|
Post by tancred on Jan 25, 2024 9:54:53 GMT
A few thoughts, perhaps loosely related to the topic. Ronin Katana also has their version of the Alexandria. Was there similar outcry from Mr. Johnsson about that? While I do own both the Albion and Ronin versions, I do not own nor have I ever seen the Balaur version in person. Just going by the pics from Alientude's review, the Balaur does seem to have slimmed down the blade a bit, both at the guard and near the tip. For me, the wider the better.
I do think there is a bit of a prestige factor in some of this. Mr. Johnsson does seem to have a great reputation in the sword community, and I would guess/assume this allows him access to swords and their respective stats that most of us and even some sword manufacturers do not. As an example, I saw a video on YouTube last year where one of the Myth Busters hosts was given access to several swords from the MET (coincidentally, the Alexandria was one of them). He was able to handle these swords, and I must say I cringed when he held the Alexandria and started to bend the blade. I don't care who the guy was, I wouldn't have allowed that. Anyway, does anyone think that the MET would have allowed any of us here the same access it did to the Myth Busters host? I don't think so.
I am assuming here, and therefore could be very wrong. However, I think Mr. Johnsson's prestige in the sword world could very easily afford him access to swords and stats that even some sword manufacturers might not. If those manufacturers are interested in making their swords more historically accurate, how should they go about replicating historical stats? Not saying plagiarism is the right way to go, but if they come close to an existing model that is already out there, is that wrong or too close for comfort?
I don't recall when, but I do remember a post here perhaps sometime last year where a poster was claiming that Deepeeka's 15th Century Hand-and-a-Half Sword was plagiarizing Albion's Squire Line The Bastard Sword. When I read that, I thought it was silly. Months later, I decided I wanted to scratch the itch I had for a Type XVa. I remembered the Deepeeka, and had been impressed with a few of their newer designs. As I was on a budget, I decided to go for it.
Although the pictures on KoA have since changed, the pictures of the 15th C. Sword that were there at the time clearly showed a Type XVa with scent stopper pommel. When the sword arrived, the XVa blade was all well and good, but the scent stopper pommel from the pictures instead had a wheel pommel. Wheel pommels are my favorite, so I wasn't disappointed completely. I was a bit bummed about the lack of a scent stopper pommel, though, because it seemed to flow with the XVa blade type a bit better.
Did the prestige of Albion and the online cries of plagiarism from a couple of posters on SBG convince Deepeeka to change their sword? Swap out the scent stopper pommel with a type of wheel pommel so as to not be too close for comfort?
Just some thoughts. This is an interesting thread. Thanks for all who have contributed.
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Jan 25, 2024 12:28:43 GMT
That (Mythbuster guy) Adam Savage's video from the Met museum is incredible. But I don't think he's the one doing the bending, I think the custodian shows the real wild bend with Alexandria sword?
That Balaur Arms Alexandria might be discontinued due to similar conerns as Balaur Arms Kriegsmesser isn't really founded on anything - Peter Johnsson explicitly talked that anyone could copy those swords, but he would consider copying particular Albion Alexandria to minute details as also problematic, because it isn't a Museum Line sword but a "Next Generation", and it deviates from original it mostly follows in several aspects. And Balaur Arms Alexandria isn't even close, it copies altogether another existing sword of that group, and even deviates from that original. So it doesn't have similar length, width, thickness, it is completely different sword. So it's not even remotely similar situation as with Balaur Arms Kriegsmesser / Albion Knecht.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jan 25, 2024 14:57:41 GMT
tancred, you are correct regarding the Deepeeka Type XVa situation. It was literally the same as here with the BA Messer. I mean where's Windlass' or Hanwei's rants for LK Chen making Munich and Tizona replicas too?
