|
|
Post by Grindhouse on Feb 14, 2021 3:13:01 GMT
I only returned a couple for rework. Most i kept as received because even if they are not 100% perfect i can live with that,
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Feb 14, 2021 3:14:07 GMT
I only returned a couple for rework. Most i kept as received because even if they are not perfect 100% perfect i can live with that, The sword collector in me what to know what ones you have...  |
|
|
|
Post by Grindhouse on Feb 14, 2021 3:26:45 GMT
I only returned a couple for rework. Most i kept as received because even if they are not perfect 100% perfect i can live with that, The sword collector in me what to know what ones you have... P-) Crecy mercenary agincourt poitier (x2) knight (x2) senlac norman gaddhjalt huskarl Caithness Squire Talhoffer Tiberius |
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Feb 14, 2021 16:20:54 GMT
im just basing the edge on the way it looked initially and then the video where he said he beat it up and the difference is quite shocking it is clear to me at least that he really screwed that edge up on the grind I will say again that for swords in this price range, a call to the manufacturer is the first step. I would have arranged to return the sword to them so they could do a failure analysis. I would let their experts tell me if it was the reground edge profile which caused the problem. But then again, if it was my sword I would have made sure of the edge requirements and specifications before doing any work on it, or better yet, let them do the work. I mean, you don't buy a Ferrari and then change the oil yourself in the driveway. |
|
|
|
Post by joesteel on Feb 14, 2021 20:20:52 GMT
We have what the individual in the video has said and admitted to, we have what we know to be Albion's product reputation and customer service reputation, we have our own experience with Albion products, I myself have over 15 of them (someone should ask for Christian Short's opinion), we have the videos showing the sword arriving in pristine condition and being closely examined/reviewed by the individual in question, we have videos of the sword being used in a manner that was not part of its design (as an axe) which to me speaks to destructive testing, and we have videos of the complaint and claims against Albion/the sword...all time stamped. We have him discussing Albion's replacement of another sword for someone else that was found to have issues that in the context of his video, likely indicates he felt his should have been replaced as well. We are all free to come to our on conclusions as I and others have said. As for my dubious and pessimistic view on similar topics I have just one response which you and everyoen else can apply to most of the conclusions I come to after reviewing whatever limited evidence we have available to us in the forum on such topics; Occam's razor.
The world can always count on me to speak my mind, recognizing that the logical end result of every critical thought process is a judgement. That said, it does not mean that with more/new information and the resultant additional thought, I may not come to a different judgment.  Well said, Ok my friend, you got it. But just having some fun with you. "We have no idea what kind of use this guy subjected the sword to off camera"Is this an example of your shaving sharp Occam's Razor also?  This leads me to another question. Could Occam's Razor survive a strike into a deer skull? Hmmm 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by mpsmith47304 on Feb 15, 2021 21:34:32 GMT
This is an issue that is age-old in sword collecting. I started collecting back in the 1980's and this comes up all the time.... the idea that a high-end reproduction medieval sword should be somehow indestructible. If you really want an indestructible sword, buy one of those renfaire specials designed to impressed people by smashing cinderblocks and cutting tatami. But they won't look, or handle like a real medieval sword. That's not a ding, of course. It's just that building a sword to do those kinds of torture tests is not what a medieval smith was looking to make. I think the buyer of a medieval sword had different expectations and requirements for these weapons than we do. They did not expect them to be used without damage. Indeed, on a quite a few surviving swords, we see wavy edges that might suggest places where chips or dings were sharpened out. We know that materials and heat treat were way less consistent than is possible today.
And, as today, you might buy different swords for different purposes. My Albion Sempach is a Type XVII. Quite stiff with a relatively narrow and thick blade (which made it a challenge making a scabbard for it!). This is a weapon of war... with stout edge geometry (yes, it can cut) and a powerful awl-like point. OTOH, the Brescia Spadona has a broader thinner section. The broad secondary bevel adds some meet behind the edge, but cutting was clearly more of a priority for this sword. The section led one antiquarian to remark that it would be too flexible for thrusting, but the sword has a very acute point and is stiff enough for an effective thrust, especially against a lightly armored opponent. I am inclined to think it was designed for use as a civilian weapon... used as a side-arm for travel, or perhaps for judicial duels. In any case, the original shows considerable signs use use and re-sharpening. Someone used it. Those are just two examples of swords from the late middle ages with different designs and probably considerably different use cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADK on Feb 16, 2021 0:27:30 GMT
The way a sword is pulled out of a stump is important. The wood is tightly locked all around the blade like a vice once the cut is finished.
