|
Post by althesmith on Nov 26, 2022 10:30:21 GMT
I think something that needs to be considered in comparison of weights is the simple question- have both blades been sharpened and to what extent? You might not think that sharpening would remove a lot of metal and you'd be right- for one sharpening. But let us consider that over the life of a weapon that was used on active service that a blade, including back edge, had say 20 inches sharpened. I don't think it unreasonable to consider that over this length a strip of metal about a quarter inch wide by a tenth of an inch thick was removed over time. Doing the math this comes out to nearly half a cubic inch of metal- in my estimation at least 2 oz. of metal or about 60 grams. I'm not saying most replicas aren't overweight- they usually are- but just some food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 26, 2022 11:04:13 GMT
That remembers me of the saying that the Oakeshott type XV never existed, all findings are just XVIII sharpened too often!
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Nov 26, 2022 14:44:33 GMT
Regarding 19C Euros, I would offer just a few anecdotal thoughts to consider in your calculations in light of your thread title. Of the limited number of Euro style swords I have handled, most were of the larger cavalry saber variety. Only a few were pipebacks. Some had been sharpened; some never were.
My understanding is that swords of the era were not generally kept sharp, only being sharpened prior to expected battle. Dunno if that is true.
The pipebacks generally had very little steel in the cutting portion. Even specimens that had never been sharpened were quite slender at the cutting edges. There was not a lot of weight in that specific area to be removed, and only a small amount of sharpening would be needed for a sharp edge.
Regarding fullered blades, I have not encountered a saber with a foible 1/4” thick. Generally, they are about half that. Whether having a spear point or hatchet point, they had either a flat diamond or lenticular cross section, keeping most of the material in the spine.
As always, my biggest gripe with repro sabers (with fullered blades) is that the forte is too thin, the foible is too thick, and the distal taper, if present, is linear.
The only modern saber I have personally encountered that even attempts a three angle taper is the ATrim saber. It’s more of a hanger than a saber, though, so weight distribution is far less critical to good handling. Also, the antique hangers of similar size that I’ve handled (mostly British and Swiss police hangers) only had a two angle taper.
I am a Gus fan, and admire this effort. However, imho even Gus ended up with a blade that was too thin in the forte (and at the middle). The foible is just right, though the transition from middle to foible takes too long.
I’ll try to post photos.
In summary, it’s my opinion that no amount of sharpening (or even grinding of the entire width and length of the blade) would make the average repro approach antiques of the same model in weight distribution or handling.
All that said, all the numerous internet photos of the super popular British 1796 light cav saber seem to show that the breadth of the foible varies considerably. That some are far narrower than others might be due in part to sharpening (?).
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Nov 26, 2022 15:08:06 GMT
ATrim Saber (imho more of a fantasy falchion hanger) (top) and British Metropolitan River Police Hanger (bottom) Profile Similar blade lengths. Antique is wider in profile. They are similar in handling, though the very different grips give each a distinct feel in the hand. The antique has much cleaner fuller terminations. Both have a foible with a flattened diamond cross section. The ATrim has a noticeable secondary bevel, whereas the antique has a so-called appleseed edge. Forte The first two taper angles of the ATrim are apparent. Even at the guard, the antique is thicker. Middle Both have linear distal taper here, but the antique is substantially thicker. Foible Both have appropriately slender foibles. The transition from middle to foible is far more abrupt in the antique. Incidentally, the antique also cost less, though neither was particularly expensive.
|
|