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,120
|
Post by LeMal on Jan 25, 2024 15:46:31 GMT
tancred , you are correct regarding the Deepeeka Type XVa situation. It was literally the same as here with the BA Messer. I mean where's Windlass' or Hanwei's rants for LK Chen making Munich and Tizona replicas too? Or DC suing Marvel for characters like Hyperion or Sentry clearly ripping off Superman (or the whole Squadron Supreme the Justice League). Or Marvel suing DC for ripping off the Sun-Mariner with Aquaman? (I'll leave it at that, we all know that's just the tip of the iceberg in comics, the long ago Superman/Shazam thing notwithstanding. ;) ) I'm not talking about suing, which is it's own issue, and of course big boys with deep pockets will often enough pick on little guys legally with "cease and desists"--because they can. But we've established in this thread the question is of ethics of plagiarism--which then becomes to what extent is the first work creatively original? Is there TECHNICALLY some creative originality in, for example, splitting the differences between historical kriegsmessers to create something like the Knecht? Yeah, if you want to nitpick, it's more than zero. But I don't even think IF both parties had deep pockets it wouldn't be laughed out of court against a good lawyer. It's as far as I'm concerned, practically impossible to BOTH "design" an artistically original sword true to nitpicking on "authentic" form and function in all but the most trivial way. And then to play the whole plagiarism sympathy card is a contradiction; either stop strutting about and inflating the importance of tight historical parameters--or stop strutting about how original you are. In my book, the couple smidgens of differences don't impress me. (Then again, in insular little subcultures, the old joke about academia so sadly often applies: "The knives are big because the stakes are small." :P )
|
|
Nox
Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by Nox on Jan 25, 2024 18:00:54 GMT
So yea I was right, I did read through a bulk (but not all) of the Facebook post replies and again (guess I can't directly say it anymore) but those "people" I talked about were the route of it all, was sadly surpised to see how pretentious and arrogant Peter Johnsson was in the thread...wow just wow. I guess he thinks he does "own" historical designs he's copies... Truth is he's scared, scared of the evolution of the market. Scared of how these budget manufacturers are giving him and "his designs" a run for their money at 2/3rds the price. And rightfully so. Of course he doesn't and couldn't go after legal action he'd be laughed out of court and potentially bring to light his own plagiarism which stems from the works and studies of Ewart Oakeshott and the numerous historical examples he's taken measurements of. No this was him using his clout in the industry and elitist fanbase to slander KoA into discontinuing their Balaur Messer. And it apparently worked because this new owner would rather eat a loss and kiss-$emprini than potentially face backlash or reputational risk. Pretty sad if you ask me and honestly from reading Peter's attacks and baseless claims of plagiarism, he's definitely scared of how good these budget manufacturers are getting on a minimal budget. Well said. I guess his designs are fantasy then? How do you claim ownership over historical designs? And the balaur messer had a different cross guard and actually had a scabbard. Not to mention the knecht being discontinued.
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Jan 26, 2024 6:17:21 GMT
I guess his designs are fantasy then? How do you claim ownership over historical designs? Yes, they are "fantasy", where they aren't direct copies of existing swords. Actually, all modern swords are fantasies, even the ones that claim to be museum reproductions, jut to a lesser degree. Let's look at the analogy in graphical design, something Peter Johnsson is actually trained as, and I think that's how he also sees his designs. Let's say you are commissioned to draw Saint George slaying a dragon. You look at medieval artwork as a reference, but mainly you use an actual existing armour, let's say Maximillian's KHM A62. And his messer and scabbard. You pose him similar to medieval examples, but you use your knowledge as an artist to actually draw it in that exact pose. Is that drawing your copyrighted work, or can anyone use it, since you used medieval elements, and not your own? Can someone just use your drawing, but change the helmet for an armet, change sword and scabbard, and claim it as his work? Could you defend it by saying you can't know every artwork featuring Saint George, so you can't prove the artist of the copy saw the original - although the original is a famous book cover? Must now every artist look at other drawings and deliberately avoid them before starting work?
