Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 1:32:24 GMT
This does seem to be a really nice sword...the hilt furnishings look very nice, and while short the PoB is not too far out in my opinion. Another thing that makes me wish I had a money tree in the back yard... c.c; +1 for this. As for the talk on the effigy...perhaps I just lack experience in observing, but I really find it hard to argue much of anything as to exactly what a sword based on the one in the effigy should look like, save that it has a wheel pommel, a riser and (perhaps) a rain guard.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Oct 10, 2008 2:22:24 GMT
As for the talk on the effigy...perhaps I just lack experience in observing, but I really find it hard to argue much of anything as to exactly what a sword based on the one in the effigy should look like, save that it has a wheel pommel, a riser and (perhaps) a rain guard. Exactly our points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 5:04:24 GMT
As for the talk on the effigy...perhaps I just lack experience in observing, but I really find it hard to argue much of anything as to exactly what a sword based on the one in the effigy should look like, save that it has a wheel pommel, a riser and (perhaps) a rain guard. Yes it is true that it is pretty hard to get an exact sword from those drawing. However, look at how the blade tapers. Now a type XII tapers, but not that much. That is what type XV-XVII blades do. Now some artistic lisence is allowable in something like this so a type XII isn't quite out of the question. However, looking at the era, and without the actual sword in hand, it isn't the most likely of choices. If the sword actually is in a collection or museum somewhere and it is a type XII, that is one thing, but infuring that from the picture is quite another. Based on the period and picture a XV-XVII is more likely. Since Eyal is insistant that the 100 year war sword is this one, lets also see what else is wrong...barring blade type...lets for this instant give him the type XII...although like I said, a XVa would have been the better choice. 1) the rain guard is wrong. 2) there is no riser 3) the size is wrong...assuming a type XII blade, it should be a XIIa. The grip should be much longer. 4) and finally, the blade geometry is WRONG. Talking historical accuracy, that is not an accurate blade geometry for a type XII. So historically accuracy wise, 4/5 is fine. reproducing a typical 100 year war era sword? Not really. Repoducing the sword in that effigy...once again, pretty much missed the mark. But like I said, me and rammy care about this stuff...but very few others on here do. Which is fine. And honestly, like I said, Eyal putting in the effort to make more historical swords I doubt would do much for his buisness. However, after this discussion, I'm really under the impression that Eyal doesn't really know what a historical sword is even remotely like if he thinks this sword is what a type XII blade is suppose to be like...much less what the sword in the effigy is. If he understands all the things that are wrong, he certainly didn't convey that knoweldge very well. Once again, not like that it matters much.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Oct 10, 2008 15:07:21 GMT
I've been reading and holding my tongue, but I probably care about historic matters at least as much as anyone here. So I dug out a couple of Oakeshott books and did some research. Take a look at the description and photos of Oakeshott's Type XVI swords. In particular, look at XVI.4 which is the little 21" blade riding sword that Clyde based his "Knightly Riding Sword" on. ( myArmoury feature article on Oakeshott Type XVI swords)This DSA sword is of a very similar type, having a relatively short blade, a single hand grip, a fuller for about 60-70% of the blade length, and a tapering point of flattened diamond cross section. The only thing I'd say is that the fuller should probably end 3-4 inches sooner if strict adherence to type was a desire. That would make the sword a lot more tip heavy, which would be bad. And it would have to be addressed by making the tip taper in profile much quicker to make up for the shorter fuller. Though that would be a good thing, as it would give it more of a classic Type XVI profile and make it more clearly identifiable. So to me, this is clearly a Type XVI. It does not bear much resemblance to the sword in the stated effigy. It's too broad at the guard, the blade is way too short, and it's a single-hand sword instead of a hand-&-a-half. But that doesn't make it wrong for the period. If I were shown the bare blade and asked to type/date it, I'd say it was reasonable for a Type XVI with a manufacture date of 1300-1350. And I'd suggest that it's something that would be in common service until maybe as late as the early 1400s. So, since the Hundred Years War lasted 1337-1453, this seems like a decent name for the sword. For example, the blade looks like a decent representation of a sword type that would have been seen at the Battle of Crecy in 1346, one of the "biggies" of the Hundred Years War. As for the guard, it seems pretty obvious that the manufacturer was trying to emulate a rainguard, but didn't know it was supposed to be made of leather or decorated sheet metal, and definitely not integral with the guard. The execution of this guard gives it a definite fantasy look. But I guess that's what "artistic license" is all about? The only other thing that seems majorly wrong is the weight. But that's standard for DSA. They are built for abuse instead of graceful use. That's the point of the line. If you don't want those attributes, buy some other manufacturer's sword. I have to say, these are only my views based on the information presented by DSA and in the review. So they might change significantly if I had the sword in hand or if someone provided a persuasive argument. Lastly, nice review Dan. All my observations are based on your very thorough coverage of the sword. Can't tell nearly as much from the DSA site. But then that's the whole point of reviews huh? Good job, buddy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 17:22:37 GMT
Well Mike, the problem is that the examples of XVI blades that are of this length don't look like the knightly riding sword. Yes this blade looks like that knightly sword...but that one is a XVI tapering for a 21 inch blade. If you look at the other two XVI examples, it looks nothing like this blade. This looks more like the XII in profile then the XVI of this length. At my armoury, look at the the type XII.7 sword. Other then the tip being wrong, that is this blade. That is my take on this as a XVI anyways. Although a XII reground to be more like a XVI wouldn't be unheard of for use during the 100 year war mind you. Still that isn't something new blades should be doing unless your recreating a actual piece. If you have more to share though, I'm all ears . And I think we all agree that this sword looks nothing like the sword in the effigy. And yes I was ignoring the weight because that is on par with DSA swords and their uber tough and abuse product line. And once again very good review Dan...before that gets lost in this historical jargon hehe .