|
|
|
|
Post by mpsmith47304 on Feb 16, 2021 14:33:46 GMT
Just my personal opinion for the OP. I bought 15 albions in the past 9 years. None of them are 100% perfect. They all have something i can criticize : uneven edge sharpening or uneven tip shape or asymetrical guard or asymetrical blade profile or asymetical fuller on both side, etc. Maybe im picky ? Yes i am. Albion makes good quality sword, awsome designs, but DONT EXPECT perfection. When I asked, Albion agreed to rework some of them. Not all of them. Maybe they were bored of me, idk. but they told me that if im not happy with their work, i should just return the sword.... yeah. I mean for the price, I do expect a symmetrical guard, sry. You don't have to be sorry, per se. And it's not even about being picky. If what you want for your money is a near-prefect sword aesthetically, then so be it. But let's be honest... that's NOT what medieval swords were. Even the famous Branch longsword at Leeds, which I think we can agree is a high-status sword, has many imperfections... some of them glaring to modern eyes. Modern people are used to the perfection of machine reproduction. And since hand-made, or even hand-finished, items are more expensive than their machine produced counterparts, many modern consumers expect them to be at least as perfect aesthetically. That's not something medieval people seems to have particularly valued.... at least not at the level modern consumers often demand. Very high quality swords have uneven bevels, non-perfectly-symmetric guards, off-center pommels, etc. Some might ask, "then what separates an Albion from a crappy Indian repro?" That's a fair question. The aesthetic errors you see in cheap, junky repro are DIFFERENT kinds of errors than what you see in something like an Albion. They are wrong in proportions, and geometry. They might also have issues similar to Albion, but the things that make them "bad" in terms of presentation are that the designs do not reflect the correct basic aesthetic. Even if the execution of the swords were perfect, they would look and feel wrong. I love Albions (I've owned about 10 over the years and still own 5), but if I have any criticism of them, it's that they are almost too perfect. My current favorite repro bladed weapon is a c. 1400 Baselard I had Tod make (a bespoke piece, not his Cutler line). It is wonderful. And a little wonky. The guard is slightly off. The blade is not quite symmetrical. But it is magnificent. It looks and feels like it fell through a tiome portal. And let me wrap up this rant/diatribe by reinforcing what I said earlier: Value is in the eye of the purchaser. You have every right to decide if a product is worth to YOU the price asked, because only YOU know what you value for the money. If mechanical perfection is more important to you than fidelity to historical design (This is a generic you.... you obviously value something in their swords). Likewise, there is a guy on here to whom traditional methods are more important than design. I don't get that, but it's his money. |
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Feb 16, 2021 14:45:42 GMT
Modern people are used to the perfection of machine reproduction. And since hand-made, or even hand-finished, items are more expensive than their machine produced counterparts, many modern consumers expect them to be at least as perfect aesthetically. That's not something medieval people seems to have particularly valued.... at least not at the level modern consumers often demand. Very high quality swords have uneven bevels, non-perfectly-symmetric guards, off-center pommels, etc. Some might ask, "then what separates an Albion from a crappy Indian repro?" That's a fair question. The aesthetic errors you see in cheap, junky repro are DIFFERENT kinds of errors than what you see in something like an Albion. They are wrong in proportions, and geometry. They might also have issues similar to Albion, but the things that make them "bad" in terms of presentation are that the designs do not reflect the correct basic aesthetic. Even if the execution of the swords were perfect, they would look and feel wrong. ...... And let me wrap up this rant/diatribe by reinforcing what I said earlier: Value is in the eye of the purchaser. You have every right to decide if a product is worth to YOU the price asked, because only YOU know what you value for the money. If mechanical perfection is more important to you than fidelity to historical design (This is a generic you.... you obviously value something in their swords). Likewise, there is a guy on here to whom traditional methods are more important than design. I don't get that, but it's his money. Brother, I don't know you that well, but there is no daylight between us. I like the way you think! You sound like we have a similar background. Manufacturing? QC? Engineering? Something like that? |
|
|
|