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jan 26, 2024 8:20:33 GMT
I guess his designs are fantasy then? How do you claim ownership over historical designs? Yes, they are "fantasy", where they aren't direct copies of existing swords. Actually, all modern swords are fantasies, even the ones that claim to be museum reproductions, jut to a lesser degree. Let's look at the analogy in graphical design, something Peter Johnsson is actually trained as, and I think that's how he also sees his designs. Let's say you are commissioned to draw Saint George slaying a dragon. You look at medieval artwork as a reference, but mainly you use an actual existing armour, let's say Maximillian's KHM A62. And his messer and scabbard. You pose him similar to medieval examples, but you use your knowledge as an artist to actually draw it in that exact pose. Is that drawing your copyrighted work, or can anyone use it, since you used medieval elements, and not your own? Can someone just use your drawing, but change the helmet for an armet, change sword and scabbard, and claim it as his work? Could you defend it by saying you can't know every artwork featuring Saint George, so you can't prove the artist of the copy saw the original - although the original is a famous book cover? Must now every artist look at other drawings and deliberately avoid them before starting work? Yea it doesn't work that way. An artists rendition is not the same as a replica. Had that artist made a 1:1 copy of the orginal "mural" of St George then it is not fantasy or able to he copyright. Same with Peter or any smith's work that is set to replicate a historical original. Either or your argument further cements the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Because if Peter's swords aren't 1:1 replicas of historical originals as he and both Albion tout, then it's irrelevant regardless because each smith's rendition of said historical or historical based sword is skewed because each one has minor to major differences in shape, geometry and general design. Same can be said between the two Kreigmesser being debated here and claimed plagiarizing by Peter. Again if that's Peter's supposed defense and makes his sword "unique" then so is Balaur Arms model based on uniqueness and specifications. He can't have it both ways but I'm sure he would like that because it benefits him both artistically and monetarily...
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 26, 2024 8:43:00 GMT
My question is where do you draw the line, if it's off by one millimeter and feels totally different, is it still a "copyright infringement"? If it's off by 3 but feels the same? Or does it depend on how it looks without mesurements having any impact?
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,120
|
Post by LeMal on Jan 26, 2024 8:46:42 GMT
Yes, they are "fantasy", where they aren't direct copies of existing swords. Actually, all modern swords are fantasies, even the ones that claim to be museum reproductions, jut to a lesser degree. Let's look at the analogy in graphical design, something Peter Johnsson is actually trained as, and I think that's how he also sees his designs. Let's say you are commissioned to draw Saint George slaying a dragon. You look at medieval artwork as a reference, but mainly you use an actual existing armour, let's say Maximillian's KHM A62. And his messer and scabbard. You pose him similar to medieval examples, but you use your knowledge as an artist to actually draw it in that exact pose. Is that drawing your copyrighted work, or can anyone use it, since you used medieval elements, and not your own? Can someone just use your drawing, but change the helmet for an armet, change sword and scabbard, and claim it as his work? Could you defend it by saying you can't know every artwork featuring Saint George, so you can't prove the artist of the copy saw the original - although the original is a famous book cover? Must now every artist look at other drawings and deliberately avoid them before starting work? Yea it doesn't work that way. An artists rendition is not the same as a replica. Had that artist made a 1:1 copy of the orginal "mural" of St George then it is not fantasy or able to he copyright. Same with Peter or any smith's work that is set to replicate a historical original. Either or your argument further cements the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Because if Peter's swords aren't 1:1 replicas of historical originals as he and both Albion tout, then it's irrelevant regardless because each smith's rendition of said historical or historical based sword is skewed because each one has minor to major differences in shape, geometry and general design. Same can be said between the two Kreigmesser being debated here and claimed plagiarizing by Peter. Again if that's Peter's supposed defense and makes his sword "unique" then so is Balaur Arms model based on uniqueness and specifications. He can't have it both ways but I'm sure he would like that because it benefits him both artistically and monetarily... Indeed. And the most succinct way to put it is this: Johnson studies and catalogues a bunch of public domain works, then makes minuscule-- minuscule--changes to create a design that doesn;t 100% copy any particular one. (As far as we know! :P It'd be hilarious if a find in revealed in the storage bin of some museum that is exactly the same.) And preens that "I'm so original!" Then, when someone else makes a near-copy of his design, but with minuscule differences, gets furious and says minuscule differences don't count. I think that's the textbook example of "hypocrisy."
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,120
|
Post by LeMal on Jan 26, 2024 8:51:49 GMT
And let's not even get into the larger scale/longer term hypocrisy of "You're BAD. Your swords aren't real swords--they're inferior because you don't use the exact proportions for proper dynamics/handling as me."
"Ok, I'll improve mine by using the same proportions as you."
