bit pointier version of the classic X spatulate tipped cutter. Allow me to quickly list all the swords of this type that Albion makes.
Note - I own the gaddhjalt, Senlac, Templar Chevalier and Arn and have handled the Norman and Knud. When I speak of blades below I am speaking from first hand experience most of the time, in the case where Albion is on record stating that certain models share the same blade, then I speak only of the blade shape and characteristics from a specs perspective, not a handling perspective. The only sword I have not handled is the Oakeshott.
Albion Xa blades:
Gaddhjalt
Knud
Senlac
Norman
Templar
Oakeshott
Chevalier
Arn
The Gaddhjalt and Knud Albion lists as X but they really are Xa, in fact the Gaddhjalt shares the exact same blade as the Arn (minus the crosses etched on the blade) and the Knud shares the exact same blade as the Senlac and Norman, both listed as Xa. Tomato vs Toe-mato. What ever. To take it a step further...the Gaddhjalt and Arn are really just slightly longer versions of the same blade as the Senlac/Norman/Knud - Identical profiles, identical fuller lengths and depths, widths...everything Except the Gaddhjalt and Arn are longer. Maybe...maybe there are other differences but calipers, tape measures and the eye-ball test tell me they are all the same except the length. This is just...information and my observations.
These swords (Gaddhjalt/Arn/Senlac/Norman/Knud) have the blade shape and style that I personally find the most appealing of all blades, which may explain why I own 3 out of the 5 of this list. A slightly convex curve to the edges about 2 thirds of the way down the blade is the key. The soft almost imperceptible curve makes the blade for me. To put it another way, the edges are not straight lines from cross to just before the point is formed but instead straight lines for about 2 thirds of he length and then a slight convex curve the final 1/3 and then the final curves to form the point. I think it looks great. Very subtle profile shape that may go unnoticed unless you have sword OCD like me.
The Templar blade is definitely its own design. It keeps its width longer, its "broadness" longer, it edges remain more parallel and has more of a spatulate tip then the above swords. Its also stiffer, by a small percentage but its definitely there. It appears to me to have a bit less distal taper than the above group as well which would help explain its increased stiffness and increased weight (comparatively speaking). If I compare the Senlac to the Templar we have 2 swords of the same length and width, but the Templar is a bit heavier and a bit more blade forward. It would surely "hit harder" than the Senlac. It also has pretty straight (almost no concave curve) edge lines.
The Chevalier/Oakeshott are completely different IMO from the swords already covered. Both share the same blade and they depart from the above swords in several categories. 1) Hollow ground blades. Their fullers are deep with high outside ridges due to the convex cross section down to the edge. The non-Chevalier/Oakeshott swords are all more elliptical (with central fuller) while these have the convex "ski jump" cross sections on either side of the fuller. 2) These blades are more narrow then the others. While the width measured at the cross are all about the same (approx 2 inches give or take 1/8") the Chevalier/Oakeshott achieve that width only because they have a shoulder swell right near the cross. As you move away from the cross about 1-2 inches that swell disappears and you have essentially a more narrow blade the rest of the way. The edges are also pretty straight (no real concave curve).
That's a decent amount of words describing the specifics of the shape of the blades only....why, because Xa is the greatest of all blade types that's why! I do love this type.
Grips, pommels and cross guards....well they vary all over the place obviously so I won't really go into that here, picture speak a thousand words in that department.
A quick mention on handling. I will really only speak of the 5 I own.
The nimblest is the Chevalier. Its quick. The grip fills your hand nicely due to the overwrap and the metal studs. Its probably best used with a glove.
The Senlac is probably the most middle of the road in terms of speed and recovery. A really nice all around sword that would probably work well from horse or on foot. Grip is a bit narrow but not thin. This sword just feels good when handling.
The Templar is like a more muscled up version of the Senlac. Its a bit more sluggish but still pretty handy. Maybe the perfect grip width for me personally.
