|
|
Post by Kane Shen on Aug 22, 2021 21:21:03 GMT
I am speaking specifically about medieval repros and by mid range let's say $350 to $600 usd. The market has come a long way in recent decades. I think most of us would agree that companies have really upped their game in delivering what we consider desirable aspects of historal originals in terms of construction, handling, proportions and so on, while leaving undesirable qualities that can potentially be found on some originals. Although things like oversized openings, harsh handling, glaring asymmetries and yes, secondary bevels can sometimes be found on originals i think most of us would agree they're not desirable on a modern repro and should be avoided as much as the price point allows. Which brings me to the problem I have. I think that with how much the market has progressed in recent years it's disappointing to see coarse, brutal secondary bevels past the budget range price point. While some companies may do this as a result of export law in their respective countries, it should still be seen, in my opinion, as not befitting of anything exceeding the budget price range. The market has progressed so much over the last two decades so I would like to see the community be less tolerant of this and more aggressively call it out to make companies still doing it up their game. I agree that modern "secondary bevels" are never done properly and should be inappropriate for ANY price range. Look at Hanwei or Ronin's entry level European swords and you would come to the conclusion that a single continuous bevel easily achievable at any price range. Some of the originals have a hexagonal and some original Chinese swords have an octagonal cross section, in that case, it's not exactly a "secondary bevel", but you can call it that, usually are 5-10mm broad on even double-edged swords. Modern reproductions with a shallow secondary bevels are just lazy and they never bother with grinding the bevels properly. For some makers it's their principle not to make swords sharp thus terminate the bevels into a rounded thick section, I guess that's OK if you want to acceptable it as it is (Del Tin), and the secondary bevels are a half-assed attempt to make the blades sharp by resellers (Kult of Athena, Museum Replica). DSA swords have very lame secondary bevels on some of their swords as they don't make blades for their swords and while some contract forges from China make sharp blades with single primary bevels, other contractors from places like India have no experience making blades sharp, this is the reason of the inconsistency in the edge bevels of their swords. I would say Kingston Arms swords ($300-350 so not exactly mid-range) are something of a mystery. Some say they are manufactured by Hanwei, and the fit & finish seem to support that theory, but they never make the blades with one primary bevel, but putting on a very rough secondary one, which is a shame as the few models designed by Angus Trim are excellent offerings otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by snap on Aug 22, 2021 21:50:19 GMT
I am speaking specifically about medieval repros and by mid range let's say $350 to $600 usd. The market has come a long way in recent decades. I think most of us would agree that companies have really upped their game in delivering what we consider desirable aspects of historal originals in terms of construction, handling, proportions and so on, while leaving undesirable qualities that can potentially be found on some originals. Although things like oversized openings, harsh handling, glaring asymmetries and yes, secondary bevels can sometimes be found on originals i think most of us would agree they're not desirable on a modern repro and should be avoided as much as the price point allows. Which brings me to the problem I have. I think that with how much the market has progressed in recent years it's disappointing to see coarse, brutal secondary bevels past the budget range price point. While some companies may do this as a result of export law in their respective countries, it should still be seen, in my opinion, as not befitting of anything exceeding the budget price range. The market has progressed so much over the last two decades so I would like to see the community be less tolerant of this and more aggressively call it out to make companies still doing it up their game. I agree that modern "secondary bevels" are never done properly and should be inappropriate for ANY price range. Look at Hanwei or Ronin's entry level European swords and you would come to the conclusion that a single continuous bevel easily achievable at any price range. Some of the originals have a hexagonal and some original Chinese swords have an octagonal cross section, in that case, it's not exactly a "secondary bevel", but you can call it that, usually are 5-10mm broad on even double-edged swords. Modern reproductions with a shallow secondary bevels are just lazy and they never bother with grinding the bevels properly. For some makers it's their principle not to make swords sharp thus terminate the bevels into a rounded thick section, I guess that's OK if you want to acceptable it as it is (Del Tin), and the secondary bevels are a half-assed attempt to make the blades sharp by resellers (Kult of Athena, Museum Replica). DSA swords have very lame secondary bevels on some of their swords as they don't make blades for their swords and while some contract forges from China make sharp blades with single primary bevels, other contractors from places like India have no experience making blades sharp, this is the reason of the inconsistency in the edge bevels of their swords. I would say Kingston Arms swords ($300-350 so not exactly mid-range) are something of a mystery. Some say they are manufactured by Hanwei, and the fit & finish seem to support that theory, but they never make the blades with one primary bevel, but putting on a very rough secondary one, which is a shame as the few models designed by Angus Trim are excellent offerings otherwise. DSA are weird and inconsistent in that regard. I got one piece from them with really lovely single bevels that are quite sharp even without any signs of sharpening after production |
|
|
|
Post by Kane Shen on Aug 22, 2021 21:56:54 GMT
I agree that modern "secondary bevels" are never done properly and should be inappropriate for ANY price range. Look at Hanwei or Ronin's entry level European swords and you would come to the conclusion that a single continuous bevel easily achievable at any price range. Some of the originals have a hexagonal and some original Chinese swords have an octagonal cross section, in that case, it's not exactly a "secondary bevel", but you can call it that, usually are 5-10mm broad on even double-edged swords. Modern reproductions with a shallow secondary bevels are just lazy and they never bother with grinding the bevels properly. For some makers it's their principle not to make swords sharp thus terminate the bevels into a rounded thick section, I guess that's OK if you want to acceptable it as it is (Del Tin), and the secondary bevels are a half-assed attempt to make the blades sharp by resellers (Kult of Athena, Museum Replica). DSA swords have very lame secondary bevels on some of their swords as they don't make blades for their swords and while some contract forges from China make sharp blades with single primary bevels, other contractors from places like India have no experience making blades sharp, this is the reason of the inconsistency in the edge bevels of their swords. I would say Kingston Arms swords ($300-350 so not exactly mid-range) are something of a mystery. Some say they are manufactured by Hanwei, and the fit & finish seem to support that theory, but they never make the blades with one primary bevel, but putting on a very rough secondary one, which is a shame as the few models designed by Angus Trim are excellent offerings otherwise. DSA are weird and inconsistent in that regard. I got one piece from them with really lovely single bevels that are quite sharp even without any signs of sharpening after production Yeah some models are made with primary bevels only with good sharpening while others have very thick blunt edges and secondary bevels (very incompetent ones at that too) ground on when customers order them "sharp". Has to be down to the contractor forges they use for specific models. If the contractor happens to be out of India and they wouldn't supply sharp swords, DSA would then have to grind the secondary bevels themselves after they assemble the parts. |
|
|
|
Post by snap on Aug 22, 2021 22:09:41 GMT
Snap, just curious, but what model DSA had the nice single bevel? It was titled the "Mid 13th century sword", it has a type C pommel. I got it new in 2015 or 2016 and I believe they may be selling a revised version since then |
|
