|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 30, 2020 22:43:37 GMT
is a great chopper and like the originals could split a bronze helm or a wood and leather shield. OTOH, it's much heavier than originals (which weighed from under 1lb to about 1.5lb), and carries much of that weight closer to the tip than originals (which were typically about twice as thick at the base of the blade, despite the lower weight). It's probably a much better chopper than the originals.
|
|
|
Post by clydehollis on Sept 30, 2020 23:25:17 GMT
is a great chopper and like the originals could split a bronze helm or a wood and leather shield. OTOH, it's much heavier than originals (which weighed from under 1lb to about 1.5lb), and carries much of that weight closer to the tip than originals (which were typically about twice as thick at the base of the blade, despite the lower weight). It's probably a much better chopper than the originals. Tim, I did not see where Bruce posted the weight. The average of the ones I weighed was 2lbs 1oz. So that with the size of the tang is fairly light. Now I am no expert but the originals, many I would say was iron so they would have to been thicker. When carbon was added that probably brought weight down by thinning the blade. Also since it was based on a farming tool to last longer I would think they were also thicker. Just my input. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 1, 2020 21:06:39 GMT
I did not see where Bruce posted the weight. The average of the ones I weighed was 2lbs 1oz. Bruce didn't give the weight; you did on kingdomofarms.com/collections/celtic-and-roman-weapons/products/kopis-falcattaNow I am no expert but the originals, many I would say was iron so they would have to been thicker. [...] Also since it was based on a farming tool to last longer I would think they were also thicker. If it originally had an agricultural origin, it is very far removed from those roots: all weapon, no tool. As for thickness of originals, some measurements are given in www.academia.edu/11986135/Iberian_falcata_in_the_British_Museum (which also gives weights). 8 or 9mm is common at the base of the blade. Unfortunately, she doesn't give measurements of distal taper. From elsewhere, about 2mm or so is fairly common after the end of the fuller(s). Some nice pictures from Fernando Quesada Sanz, El armamento ibérico, are given at myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2729 some of which show (roughly) the amount of distal taper. You can also see the weight-saving cross-sections of the blades. Lang's weights don't include grip scales, since they're missing on the British Museum examples. But they don't add much to the total weight (the Met Museum's www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/32256 has modern replacement scales, and is only just over 1lb). This repro is longer than typical antiques, so should be a little heavier due to that, but it's heavy enough, and with different enough weight distribution so that originals shouldn't be judged by its handling. The originals did have a reputation as very effective weapons, so their 1-1.5lb weights and thin cutting sections of the blades were quite sufficient for their task.
|
|
|
Post by clydehollis on Oct 2, 2020 17:37:54 GMT
I did not see where Bruce posted the weight. The average of the ones I weighed was 2lbs 1oz. Bruce didn't give the weight; you did on kingdomofarms.com/collections/celtic-and-roman-weapons/products/kopis-falcattaNow I am no expert but the originals, many I would say was iron so they would have to been thicker. [...] Also since it was based on a farming tool to last longer I would think they were also thicker. If it originally had an agricultural origin, it is very far removed from those roots: all weapon, no tool. As for thickness of originals, some measurements are given in www.academia.edu/11986135/Iberian_falcata_in_the_British_Museum (which also gives weights). 8 or 9mm is common at the base of the blade. Unfortunately, she doesn't give measurements of distal taper. From elsewhere, about 2mm or so is fairly common after the end of the fuller(s). Some nice pictures from Fernando Quesada Sanz, El armamento ibérico, are given at myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2729 some of which show (roughly) the amount of distal taper. You can also see the weight-saving cross-sections of the blades. Lang's weights don't include grip scales, since they're missing on the British Museum examples. But they don't add much to the total weight (the Met Museum's www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/32256 has modern replacement scales, and is only just over 1lb). This repro is longer than typical antiques, so should be a little heavier due to that, but it's heavy enough, and with different enough weight distribution so that originals shouldn't be judged by its handling. The originals did have a reputation as very effective weapons, so their 1-1.5lb weights and thin cutting sections of the blades were quite sufficient for their task. Timo Nieminen, Thank you for your post. Even though I know we have an excellent Falcata, I have noted your information. We will include a slight distal taper to ensure we are around 1.5 lbs. I have sent the information to our foundry. If you or anyonce is around the Houston, TX area. We will be at the Texas Ren Faire Oct 10th and Oct 11th a Saturday and Sunday at the Texas Renaissance Faire. Booth 130 McCoy's Armoury. Thank you,
|
|