The Gaddhjalt and Arn are somewhat different beasts than the other 3. Longer blades, more mass, heavier...more blade forward. I have to believe that from horseback is where these bigger fellas would truly shine. The Gaddhjalt has a longer grip but still not long enough for effective 2 hands on the grip usage, especially with the brazil nut pommel. The Arn a slightly shorter grip, under 4" so any kind of second hand usage would be sort of "hanging on to the pommel" with a finger or two. No, all of the Xa swords mentioned above are dedicated single-handed swords. I can't quite tell which is the better handling sword between the Arn and Gaddhjalt...they are similar in some ways but different in others. It's tricky and I think it comes down to the grips and pommels mostly. Gaddhjalt = longer grip but brazil nut pommel so while you have more space your hand is not "locked in" as much due to the extra grip length. Arn = shorter grip and wheel pommel. The shorter grip pretty much forces the pommel to rest in that fleshy part of your hand opposite the thumb and it really locks in the sword. The Arn grip is also wider and has the extra risers that really make for a solid very comfortable feel. The Gaddhjalt grip is narrow, rather narrow IMO and without gloves feels a bit tricky to get a solid feel.
Quick mention on the Senlac/Arn. I use to think that the Arn was essentially a fancier version of the Senlac with a little longer blade. It IS those things but there is more to the story. They are quite different swords overall. I bring it up to highlight something I know I used to do and still do..which was equate 2 swords based on pictures alone, thinking that because they look very similar they must BE very similar. The great thing about this hobby is how your perceptions can often times be quite off the mark once you have a piece in hand. My belief was that if I already owned the Senlac, getting an Arn would be somewhat redundant since they are both Xa swords with disk pommels and straight cross guards. They are quite different.
So, there it is for what its worth. Sometimes you can't sleep all that great, you get up at 4:30 am and sometimes a person just writes stuff about the intricacies of a specific Oakeshott blade type from a specific sword manufacturer. I guess I could have just watched TV.
I will try and update this with some pictures when I get a chance.
2019-04-07_09-19-27 by warspite15, on Flickr
2019-04-07_09-20-09 by warspite15, on Flickr
2019-04-07_09-20-19 by warspite15, on Flickr
2019-04-07_09-20-49 by warspite15, on Flickr
Note - I own the gaddhjalt, Senlac, Templar Chevalier and Arn and have handled the Norman and Knud. When I speak of blades below I am speaking from first hand experience most of the time, in the case where Albion is on record stating that certain models share the same blade, then I speak only of the blade shape and characteristics from a specs perspective, not a handling perspective. The only sword I have not handled is the Oakeshott.
Albion Xa blades:
Gaddhjalt
Knud
Senlac
Norman
Templar
Oakeshott
Chevalier
Arn
The Gaddhjalt and Knud Albion lists as X but they really are Xa, in fact the Gaddhjalt shares the exact same blade as the Arn (minus the crosses etched on the blade) and the Knud shares the exact same blade as the Senlac and Norman, both listed as Xa. Tomato vs Toe-mato. What ever. To take it a step further...the Gaddhjalt and Arn are really just slightly longer versions of the same blade as the Senlac/Norman/Knud - Identical profiles, identical fuller lengths and depths, widths...everything Except the Gaddhjalt and Arn are longer. Maybe...maybe there are other differences but calipers, tape measures and the eye-ball test tell me they are all the same except the length. This is just...information and my observations.
These swords (Gaddhjalt/Arn/Senlac/Norman/Knud) have the blade shape and style that I personally find the most appealing of all blades, which may explain why I own 3 out of the 5 of this list. A slightly convex curve to the edges about 2 thirds of the way down the blade is the key. The soft almost imperceptible curve makes the blade for me. To put it another way, the edges are not straight lines from cross to just before the point is formed but instead straight lines for about 2 thirds of he length and then a slight convex curve the final 1/3 and then the final curves to form the point. I think it looks great. Very subtle profile shape that may go unnoticed unless you have sword OCD like me.