"You're BAD. For copying me."
|
|
|
Post by alientude on Jan 26, 2024 9:00:39 GMT
Yes, they are "fantasy", where they aren't direct copies of existing swords. Actually, all modern swords are fantasies, even the ones that claim to be museum reproductions, jut to a lesser degree. Let's look at the analogy in graphical design, something Peter Johnsson is actually trained as, and I think that's how he also sees his designs. Let's say you are commissioned to draw Saint George slaying a dragon. You look at medieval artwork as a reference, but mainly you use an actual existing armour, let's say Maximillian's KHM A62. And his messer and scabbard. You pose him similar to medieval examples, but you use your knowledge as an artist to actually draw it in that exact pose. Is that drawing your copyrighted work, or can anyone use it, since you used medieval elements, and not your own? Can someone just use your drawing, but change the helmet for an armet, change sword and scabbard, and claim it as his work? Could you defend it by saying you can't know every artwork featuring Saint George, so you can't prove the artist of the copy saw the original - although the original is a famous book cover? Must now every artist look at other drawings and deliberately avoid them before starting work? Yea it doesn't work that way. An artists rendition is not the same as a replica. Had that artist made a 1:1 copy of the orginal "mural" of St George then it is not fantasy or able to he copyright. Same with Peter or any smith's work that is set to replicate a historical original. Either or your argument further cements the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Because if Peter's swords aren't 1:1 replicas of historical originals as he and both Albion tout, then it's irrelevant regardless because each smith's rendition of said historical or historical based sword is skewed because each one has minor to major differences in shape, geometry and general design. Same can be said between the two Kreigmesser being debated here and claimed plagiarizing by Peter. Again if that's Peter's supposed defense and makes his sword "unique" then so is Balaur Arms model based on uniqueness and specifications. He can't have it both ways but I'm sure he would like that because it benefits him both artistically and monetarily...
There's been a whole lot of speculation, wild claims, and axe grinding in this thread. I notice that I am the only person who has provided any factual evidence. So with that in mind:
1. Citation needed on the bolded portion of the quote above (bolding added by me).
2. Since according to you earlier in the thread, Peter Johnsson "thinks he does "own" historical designs he's copies..." clearly in reference to the Knecht, please provide the source of the Knecht's design. I would like to see the historical design that he specifically copied.
3. Another quote from you: "...the majority of Albion Swords are direct replicas of historical originals." Once again, either citation needed, or I would like you to back up this claim and provide the exact swords the "majority" of Albion's Swords are direct replicas of. Not based on, mind you, but direct replicas. Keep in mind that the Next Generation line currently has 70 models in it.
4. Another quote: "All Albion Swords are based on the Oakeshott Typology. Blades, Pommels and Guards. All categorized via historical examples." Please show where in the Oakeshott typology the blades, pommels, and guards can be found for the following Albion models: Allectus Aquilifer Augustus Auxilia Decurio Doge (specifically the pommel)
Kern (specifically the pommel) Knud (specifically the crossguard) Pedite Soldat Tiberius Vassal (specifically the blade)
Am I nitpicking a bit here? Yes, absolutely. But that's because there's some very strong language being thrown around in an effort to denigrate a well-regarded brand and individual, and said strong language includes claims that I do not believe can be satisfactorily backed up. I am willing to be proven wrong. So please, provide your factual evidence.
|
|
Nox
Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by Nox on Jan 26, 2024 13:53:41 GMT
I recall peter johnson making facebook post calling one of the deepeeka swords theft of his designs as well, don’t recall which of the swords it was. Perhaps albion has never stated that their swords are purely historical, but that is what the market believes as they are touted as the most accurate historical replicas on the market of production swords.