|
|
|
Post by septofclansinclair on Oct 10, 2008 18:46:33 GMT
Yeah, you guys and your historical accuracy squabbles... ;D You know, I don't know if anybody read my article in the Digest a while back on historical accuracy (does ANYone read my articles? Who knows!), but in it I said this, and I thought that it was a good statement at the time: Defining historical accuracy must be done with an eye towards the intent of the smith. A smith who strives to create a sword that resembles in every way its historical counterpart, down to the method of construction, has a much different goal than a smith who tries (as accurately as possible) to make a sword using modern efforts that looks and handles much like the original. And both of them have a different goal than the fantasy sword maker, whose works may only vaguely resemble historical swords. Adjectives such as “bad” or “good” should not, I think, be applied in this area, or if they are it should be done so rarely. Historical accuracy is a continuum, a sliding scale, and all modern replicas should be fairly judged along that scale – knowing that being farther from the “totally historically accurate” side does not necessarily mean the sword is bad. After all, no replica no matter how well constructed is as accurate as the real thing lying in a museum somewhere. Everything less than an artifact is just an attempt to reach that ideal.The full article is here partyway down: www.sword-buyers-guide.com/Sword_Buyers_Digest-june-2008.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 20:06:20 GMT
Yeah I did read that article Dan. I just don't agree with it. I also don't like giving swords a sliding scale fit and finish based on price. Also remember that Eyal is the one who brought up that this sword was suppose to replicate conrad's sword...which it really isn't very close to. Now that said, a sword having a low HA score doesn't mean it's a bad sword...and having a high HA score doesn't make it a good sword either. I mean it's fairly plainly obvious that many here just don't care about it...and that is perfectly fine. But it is important to a few of here. And remember I quible that Albions are too perfect to be perfectly historically accurate. Trust me, I'm fairly brutal when it comes to reviews and points. And I tend to deal in absolutes. The only thing that gets to go on a sliding scale is the value for the money...because that is the whole point of that one .
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Oct 10, 2008 20:08:11 GMT
Forgive what may come across as a rambling muse from the crusty old fart curmudgeon. First, I understand it is the fashion here to have these discussions attached to the reviews but I see that as just plain rude at times. Anyway, I post to the thread again to just point out that the Darksword page ad copy does not mention the same effigy as reference (honest, I did before) www.darksword-armory.com/1344.htmlOne such example is the sword of Johannes von Eglofstein, dating from 1411, from which our model was reproducedNow, I don't don't want anyone to get the wrong impression here but I'm going to post some images from Oakeshott's Archaeology Of Weapons. I'm doing so for a couple of reasons. First to show the effigy/statue of Johannes von Eglofstein and also to show that what you guys are saying has to be a rainguard, just might be a quillion block that you are misreading. First the full figural form from page 322 (those with the book can play along at home) and then two more images from pages 321 and 323 respectively. I can't explain why the ad copy would read differently than the claim here. I can't explain why some might be insistent that a quillion block, even of a more escutcheon (sp) form might be read as a rain guard. I do wholeheartedly agree that the sword form as presented for sale would more properly be classified outside the Xii family and that trying to figure out what exactly is in the scabbard, a pretty common game. I do endorse the philosophy that in many cases of these 14th and 15th century firgures, we would expect to see the later sword forms of transitional plate era. Indeed the swords associated with those two centuries and the 100 years war (do not get me started regarding some of what I read about it at SBG). So anyway. Is it a rain guard or quillion block? I guess it depends a lot on what form was actually the model. It seems to more follow the form of the illustrations I have included here and what the ad copy on the Darksword site lists as the inspiration for the piece. These would be pages 321, 322 and 323 of AOW. I cannot exp[lain (but have asked) why the disparity in explanation between what was presented in this thread and what the website reads. Just another dollops worth Hotspur; forgive the uneven illumination and clarity of these images. I didn't spend a whole lot of time on them
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Oct 10, 2008 20:59:38 GMT
The sword does strongly resemble that first picture, Hotspur. Except the pommel, but it's at least similar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2008 4:10:06 GMT
Hey hotspur...an interesting idea of that being a quillion block instead of a rain guard. Leaving that alone...it should be noted that sword is also a type a variant. So it should be a either a XIIa or XVIa no matter which picture or artistic liscense your going off from. There is no getting around that part. Although like kid said, that one does match the DSA sword MUCH better then Conrad's sword. Thanks for the pictures BTW. Although I think I will stop with the history lesson in this thread with that .
|
|
|
Post by enkidu on Oct 11, 2008 5:12:26 GMT
Please dont stop your '' history lessons '' they are quite valuable for all of us, but do try to be less on the offence, gather your strenght for defense. That way, not only knowledge will come out of your interventions, but wisdom also, that will automaticaly make your knowledge even more valuable than it already is.
|
|