The Templar blade is definitely its own design. It keeps its width longer, its "broadness" longer, it edges remain more parallel and has more of a spatulate tip then the above swords. Its also stiffer, by a small percentage but its definitely there. It appears to me to have a bit less distal taper than the above group as well which would help explain its increased stiffness and increased weight (comparatively speaking). If I compare the Senlac to the Templar we have 2 swords of the same length and width, but the Templar is a bit heavier and a bit more blade forward. It would surely "hit harder" than the Senlac. It also has pretty straight (almost no concave curve) edge lines.
The Chevalier/Oakeshott are completely different IMO from the swords already covered. Both share the same blade and they depart from the above swords in several categories. 1) Hollow ground blades. Their fullers are deep with high outside ridges due to the convex cross section down to the edge. The non-Chevalier/Oakeshott swords are all more elliptical (with central fuller) while these have the convex "ski jump" cross sections on either side of the fuller. 2) These blades are more narrow then the others. While the width measured at the cross are all about the same (approx 2 inches give or take 1/8") the Chevalier/Oakeshott achieve that width only because they have a shoulder swell right near the cross. As you move away from the cross about 1-2 inches that swell disappears and you have essentially a more narrow blade the rest of the way. The edges are also pretty straight (no real concave curve).
That's a decent amount of words describing the specifics of the shape of the blades only....why, because Xa is the greatest of all blade types that's why! I do love this type.
Grips, pommels and cross guards....well they vary all over the place obviously so I won't really go into that here, picture speak a thousand words in that department.
A quick mention on handling. I will really only speak of the 5 I own.
The nimblest is the Chevalier. Its quick. The grip fills your hand nicely due to the overwrap and the metal studs. Its probably best used with a glove.
The Senlac is probably the most middle of the road in terms of speed and recovery. A really nice all around sword that would probably work well from horse or on foot. Grip is a bit narrow but not thin. This sword just feels good when handling.
The Templar is like a more muscled up version of the Senlac. Its a bit more sluggish but still pretty handy. Maybe the perfect grip width for me personally.
The Gaddhjalt and Arn are somewhat different beasts than the other 3. Longer blades, more mass, heavier...more blade forward. I have to believe that from horseback is where these bigger fellas would truly shine. The Gaddhjalt has a longer grip but still not long enough for effective 2 hands on the grip usage, especially with the brazil nut pommel. The Arn a slightly shorter grip, under 4" so any kind of second hand usage would be sort of "hanging on to the pommel" with a finger or two. No, all of the Xa swords mentioned above are dedicated single-handed swords. I can't quite tell which is the better handling sword between the Arn and Gaddhjalt...they are similar in some ways but different in others. It's tricky and I think it comes down to the grips and pommels mostly. Gaddhjalt = longer grip but brazil nut pommel so while you have more space your hand is not "locked in" as much due to the extra grip length. Arn = shorter grip and wheel pommel. The shorter grip pretty much forces the pommel to rest in that fleshy part of your hand opposite the thumb and it really locks in the sword. The Arn grip is also wider and has the extra risers that really make for a solid very comfortable feel. The Gaddhjalt grip is narrow, rather narrow IMO and without gloves feels a bit tricky to get a solid feel.
Quick mention on the Senlac/Arn. I use to think that the Arn was essentially a fancier version of the Senlac with a little longer blade. It IS those things but there is more to the story. They are quite different swords overall. I bring it up to highlight something I know I used to do and still do..which was equate 2 swords based on pictures alone, thinking that because they look very similar they must BE very similar. The great thing about this hobby is how your perceptions can often times be quite off the mark once you have a piece in hand. My belief was that if I already owned the Senlac, getting an Arn would be somewhat redundant since they are both Xa swords with disk pommels and straight cross guards. They are quite different.
So, there it is for what its worth. Sometimes you can't sleep all that great, you get up at 4:30 am and sometimes a person just writes stuff about the intricacies of a specific Oakeshott blade type from a specific sword manufacturer. I guess I could have just watched TV.
I will try and update this with some pictures when I get a chance.
2019-04-07_09-19-27 by warspite15, on Flickr
2019-04-07_09-20-09 by warspite15, on Flickr
2019-04-07_09-20-19 by warspite15, on Flickr
2019-04-07_09-20-49 by warspite15, on Flickr