Post by mpsmith47304 on Feb 16, 2021 16:56:24 GMT
Just my personal opinion for the OP. I bought 15 albions in the past 9 years. None of them are 100% perfect. They all have something i can criticize : uneven edge sharpening or uneven tip shape or asymetrical guard or asymetrical blade profile or asymetical fuller on both side, etc. Maybe im picky ? Yes i am. Albion makes good quality sword, awsome designs, but DONT EXPECT perfection. When I asked, Albion agreed to rework some of them. Not all of them. Maybe they were bored of me, idk. but they told me that if im not happy with their work, i should just return the sword.... yeah. I mean for the price, I do expect a symmetrical guard, sry. You don't have to be sorry, per se. And it's not even about being picky. If what you want for your money is a near-prefect sword aesthetically, then so be it. But let's be honest... that's NOT what medieval swords were. Even the famous Branch longsword at Leeds, which I think we can agree is a high-status sword, has many imperfections... some of them glaring to modern eyes. Modern people are used to the perfection of machine reproduction. And since hand-made, or even hand-finished, items are more expensive than their machine produced counterparts, many modern consumers expect them to be at least as perfect aesthetically. That's not something medieval people seems to have particularly valued.... at least not at the level modern consumers often demand. Very high quality swords have uneven bevels, non-perfectly-symmetric guards, off-center pommels, etc. Some might ask, "then what separates an Albion from a crappy Indian repro?" That's a fair question. The aesthetic errors you see in cheap, junky repro are DIFFERENT kinds of errors than what you see in something like an Albion. They are wrong in proportions, and geometry. They might also have issues similar to Albion, but the things that make them "bad" in terms of presentation are that the designs do not reflect the correct basic aesthetic. Even if the execution of the swords were perfect, they would look and feel wrong. I love Albions (I've owned about 10 over the years and still own 5), but if I have any criticism of them, it's that they are almost too perfect. My current favorite repro bladed weapon is a c. 1400 Baselard I had Tod make (a bespoke piece, not his Cutler line). It is wonderful. And a little wonky. The guard is slightly off. The blade is not quite symmetrical. But it is magnificent. It looks and feels like it fell through a tiome portal. And let me wrap up this rant/diatribe by reinforcing what I said earlier: Value is in the eye of the purchaser. You have every right to decide if a product is worth to YOU the price asked, because only YOU know what you value for the money. If mechanical perfection is more important to you than fidelity to historical design (This is a generic you.... you obviously value something in their swords). Likewise, there is a guy on here to whom traditional methods are more important than design. I don't get that, but it's his money. Systems Engineering. I mainly work in R&D, but while getting my Masters I took a class in manufacturing processes and did a project on it. Of course, for Systems Engineers in manufacturing, the constant goal is to reduce the variation of the product. That is a primary driver of modern manufacturing and it generally improves quality. But that is an idea that has only emerged since the industrial revolution, I think we'd agree. I wrote a paper on the development of interchangable parts in the US and Great Britain during the 19th century. Right up through the 1860's much of the British gun "trade" (largely based in Birmingham) was making guns largely by hand.... hand-finished locks, in particular. Which led the U.S. during the American Civil War to classify the British Trade produced 1853 Enfields as second class arms, since they could not be repaired in the field using common parts. They had to be repaired by a gunsmith hand-fitting parts. So... second class despite the fact that individually the arms were of very high quality. Anyways, I am rambling.... but the shift in expectations of consumers between a bespoke and mass-produced industrial base is a source of fascination for me. |
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 9,545
|
Post by pgandy on Feb 16, 2021 17:31:31 GMT
Yeah. To get off of a sword subject briefly. I don’t know if so at this time but up through WWII and a little later European firearms had their serial numbers stamped in various places on the same piece so that it could be reassembled as the factory intended because of variations. While at the same time the US pieces had the serial on the nomenclature plate only. We could disassemble our pieces throw them in a heap and upon reassembling function. It still amazes me concerning the head space. Sometimes when changing what appeared to be the simplest part on an Enfield lead to problems.
