Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 15:08:40 GMT
I find it a bit fascinating how wildly opinions vary on the proper length of Viking sword grips should be when I am helping walk-in customers at our store. The same sword that is "perfect" for one customer one day is "far too short" or "far too long" for another customer in the same week. I notice that people's opinions on what is too long or too short does not necessarily correlate to their hand size either.
If the forges get the same feedback we do, I expect that for every shorter grip Viking sword they make they get feedback saying that its "way too short" and the reverse happens if its a longer one. The people satisfied with it are far less likely to be sending their opinions on it in an email. Perhaps many of them err toward longer in a "one size fits all" approach?
To be clear I am not making a judgement on which one is right or long, I just find it interesting from an anecdotal perspective how wide the perception on preferred or proper Viking sword grip length is.
Yea historically grips were short on Vikings but something pushing around 4" wouldn't be considered too long by anyone historically either. I think you're right and there needs to be a compromise for today's market. Sure in 9th century a 3"-3 1/2" grip was more common but so was a smaller, less large sized man. I think that's what is funny about Viking misconceptions. The fantasy idea are these large hulking brutes that make Arnold Schwarzenegger look like a skinny anaemic nerd in his best Conan pose. Yet for some reason people don't put together the average Dark Age sword grip wasn't built for large to XL sized hands. Now obivously there had to be a few ham fisted gentlemen of the 7-10th century and later. Difference is today there are obviously more on average large handed gentlemen who prefer an extra inch or so on the their reproduction Viking sword grip. Again if history had more evidence of the majority of ham fisted Dark Age sword wielders we would have seen longer grips on historical finds. Nobody is going to use a grip to short if its unwieldy or doesn't fit their hand. That goes for historical men and todays men. I am a ham-fisted gentleman, and a four inch grip is about a quarter inch too long for me with Viking age swords. The object is to incorporate the pommel into the palm of the hand with a handshake grip. I cannot do this if the grip is longer than four inches. As for our ancestors, I believe the conservative estimate is that their hands were marginally smaller on average than their descendants in the present day. In other words, stop making grips longer than four inches. Aim for an average grip length (3.5-3.75 in.) that will accommodate most hands and stop listening to the uninformed drivel coming from customers who don't read. These grips were shorter for a reason and it was not because our ancestors hands were smaller than ours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 15:11:00 GMT
Here is a fellow ham-fisted gentleman and member of the forum discussing this very topic. It is both informative and instructional.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on May 17, 2019 16:08:05 GMT
Yea historically grips were short on Vikings but something pushing around 4" wouldn't be considered too long by anyone historically either. I think you're right and there needs to be a compromise for today's market. Sure in 9th century a 3"-3 1/2" grip was more common but so was a smaller, less large sized man. I think that's what is funny about Viking misconceptions. The fantasy idea are these large hulking brutes that make Arnold Schwarzenegger look like a skinny anaemic nerd in his best Conan pose. Yet for some reason people don't put together the average Dark Age sword grip wasn't built for large to XL sized hands. Now obivously there had to be a few ham fisted gentlemen of the 7-10th century and later. Difference is today there are obviously more on average large handed gentlemen who prefer an extra inch or so on the their reproduction Viking sword grip. Again if history had more evidence of the majority of ham fisted Dark Age sword wielders we would have seen longer grips on historical finds. Nobody is going to use a grip to short if its unwieldy or doesn't fit their hand. That goes for historical men and todays men. I am a ham-fisted gentleman, and a four inch grip is about a quarter inch too long for me with Viking age swords. The object is to incorporate the pommel into the palm of the hand with a handshake grip. I cannot do this if the grip is longer than four inches. As for our ancestors, I believe the conservative estimate is that their hands were marginally smaller on average than their descendants in the present day. In other words, stop making grips longer than four inches. Aim for an average grip length (3.5-3.75 in.) that will accommodate most hands and stop listening to the uninformed drivel coming from customers who don't read. These grips were shorter for a reason and it was not because our ancestors hands were smaller than ours. True, to an extent. There's still the argument that there is no concrete evidence pointing to forms being so rigid at the time. Either way if the modern buyer prefers a slightly longer grip you go with whos spending the money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 16:15:00 GMT
Agreed. Money talks. I feel the handshake grip theory is the most logical. It also works. So there's that.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on May 18, 2019 5:38:26 GMT
Agreed. Money talks. I feel the handshake grip theory is the most logical. It also works. So there's that. True I'm not denying that and it is more probable with the hilt design. One aspect I like to think though is what worked then is obviously different now as even in the middle ages pommel variations and grip shapes were changing to fit use and forms. Today for example a practitioner may prefer a more tapering grip or even something a little longer to adapt to other grip forms. Sure its not exactly historically accurate but neither is the common modern practioner or enthusiast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 16:36:08 GMT