|
|
|
Post by fethiye on Jan 26, 2024 14:07:30 GMT
Thanks for information
|
|
|
Post by cptnvimes on Jan 26, 2024 15:14:34 GMT
How did this thread degenerate into a: "Let's bash on Peter Johnsson" session? For what's it worth I would say that he's one of the biggest contributors to the modern sword replica market and without his work, things might look different today. I have nothing but the greatset respect for his work and design skills. So I would say, if the man wants to complain in an online forum about some company doing a design very similar to something he designed, then let him vent. It's not like he's suing some manufacturer out of existence. I have been working as an industrial designer for over 20 years and I can tell you the devil is in the details. There's nothing out there that hasn't been done before so all you do is subtle variations on some already existing object, but those subtle variations are exactly what make a design good or mediocre and there's not exact way to quantify it, sometimes it's the volume distribution, or how a feature line transitions into a volume but the unique differences are there and they do matter. If you squint your eyes a sword is a sword (of symilar typology) but if you start analyzing the subtle differences I find myself liking the Peter Johnsson designs a lot more than other mass market manufacturer of a similar type. If anybody thinks that other manufacturers don't look at Albion swords and nudge their developmnet team to "take a good look" at what Albion did with this or that model they are sorely mistaken (that's how any industry works). I bought the Cold Steel Kriegsmesser exactly because it looks like the Albion Knecht which I would rather have but isn't available anymore (which I guess makes me guilty of supporting plagiarism... so call me a hypocrite if you will) but in the end I am fully acknowledging Peter Johnsson's right to complain if he feels like some other manufacturer ripped off his designs. (not that any complaining will stop future plagiarism at any time)
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,120
|
Post by LeMal on Jan 26, 2024 16:05:58 GMT
How did this thread degenerate into a: "Let's bash on Peter Johnsson" session? For what's it worth I would say that he's one of the biggest contributors to the modern sword replica market and without his work, things might look different today. I have nothing but the greatset respect for his work and design skills. So I would say, if the man wants to complain in an online forum about some company doing a design very similar to something he designed, then let him vent. It's not like he's suing some manufacturer out of existence. I have been working as an industrial designer for over 20 years and I can tell you the devil is in the details. There's nothing out there that hasn't been done before so all you do is subtle variations on some already existing object, but those subtle variations are exactly what make a design good or mediocre and there's not exact way to quantify it, sometimes it's the volume distribution, or how a feature line transitions into a volume but the unique differences are there and they do matter. If you squint your eyes a sword is a sword (of symilar typology) but if you start analyzing the subtle differences I find myself liking the Peter Johnsson designs a lot more than other mass market manufacturer of a similar type. If anybody thinks that other manufacturers don't look at Albion swords and nudge their developmnet team to "take a good look" at what Albion did with this or that model they are sorely mistaken (that's how any industry works). I bought the Cold Steel Kriegsmesser exactly because it looks like the Albion Knecht which I would rather have but isn't available anymore (which I guess makes me guilty of supporting plagiarism... so call me a hypocrite if you will) but in the end I am fully acknowledging Peter Johnsson's right to complain if he feels like some other manufacturer ripped off his designs. (not that any complaining will stop future plagiarism at any time) "...those subtle variations are exactly what make a design good or mediocre..." Then, as I said above, are you asserting that what the alleged ripoffs that the other makers copied are the functionally, dynamically relevant ones that Johnsson himself had simply catalogued and copied?? OR... That his minuscule contributions that make them not a copy of any particular extant historical sword, that are merely aesthetic, make these artistically original--but the minuscule aesthetic changes someone then makes to his design don't make them "original" enough? Can't have it both ways, dude. Unless your argument is really "...he's one of the biggest contributors to the modern sword replica market..." and out of "respect my authoritah," for his time and efforts, even his miniscule-ly "original" swork should be sacrosanct. In which case, sure, he has every right of free speech to try to cry plagiarism. And those of us who see groundless whining on his part--and social issues of paying homage to an old big name "in the club" being the crux of arguments defending him--have every right of free speech to reply such.
|
|
|
Post by cptnvimes on Jan 26, 2024 16:30:17 GMT
"That his minuscule contributions that make them not a copy of any particular extant historical sword, that are merely aesthetic, make these artistically original--but the minuscule aesthetic changes someone then makes to his design don't make them "original" enough?" That exactly that. Plus a healthy dose of: ""...he's one of the biggest contributors to the modern sword replica market..." and out of "respect my authoritah," for his time and efforts, even his miniscule-ly "original" swork should be sacrosanct." this.
