|
Post by Kane Shen on Sept 19, 2022 6:44:26 GMT
Two thumbs up to the critique on under-building blades on the production market. For example my Kingston Arms sidesword handles like a dream and has pronounced distal taper and profile taper. Sounds like a perfect sword in theory. However, in function, it is so thin it is pretty terrible at thrusting. As in, floppy flex to floppy fail. Which for a sidesword is pretty disappointing. Especially since it kind of sucks at cutting too. My Windlass Musketeer is much better in the thrust than the KA sidesword, but is still significantly outperformed by a Cold Steel gim with practically no distal or profile taper. And then the CS gim moves as fast as the KA sidesword with probably four times the punch for all of a 3 inch reach deficit. I swear that sword is a work of wizardry sometimes lol. Here's to hoping that LK Chen gets the overall level of thickness right and doesn't overdo the tapering. Given their background in Chinese style swords, I'm particularly interested in seeing if that influences certain design decisions. Underbuilding is NOT the result of distal tapering. Starting too thin is. Look at the document I shared with Andi, and read how much distal taper each swords has. From the gigantic zweihanders, to rapiers, sideswords, off-hand parrying swords, even daggers.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Sept 19, 2022 8:10:59 GMT
I know it's a different wheelhouse from European blades (and especially rapier), but some of the best swords I've ever handled were katana with very little distal taper, as in 25% or less. I swear there's an overall 'balance coefficient' with overall blade length as well as 'posterior-grip counter-weight' in the hilt as moderating variables. And then there's profile taper, cross section geometry, and it turns into a multivariate exercise quickly on all aspects of performance with distal taper humming along with everything else. Would be fun to start building a large scale dataset on this to run some analyses
Nobody is suggesting it's the only factor that matters. The point is, with everything else properly considered and executed, distal taper still NEEDS to be greater than 50%, and often in the 70 or even 80s percentage wise to make a sword handle the way it is supposed to. Katana have on average less distal taper than European, Middle-Eastern and Continental Asian swords, which is why the majority of them need to be extremely short bladed. You cannot rarely find two-handed swords with a grip as long as the katanas with such a short blades elsewhere in the world. When the blade gets shorter, you can somewhat get away with less distal taper, as there is not "less mass" away from the hilt, there is NO mass at that distance. But you sacrifice a ton of reach and tip speed by going short, which is the reason why the further back you go, when katana were used more often as battle swords, the greater degree of distal taper they had. Also when they are expecting serious fighting, not just as EDC onto the local flee market, they tend to pick longer bladed katana more on par with European swords. When blades get longer, the greater need of distal taper there is. Also it is demonstrably false to state distal taper is an European phenomenon. Middle-eastern swords and South-Asian swords have a TON of distal taper. So do Chinese, Korean, Mongolian and Vietnamese swords, etc. That CS jian is quite a outlier. I know it's contract made by Dynasty Forge. I have one of the jian under Dynasty Forge's own brand, indeed not a ton of distal taper--about 20% of so, and 30% profile taper, but it's lightweight at under 2 lbs with a 29" blade as a single-hander. Still, it doesn't move with the finesse of the typical Chinese jian. If you pick up any of the LK Chen jian models (there are a dozen of them), you will know how much better they move and cut, because they have much more distal taper which is close to the originals, as he designs those models based on antiques. I just want to reiterate part of my post here: "I swear there's an overall 'balance coefficient' with overall blade length as well as 'posterior-grip counter-weight' in the hilt as moderating variables. And then there's profile taper, cross section geometry, and it turns into a multivariate exercise quickly on all aspects of performance with distal taper humming along with everything else. Would be fun to start building a large scale dataset on this to run some analyses"
Distal taper happens everywhere for the reasons you mentioned. Distal taper is also not an all or nothing affair and there can be too much of it. I mean, a foible doesn't have to be a super-foible. And yes, more length, more reach, tip control good thus distal taper good. 70-80% seems a bit much for some styles of swords, for others could be better depending on other factors as mentioned. 20% can also be good. Depends on the context. Starting off with incorrect thickness is also a very serious problem.
Referring to the article you provided, that's a really, really tiny sample size. "Four two-handed swords, 14 one handed swords, one dagger and one rapier blade", that's a n=20 with four different categories and the number of rapier (the type of sword pertinent to this thread) only has one example. This is what I meant by the last part of my post where it would be fun/worthwhile to compile a more robust dataset with a much larger sample size so that more meaningful comparisons can be made. The only downside to that is it would be a ton of work to compile. The results would be insanely helpful though, especially for swordsmiths. It would also allow for the type of multivariate comparisons that I pitched.
As a last bit on the derail into the parallels to rapier/sideswords in China at the time, LK Chen only has 3 examples of Ming reproductions that would be relevant to the DF or CS comparison, maybe 4 if you also consider the snow peak. Each has really good proportions. Each is probably a lot of fun to swing around and the stats check out. But, there's always the point that just because a sword is particularly nimble in the hand doesn't necessarily mean it's the best in the cut or thrust. Of course, on the flipside, just because a sword is built like a brick it doesn't mean it will hit like one if the hit can't land in the first place. In the context of the period, of LK Chen's options something like the Gale Wind seems pretty much the perfect tool for the job. But then again, the hand and a half grip on Hanwei's cutting jian is pretty nice to have and I'm a sucker for versatility.