Agreed. Money talks. I feel the handshake grip theory is the most logical. It also works. So there's that. True I'm not denying that and it is more probable with the hilt design. One aspect I like to think though is what worked then is obviously different now as even in the middle ages pommel variations and grip shapes were changing to fit use and forms. Today for example a practitioner may prefer a more tapering grip or even something a little longer to adapt to other grip forms. Sure its not exactly historically accurate but neither is the common modern practioner or enthusiast. That's a really interesting point you make. If we reverse engineer these weapons to the Nth degree and attempt to reconstruct how they were wielded, even with the absence of manuals and written accounts, what assumptions should we make? Should we exclude all knowledge of martial arts, swordplay, fencing manuals, codices, and archaeological evidence AFTER the Viking period ended? I am quite certain that context is paramount here: you wouldn't wield a Viking age sword without a shield, it's just not advised. However, knowing what we know as 21st century people, should we eschew our own context, our own biases? I lean more toward the reconstruction model, but some people want to wield these swords in the backyard in a manner that suits them. That's fine, I say, but it ceases to be historical at that point for me personally. Finally, to circle back to my original comment, I would like to see a forge reconstruct a Viking age sword with a spatulate tip and a grip length that is more historical. Make one for us history nerds, please, and make one that won't break the bank.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on May 18, 2019 17:16:26 GMT
True I'm not denying that and it is more probable with the hilt design. One aspect I like to think though is what worked then is obviously different now as even in the middle ages pommel variations and grip shapes were changing to fit use and forms. Today for example a practitioner may prefer a more tapering grip or even something a little longer to adapt to other grip forms. Sure its not exactly historically accurate but neither is the common modern practioner or enthusiast. That's a really interesting point you make. If we reverse engineer these weapons to the Nth degree and attempt to reconstruct how they were wielded, even with the absence of manuals and written accounts, what assumptions should we make? Should we exclude all knowledge of martial arts, swordplay, fencing manuals, codices, and archaeological evidence AFTER the Viking period ended? I am quite certain that context is paramount here: you wouldn't wield a Viking age sword without a shield, it's just not advised. However, knowing what we know as 21st century people, should we eschew our own context, our own biases? I lean more toward the reconstruction model, but some people want to wield these swords in the backyard in a manner that suits them. That's fine, I say, but it ceases to be historical at that point for me personally. Finally, to circle back to my original comment, I would like to see a forge reconstruct a Viking age sword with a spatulate tip and a grip length that is more historical. Make one for us history nerds, please, and make one that won't break the bank. All good points, speaking of points I think what would perhaps benefit Viking swords in regards to profiles is actual focus on Viking blade typologies. I think the problem with pointy ends is most production manufactures tend to just slap a Viking hilt on their mass produced arming sword types based on Oakeshott's typology ( X, Xa and XII specifially). Now sure many historical Viking swords shared these blade types but the details can be lost in how they are later period types 10th-13th century as opposed to what is a Viking sword of the 7th-10th century. Since pretty much almost every modern reproduction (especially in the sub $300 market) is just a type X with a viking hilt we're kinda stuck with more acute tips than one would see historically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 17:36:06 GMT
Yeah, it certainly is more cost efficient to not waste money and time developing a different blade type. I think there is a market for a decent and affordable Viking age sword, albeit, it is probably rather niche.
|
|
|
Post by joeybones on May 18, 2019 22:42:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Matt KOA on May 20, 2019 15:05:51 GMT
I have a reply back from our contact who forwarded our question to the factory where these are made and was told that they are using 1045 carbon steel. We have updated our data to match.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on May 20, 2019 22:43:32 GMT
So not the same as RK, who use 1075.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 20, 2019 23:14:17 GMT
Thank you for that info, much appreciated. I have had four of the RK7 look-a-likes, tested two of them and one of those rather thoroughly. Great performance, despite of the “lower end” steel.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on May 20, 2019 23:38:32 GMT
Also yes thank you so much for that information, even though it's a brand I'll likely never touch just because it's so far out of my interest zone, I think it's great to have community - merchant interaction.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on May 21, 2019 13:16:06 GMT
It's nice to see evidence that the Chinese production houses are showing increased interest in the European sword market. They fill a market niche which doesn't really exist for Western makers, and that honestly helps drive the sword enthusiast hobby away from the katana focus it has been in for decades.