|
|
|
Post by glendon on Jan 26, 2024 16:43:56 GMT
Then, as I said above, are you asserting that what the alleged ripoffs that the other makers copied are the functionally, dynamically relevant ones that Johnsson himself had simply catalogued and copied?? OR... That his minuscule contributions that make them not a copy of any particular extant historical sword, that are merely aesthetic, make these artistically original--but the minuscule aesthetic changes someone then makes to his design don't make them "original" enough? Can't have it both ways, dude. Unless your argument is really "...he's one of the biggest contributors to the modern sword replica market..." and out of "respect my authoritah," for his time and efforts, even his miniscule-ly "original" swork should be sacrosanct. In which case, sure, he has every right of free speech to try to cry plagiarism. And those of us who see groundless whining on his part--and social issues of paying homage to an old big name "in the club" being the crux of arguments defending him--have every right of free speech to reply such. I admire your continued brave stand, in the face of stark literalism and pedantry.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Jan 26, 2024 16:55:19 GMT
So china, India and Pakistan are copying things made in America? Nothing new to see here... move along.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jan 26, 2024 17:04:37 GMT
Yea it doesn't work that way. An artists rendition is not the same as a replica. Had that artist made a 1:1 copy of the orginal "mural" of St George then it is not fantasy or able to he copyright. Same with Peter or any smith's work that is set to replicate a historical original. Either or your argument further cements the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Because if Peter's swords aren't 1:1 replicas of historical originals as he and both Albion tout, then it's irrelevant regardless because each smith's rendition of said historical or historical based sword is skewed because each one has minor to major differences in shape, geometry and general design. Same can be said between the two Kreigmesser being debated here and claimed plagiarizing by Peter. Again if that's Peter's supposed defense and makes his sword "unique" then so is Balaur Arms model based on uniqueness and specifications. He can't have it both ways but I'm sure he would like that because it benefits him both artistically and monetarily...
There's been a whole lot of speculation, wild claims, and axe grinding in this thread. I notice that I am the only person who has provided any factual evidence. So with that in mind:
1. Citation needed on the bolded portion of the quote above (bolding added by me).
2. Since according to you earlier in the thread, Peter Johnsson "thinks he does "own" historical designs he's copies..." clearly in reference to the Knecht, please provide the source of the Knecht's design. I would like to see the historical design that he specifically copied.
3. Another quote from you: "...the majority of Albion Swords are direct replicas of historical originals." Once again, either citation needed, or I would like you to back up this claim and provide the exact swords the "majority" of Albion's Swords are direct replicas of. Not based on, mind you, but direct replicas. Keep in mind that the Next Generation line currently has 70 models in it.
4. Another quote: "All Albion Swords are based on the Oakeshott Typology. Blades, Pommels and Guards. All categorized via historical examples." Please show where in the Oakeshott typology the blades, pommels, and guards can be found for the following Albion models: Allectus Aquilifer Augustus Auxilia Decurio Doge (specifically the pommel)
Kern (specifically the pommel) Knud (specifically the crossguard) Pedite Soldat Tiberius Vassal (specifically the blade)
Am I nitpicking a bit here? Yes, absolutely. But that's because there's some very strong language being thrown around in an effort to denigrate a well-regarded brand and individual, and said strong language includes claims that I do not believe can be satisfactorily backed up. I am willing to be proven wrong. So please, provide your factual evidence.
Ok then so let's dive a little further down that rabbit hole, and I'll even use your own opinions and reviews to prove it. So why for example is the Windlass Type XIV inferior to the Albion Sovereign in your opinion? Well from your video's statement the Windlass is inferior based on Stats, handling and fit and finish. Both swords are replicas of the Type XIV represented in Records or the Medieval Sword XIV.8 on page 124. So let's get the minor details out of the way because yes both versions have minor details not specific to the original. For 1 the Windlass is lacking a peen block that the Albion and original share, 2 the Albion has two fullers rather than the single fuller the Windlass and original share. 3 neither the Albion or Windlass share the pommel insert the original has. 4 The Windlass has an more ahistorical prominent diamond cross-section as opposed to the Albions more historical lenticular cross-section. And those are just visual details not even counting the actual statistical differences. But again which would you rather own? The Windlass or the Albion. Based on your own preferences, you would prefer the Albion due to handling, fit, finish and general asthetics right? So if Windlass updates their Type XIV and gets it on par with the Albion is Windlass now plagiarizing Peter Johnsson's design? Can he call foul of Windlass because it's too similar to his 1:1 statistical reproduction because they remedied everything they got wrong with their initial sword and now due to such upgrades matches the Albion? Point is I can take every sword even the non Oakeshott Typology Medieval Swords in Albion's catalog and match them to historical originals, even their Roman era swords. And why? Because that has been their sales pitch since they first collaborated with Peter nearly 20 years ago! "History in your Hand" right? So again if your going to chastise the lower tier manufacturers for having subpar examples of reproduction swords, you can't in the same breath chastise those manufacturers to support Peter Johnsson's claims of plagiarism when those manufacturers up their game and make better swords! Again I feel Peter is intimidated and a little scared that as these high volume manufacturers like Hanwei, Windlass and Balaur, get better at their finished product he and Albion are going to lose a tremendous amount of market share because again, why buy and Albion Knetch when you can get an almost as good or potentially as good Kreigmesser from say Balaur Arms for 2/3rds the price?