But anyhoo, getting back on the rails of the thread premise, it'd be great to start a database of antiques as well as reproductions to perform statistical comparisons so as to find a 'good modern production rapier'.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,759
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 19, 2022 12:02:20 GMT
The "overall balance coefficient" is a nice idea. That's what I want to express with "good mass distribution". I often meditate over the reasons why some blades handle well without much distal taper. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a good distal taper. But it's also not impossible to get a good sword with less distal taper.
|
|
|
Post by Kane Shen on Sept 19, 2022 18:47:55 GMT
Yes I agree that all of us here understand it's the weight distribution that matters. Distal taper's first important goal is to help achieving the mass distribution that make the blade moves in natural way. In terms of mass distribution, it's the change of the area of the cross section that matters. Profile taper, distal taper, fuller setup, change of the edge bevel all contribute to that. But distal taper command another dimension of the equation, and probably accounts for 40% of the factors, therefore you simply cannot leave it alone and hope to achieve the same results to master the mass distribution. The other very important aspect that distal taper contribute to is the correct flex of the blade. Correct amount and in the correct place. Of course, the overall thickness and the spring temper also determine that. Without the correct distal taper, the blade absolutely moves in a unnatural way, and often the flex is all sorts of wrong to jeopardize the performance. Check out many swords made by Windlass, once it passes certain length, it becomes very prominent. Obviously distal taper is not the end-all-be-all. You can have good amount of distal taper but if the cross section or starting thickness is wrong, the blade is still useless in general. The reason why people emphasize distal taper much more so is that it is often the first thing foregone by many modern makers--especially the budget ones, but sometimes even certain costly scam-artists pretending to be swordsmiths. It's also not easy to detect just by photos, or even videos, and are often neglected by sellers. It's also an misconception that when certain degree of distal taper IS NEEDED, you can somehow swap it out through other means. How often do you hear someone claim a broad blade that has a lot of profile taper like the type XVIIIc doesn't need distal taper? While the originals at museums all have been measured to have that degree of distal taper, and you want to use a flat bar to achieve the same thing without the change of thickness, you will then need to make the base of the blade something like 160mm wide to achieve the same mass distribution--it's gonna be comical! Not to mention that even if you somehow do that, the flex would still be in the wrong place. As to the assertion that some blades move fine without distal taper. Define "fine". Maybe the blade is underbuilt with extremely thin stock, maybe the maker totally unbalance the blade to have a center of gravity super close to the hilt so it feels easy to the hand if you just hold it statically in different guards. The moment you start swing it, try to stop and redirect the blade, you feel how it is off. It may move alright, but comparing to what? To a quarterstaff? More often, they would move just like a stick--which can be fine, if you put it out of context. Or if you compare the way it moves to a baseball bat. Especially when the overall weight is light, or if the point of balance is close, you feel it is easy, which isn't the same thing as feeling right. Compare it to a properly made sword of the correct dimensions and correct mass distributions, you instantly feel how wrong the one with the flat stock is. As for the sample size. It's never big enough. 20 is small, 200 isn't nowhere big enough either. But we've got a good idea. About thrust-centric rapiers, there's another important document that Brother Nathaniel linked: a comparison of late 16th to early 17th century rapiers with modern reproductionsIt has a number of antique rapiers, obviously it doesn't record all the rapiers ever made in human history, but it is a great source of period study. I advocate all surviving examples at museums and private collections to be measured in this format. However, like I mentioned, this LK Chen example is more balanced between cut-and-thrust--not to the degree of Munich townguard swords, but still very capable at cutting mowing down all those bamboo without any problem. It might be able to start a big thinner at 7mm while still have a good amount of distal taper and it handles great and is properly rigid. If we look at the Gotti Collection data, the more cut-centric a sword is, the thinner the starting thickness tends to be.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Sept 19, 2022 21:22:30 GMT
Amazing share! This is the kind of data the sword community needs. If every sword collector and enthusiast measure and organize information like this, instead of some personal 'covfefe's! It shows how grossly modern makers underbuild blades--even the premium makers like Arms & Armor. Starting thickness at 5-6mm simply isn't sufficient for thrust-centric swords! The originals all starts between 8-11mm, and have a great degree of distal taper--usually between 60-80%, whereas lazy modern makers would do merely 30-40% or so. That Windlass rapier is a joke starting at 4.2mm and tapers like 25%. However, I did discover that all the specimens examined in this document have base width (above the ricasso) under 30mm, with the most between 20-25mm. This LK Chen has a base width of 35mm, which makes me think it might technically be categorized as a sidesword or cut-and-thrust Renaissance sword more than a conventional rapier, which could potentially be the reason that the base thickness is at 7mm? Whatever the reason, it would seem that it might end up having 50-60% distal taper, which isn't bad for a cut-and-thrust sword, consider the profile also tapers quite a bit. The LK Chen seems to make up for the thinner 7mm (vs 8mm) blade thickness at the ricasso with a base width of 35mm (vs 20-25mm average). Similar strength yet potentially enhanced cutting ability, assuming similar balance and handling.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Sept 19, 2022 22:02:18 GMT
In that case, I think Lk Chen wins. I mean, nothing else even compares for anywhere near the price. In terms of the specs. Exactly the conclusion I reached and why I'm keeping a close eye on this one. The specs at a first glance look so good and the demonstration was great.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Sept 23, 2022 12:05:11 GMT
Ive gotten my hanwei solingen rapier, and im pretty happy with it. 100cm blade from the cross, 924grams. Strangely light, i know.. The blade stock is 6mm and yes, could be more stiff, but should work just fine in theory. Performed fine on the shipping box at least.
|
|