Back to swords; I see a big contradiction with enthusiasts. On one hand they want perfection yet they demand authenticity. The originals were not perfect. I have some old issue knives that no doubt if bought from Deepeeka some would be putting the bad mouth on Deepeeka, in this case the fullers are not true. The quality did vary according to the smith’s ability, price, purpose, how quickly needed, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by mpsmith47304 on Feb 16, 2021 20:26:53 GMT
Yeah. To get off of a sword subject briefly. I don’t know if so at this time but up through WWII and a little later European firearms had their serial numbers stamped in various places on the same piece so that it could be reassembled as the factory intended because of variations. While at the same time the US pieces had the serial on the nomenclature plate only. We could disassemble our pieces throw them in a heap and upon reassembling function. It still amazes me concerning the head space. Sometimes when changing what appeared to be the simplest part on an Enfield lead to problems. Back to swords; I see a big contradiction with enthusiasts. On one hand they want perfection yet they demand authenticity. The originals were not perfect. I have some old issue knives that no doubt if bought from Deepeeka some would be putting the bad mouth on Deepeeka, in this case the fullers are not true. The quality did vary according to the smith’s ability, price, purpose, how quickly needed, etc. Great observations! One thing to note from actual medieval pieces is that there was, of course, a variety in quality, not just of fit and finish, but also steel quality, heat treat quality, etc. Just like today. But the nature of the lesser quality is different than today. They were crappy in a period kind of way, if you get my meaning. In reading about the English civil war, there are frequent complaints to quartermasters that the sword purchased and issued to troops were made of poor quality steel with no temper. They would bend at the drop of a hat.... though there are also lots of stories of troops trying to cut trees and brush with their swords! But I think if nay of us bought one of those pieces of junk, we'd be rightly pissed! (unless we knew what we were getting). |
|
|
|
Post by perignum on Feb 17, 2021 8:43:27 GMT
Yeah. To get off of a sword subject briefly. I don’t know if so at this time but up through WWII and a little later European firearms had their serial numbers stamped in various places on the same piece so that it could be reassembled as the factory intended because of variations. While at the same time the US pieces had the serial on the nomenclature plate only. We could disassemble our pieces throw them in a heap and upon reassembling function. It still amazes me concerning the head space. Sometimes when changing what appeared to be the simplest part on an Enfield lead to problems. Back to swords; I see a big contradiction with enthusiasts. On one hand they want perfection yet they demand authenticity. The originals were not perfect. I have some old issue knives that no doubt if bought from Deepeeka some would be putting the bad mouth on Deepeeka, in this case the fullers are not true. The quality did vary according to the smith’s ability, price, purpose, how quickly needed, etc. Great observations! One thing to note from actual medieval pieces is that there was, of course, a variety in quality, not just of fit and finish, but also steel quality, heat treat quality, etc. Just like today. But the nature of the lesser quality is different than today. They were crappy in a period kind of way, if you get my meaning. In reading about the English civil war, there are frequent complaints to quartermasters that the sword purchased and issued to troops were made of poor quality steel with no temper. They would bend at the drop of a hat.... though there are also lots of stories of troops trying to cut trees and brush with their swords! But I think if nay of us bought one of those pieces of junk, we'd be rightly pissed! (unless we knew what we were getting). This is true. I've said it before, but a lot of the well-preserved swords held in museums and collections were probably top-quality bespoke items made for a nobleman. They were of good steel with nice fits and finishes. But very few show signs of edge damage. Most were never used in combat. A few of Oakeshott's examples show honing of the blade, which suggests sharpening after use or perhaps for fashion. But a lot of genuine 'battlefield' weapons were of very questionable quality. Variations in blade hardness even within the same blade were common. Edges were wavy. Uneven profiles. There were hammer marks. Catastrophic hilt failure was common. Take it that swords were tools meant for a specific purpose. A sword might be used in earnest once or twice in its lifetime, if at all. Unless it was a status symbol, most historical swords were nowhere near the quality of even today's budget manufacturers. Why would anyone pay huge sums to a smith to make a side-arm that you may swing in battle a couple of times if you're unlucky to be caught up in the middle scrum? And which might be damaged beyond repair in its first melee? And the idea of mass-producing swords for the common soldier wasn't really a thing until late 1500s and into the modern period. Edit: After the Romans of course. Which is interesting because if you read Tacitus he describes Roman soldiers having to step out of the line to straighten their sword blades during battle. Basically, swords, whether historical or modern, were not and are not indestructible, flawless artifacts. They will have their rough edges and they did, and do, break all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Feb 17, 2021 13:52:41 GMT
So why pay so much for a sword with "flaws" when it's supposed to be the "best"? Good question. With Albion, you get a sword that is as close to historically accurate as humanly possible. It will have the correct shape, length, thickness, etc as the original. It will also have the same handling characteristics as far as balance is concerned. The steel will be properly heat treated according to modern industrial processes. And you get US based customer service from people who care about the product.
A cheaper sword may not have all of those attributes. It may have correct shape, but not balance or may not have the right fittings on it. You might not get decent post-sale support. Or they cut corners on the heat treating.