|
|
|
Post by alientude on Jan 26, 2024 17:27:35 GMT
There's been a whole lot of speculation, wild claims, and axe grinding in this thread. I notice that I am the only person who has provided any factual evidence. So with that in mind:
1. Citation needed on the bolded portion of the quote above (bolding added by me).
2. Since according to you earlier in the thread, Peter Johnsson "thinks he does "own" historical designs he's copies..." clearly in reference to the Knecht, please provide the source of the Knecht's design. I would like to see the historical design that he specifically copied.
3. Another quote from you: "...the majority of Albion Swords are direct replicas of historical originals." Once again, either citation needed, or I would like you to back up this claim and provide the exact swords the "majority" of Albion's Swords are direct replicas of. Not based on, mind you, but direct replicas. Keep in mind that the Next Generation line currently has 70 models in it.
4. Another quote: "All Albion Swords are based on the Oakeshott Typology. Blades, Pommels and Guards. All categorized via historical examples." Please show where in the Oakeshott typology the blades, pommels, and guards can be found for the following Albion models: Allectus Aquilifer Augustus Auxilia Decurio Doge (specifically the pommel)
Kern (specifically the pommel) Knud (specifically the crossguard) Pedite Soldat Tiberius Vassal (specifically the blade)
Am I nitpicking a bit here? Yes, absolutely. But that's because there's some very strong language being thrown around in an effort to denigrate a well-regarded brand and individual, and said strong language includes claims that I do not believe can be satisfactorily backed up. I am willing to be proven wrong. So please, provide your factual evidence.
Ok then so let's dive a little further down that rabbit hole, and I'll even use your own opinions and reviews to prove it. So why for example is the Windlass Type XIV inferior to the Albion Sovereign in your opinion? Well from your video's statement the Windlass is inferior based on Stats, handling and fit and finish. Both swords are replicas of the Type XIV represented in Records or the Medieval Sword XIV.8 on page 124. So let's get the minor details out of the way because yes both versions have minor details not specific to the original. For 1 the Windlass is lacking a peen block that the Albion and original share, 2 the Albion has two fullers rather than the single fuller the Windlass and original share. 3 neither the Albion or Windlass share the pommel insert the original has. 4 The Windlass has an more ahistorical prominent diamond cross-section as opposed to the Albions more historical lenticular cross-section. And those are just visual details not even counting the actual statistical differences. But again which would you rather own? The Windlass or the Albion. Based on your own preferences, you would prefer the Albion due to handling, fit, finish and general asthetics right? So if Windlass updates their Type XIV and gets it on par with the Albion is Windlass now plagiarizing Peter Johnsson's design? Can he call foul of Windlass because it's too similar to his 1:1 statistical reproduction because they remedied everything they got wrong with their initial sword and now due to such upgrades matches the Albion? Point is I can take every sword even the non Oakeshott Typology Medieval Swords in Albion's catalog and match them to historical originals, even their Roman era swords. And why? Because that has been their sales pitch since they first collaborated with Peter nearly 20 years ago! "History in your Hand" right? So again if your going to chastise the lower tier manufacturers for having subpar examples of reproduction swords, you can't in the same breath chastise those manufacturers to support Peter Johnsson's claims of plagiarism when those manufacturers up their game and make better swords! Again I feel Peter is intimidated and a little scared that as these high volume manufacturers like Hanwei, Windlass and Balaur, get better at their finished product he and Albion are going to lose a tremendous amount of market share because again, why buy and Albion Knetch when you can get an almost as good or potentially as good Kreigmesser from say Balaur Arms for 2/3rds the price?
Thank you for proving my point.
|
|