New Official UC Anduril with high carbon blade?!

dhall I sincerely hope UC can take a look at an actual functional design for each of the licensed LOTR swords. Not just using carbon steel (which in itself will achieve no functionality at all), but reliable tang and hilt construction, distal tapering and appropriate profile tapering, proper cross section and edge bevel, etc. All of these can be achieved for the $300-500 range, as we can see from the Hanwei and Del Tin offerings.

With the upcoming LOTR Amazon series, the IP will be hot again. UC can potentially make a fortune out of the license if they manage to actually make functional weapons, even priced higher than their current wallhanger offerings.

Depending on the price, I might buy two and destruction test one of them for everyone. Then we'll know how much they really can handle. I'd do that with my MC Glamdring, but don't feel like wasting $1,100...

You do know that having a carbon steel blade alone doesn't make it functional in any shape or form, right? Correct tang dimensions, sound hilt construction method, distal tapering in the blade, harmonic balance, correct cross section and edge geometry, having competent heat treatment (you can have bohler m390, or L6 or 6150, but not having it treated properly makes them no better than scrap metal), these make a sword functional.

They don't need to be "decided by an organization". There is plenty of empirical evidence if you so choose not to ignore them. If you put 4 15X6 wheels on an 6000lbs SUV with a V8 engine, things are not gonna go well, it's not subject to debate, although you are free to believe whatever you want for sure, guaranteed by the 1st amendment. If you enjoy driving an SUV around with a set of miniature wheels, more power to you!! You have that liberty, just don't be offended when people point out you are not actually driving a real car.

Thanks for the response and you have explained it well with this great analogy. But of course there are two schools of thoughts. Advanced collectors would mostly want only functional swords so can rightfully be critical of a collector of decorative swords....yet, if the decorative sword collector derives just as much pleasure from his collection they are both winners. I'm quite certain that a decorative sword collector eventually evolves into a functional sword collector as they learn more and hang around the sword community more. I am just as satisfied and happy with my two cheap swords as a big time collector is with their their two favorites. But I'm sure I will evolve and want a "real car"...but I won't be offensive to somebody who doesn't. I would encourage them to grow. 

I have no problem with people collecting decorative wallhanger. However, designating these objects as "strictly for display only" and non-functional is crucially important, as they are very hazardous if you are to handle them as actual functional swords--for the most part not because they are made of stainless steel, but having non-functional hilt construction and tang dimensions/heat treatment, on top of having grossly incorrect balance and mass distribution.

Pointing it out isn't offensive. On the contrary, not pointing it out is not only offensive, but also inhumanely irresponsible. If you see someone driving towards a cliff unknowingly, and not informing them is quite immoral. I hope we can agree on that.

Another great post! I see a pattern here. Thanks.

Well, you can try to research online. Some people on forums such as SBG and MyArmoury do take swords apart to reveal individual components. About rat tail tang, there's a big confusion around it.

Rat-tail tang is usually a derogatory term for inadequate tang with dubious construction methods. In the sword world, it usually refers to tangs made of a separate rod welded to the blade. They are not only too thin, but also not heat-treated. Being welded to the blade itself is a great structural weakness. They are also not peened, but screwed or welded onto a very poorly constructed thread. This for a display only, is generally OK, even though not preferable, but without any sort of impact, the gravity of other components alone would unlikely to cause to the sword-like-object to fail. If you use the object in any sword-related activity, this is the first place to fail. The insignificant dimension also makes the rat-tail tang very light, so it wouldn't counter-balance the blade well, along with the pommel. This is a far lesser problem, of course, comparing to the imminent failure when you handle the object as if it was a sword.

In knife-making sword, tangs are usually full-width and exposed as the grip is made of two scales. Some knife makers refer to non-exposed tang as rat-tail tang, which is a misconception, as most swords in history have hidden tangs, and thus non-full-width, this does not make them rat-tail though.

Personally I haven’t handled or owned any Rittersteel swords, but by their reputation they produce mostly non-functional swords. One glance of the weight alone can reveal that the swords are not functional, as they are way overweight for their size. Kult of Athena measured the sword in the picture. Almost 7 lbs for a 34" blade, that is over twice the weight as it should have been. To clarify, 7 lbs for a sword isn't necessarily a problem, but you generally find swords of similar weight with a overall length of 65-80". You see what I mean? 1 lb is a very light weight for even a toddler. However, a 1-lb pencil is a non-functional pencil.

And then you look at their profile and it's completely wrong as the mass distribution on the blade is the complete opposite of the one you would want on a sword. Leaf-bladed swords exist in history, but they are:
1. very short, like the xiphos;
2. the curve of the leaf-shape happen at the point of percussion, instead of being near the tip, and the curvature is very gentle;
3. they have a great amount of distal taper to offset the swell in the profile.

This sword has none of those, so to bring the balance back closer to the hilt, they use some very excessively chunky brass (or very likely brass-accent stainless steel) as fittings. The concept of this sword wouldn't be an issue in a comical universe like Warcraft, as it would be consistent with the proportion in that franchise, where humans have hands of the size of an entire torso. But if you make swords like that in our reality, they just don't work. Now to clarify, I'm not against of them existing, just to say they are for display only.

So you see, even if we are being charitable and assume the tang's dimensions and construction are sound, it still wouldn't make a functional sword. On other swords--especially licensed products with non-stainless steel blades, the soundness of the tang's construction can become a topic of discussion, if other criteria such as the distal taper, cross section, edge geometry, harmonic balance have no issue. As we have seen before, some swords satisfy all the criteria above but eventually failed and a tang too small, too soft or too brittle revealed to be the issue.
 

See there's no problem with enjoying a decorative wallhanger as long as you are not lying to yourself and take it for something it is not. It's not the price that determines the functionality. A $240 Hanwei Tinker longsword can be decidedly functional while a $20000 high-end wallhangers (there are some of those out there for sale) isn't, it's the same way that your old Mustang is a real car while Radio Flyer "Tesla for Kid" isn't one. It may cost twice or three time as your old Mustang, and have all the bells and whistles with rims made of Titanium alloy and onboard tablet computer, but it runs on a motor so it's not a real car.