Assuming that wide adoption of sword bans isn't in our respective futures, market growth in low-to-mid priced European swords should lead to more variety and higher quality in what is being offered.
Dare I hope that someday China will show an interest in the military sword market, and finally create some competition with South Asia? Who knows, but it would certainly benefit the sword enthusiasts for them to do so?
|
|
|
Post by Darth Paunch on May 21, 2019 15:51:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by joeybones on May 21, 2019 18:06:50 GMT
How does the average person really know what type of steel a sword or knife is made of , other then what the seller or manufacturer claims it is ?
One could make a guess based on how it holds and edge or if it bends like a pretzel when you whack something, but again that is a guess.
My son purchased a $35.00 Pakistan Viking type sword identified as stainless steel, but the blade is magnetic . So who really knows ?
|
|
|
Post by joeybones on May 21, 2019 18:15:40 GMT
I have seen these Kawashima swords also listed under a brand called "Battle Tested" I contacted 4 vendors selling the Viking model which they list as a BT-27002 or BT2702 or BT2702-BRK asking as to if the blade comes sharp and if the pommel is peened .
2 responded they do not have the sword at their location , so they don't know . 1 responded he didn't think the sword was very sharp as it was meant as a display piece and also had no idea about the pommel. 1 has yet to respond.
I'm guessing it all the same sword, on ebay , Amazon , Chicago Knife Works, KOA , whomever.
|
|
|
Post by Matt KOA on May 21, 2019 21:45:17 GMT
Markus313 and Jordan Williams,
You are welcome - glad that I could be useful in taking the steps toward getting us that information concerning this line of swords that we are stocking in our warehouse. Before working at KOA I was a collector myself for many years and remember what it is like being on the other side of things and it was bothering me to have an entry left as vague as "medium carbon steel" based on default factory data.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Paunch on May 22, 2019 4:37:40 GMT
How does the average person really know what type of steel a sword or knife is made of , other then what the seller or manufacturer claims it is ? One could make a guess based on how it holds and edge or if it bends like a pretzel when you whack something, but again that is a guess. My son purchased a $35.00 Pakistan Viking type sword identified as stainless steel, but the blade is magnetic . So who really knows ? Yeah,of course, but its kinda risky for the seller/vendor here in EU/Germany. He stands directly for what he is advertising; so if he sells a sword which reads 1060 or 1095 and it turns out to be 1045, theoretically you could own him for fraud. Right away. Sure, how to tell without metallurgical tests, but thats a thing that bothers me when buying such "no name" stuff. If its hardened and tempered properly, who cares? But still...
|
|
|
Post by nddave on May 22, 2019 5:05:15 GMT
How does the average person really know what type of steel a sword or knife is made of , other then what the seller or manufacturer claims it is ? One could make a guess based on how it holds and edge or if it bends like a pretzel when you whack something, but again that is a guess. My son purchased a $35.00 Pakistan Viking type sword identified as stainless steel, but the blade is magnetic . So who really knows ? They don't, that's why most seasoned enthusiasts and collectors tend to buy from reputable manufacturers and vendors who offer both manufacturing details and or research on such info. Overall steel grade isn't as important as how well it is heat treated and forged. For example has 5260 is considered a higher grade of steel than 1045 but a poorly forged or heat treated 5260 blade will be worse than a well forged and heat treated 1045 blade even if 5260 is a higher grade. So in truth it's not really the steel that matters as much as the heat treatment and forging process. That's why the old saying, "You get what you pay for" sticks well with swords. Though that isn't always the case, especially in a niche market like swords. Hence why it's always better to buy from a reputable forge or vendor so you as the buyer are covered just in case the $10,000 meteorite katana you pruchased on Ebay turns out to be a dud.
|
|