You get what you pay for. And I'll say again, and double what others have also said; you can't have a perfect zero defect sword and still expect historical accuracy. What you will get from Albion is a period correct sword made from excellent modern steel- in other words- it's a sword that would have been fit only for a king to own back in olden times.
|
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Feb 17, 2021 14:00:41 GMT
... A sword might be used in earnest once or twice in its lifetime, if at all. ... Indeed. I remember a story I read a long time ago ( I forget the name of the gentleman it was about) in which a Samurai Lord had to kill a vassal for disrespect. He had been so long since he drew his sword that it was stuck in the saya so tight that he had to get help from his attendants to pull it out. If I remember the story correctly, he forgave the insult and gained much respect from everyone around for his ability to maintain order without violence. I suspect that olden days were much like modern times in which most sword activity was done with practice swords, leaving the real ones for the few occasions where it might be necessary to actually kill with it- and those times don't come often, even in war. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Feb 17, 2021 14:23:49 GMT
... A sword might be used in earnest once or twice in its lifetime, if at all. ... I suspect that olden days were much like modern times in which most sword activity was done with practice swords, leaving the real ones for the few occasions where it might be necessary to actually kill with it- and those times don't come often, even in war. Ah... kind of like the differentiation between "practice ammo" and "defense ammo"... |
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Feb 17, 2021 18:53:59 GMT
A sword might be used in earnest once or twice in its lifetime, if at all. Kind of depends on whose sword. Medieval merchant? Town guard? Viking who goes on seasonal raids? Roman soldier? Huge variation. Point well made though. Think of what a tiny percentage of guns manufactured today will ever be used in gunfights. |
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Feb 17, 2021 19:41:15 GMT
Does anyone have friendly contact with Albion or care enough to try in order to ask them whether or not they expect the Viceroy ( let's assume with factory edge) should be able to cut into a "small, thin deer skull"(by the youtubers definition) without having the whole edge bashed in? I think this would be a step in the right direction.... That's what I've been saying. But it's not my sword and not my responsibility. The owner of the damaged sword needs to be the one to talk to Albion. |
|
|
|
Post by perignum on Feb 17, 2021 19:51:31 GMT
Actually, reading Albion's own spiel about the Viceroy, it seems it's not an exact replica of an existing sword. It's their take on a long, slender single hander. I'm not sure whether this has any bearing on edge geometry or integrity but it's worth a mention.
From watching the videos, I'll say I doubt Albion foresaw anyone taking over a thousand quid's worth of steel and using it to chop at tree stumps. I'm pretty sure no sword was ever designed for that. Similarly, cleaving through bone is a challenge unless you've a blade designed as a heavy cutter like Brother Nathaniel's tulwar or if somebody had an English 1796 heavy cavalry sword. The viceroy seems to be a large cut and thrust sword along the lines of the Schloss Erbach.
Finally, deer skulls, even 'thin, rotting' ones are designed to take magnitudes of impact and stress beyond what you'd expect. If it was a stag's skull it spent most of its existence building up resistance to heavy blows. If you could choose a skull particularly ill-suited to whack with your second-mortgage-sword it would be a deer's. Or maybe a mountain goat's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Feb 17, 2021 20:08:04 GMT
Actually, reading Albion's own spiel about the Viceroy, it seems it's not an exact replica of an existing sword. It's their take on a long, slender single hander. I'm not sure whether this has any bearing on edge geometry or integrity but it's worth a mention. From watching the videos, I'll say I doubt Albion foresaw anyone taking over a thousand quid's worth of steel and using it to chop at tree stumps. I'm pretty sure no sword was ever designed for that. Similarly, cleaving through bone is a challenge unless you've a blade designed as a heavy cutter like Brother Nathaniel's tulwar or if somebody had an English 1796 heavy cavalry sword. The viceroy seems to be a large cut and thrust sword along the lines of the Schloss Erbach. Finally, deer skulls, even 'thin, rotting' ones are designed to take magnitudes of impact and stress beyond what you'd expect. If it was a stag's skull it spent most of its existence building up resistance to heavy blows. If you could choose a skull particularly ill-suited to whack with your second-mortgage-sword it would be a deer's. Or maybe a mountain goat's. In medieval times... as today, they used axes as the task specific tool of choice for chopping wood. I do not understand the use of a sword to do the work of an axe or the belief that a sword should be as durable as an axe in such a task. It is ignorance about the weapon system or an obsession with "Forged in Fire" episodes?? If one wants to really recreate a situation to test a sword with they should use VERY freshly slaughtered animals...living bone has totally different properties than long dead bone and I doubt anyone would disagree that swords were designed/manufactured to be used on living things to turn them into dead things... |
|
Things have changed!