nddave
Member
Posts: 4,099
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Jan 26, 2024 17:42:11 GMT
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.
How so, care elaborate? Or are you going to base "your point" on the fact I didn't post a mile long post with pics proving each Albion Museum Line sword has a historical example it's a reproduction of? Because maybe like Peter maybe I don't feel my research should be free to the public anymore and I want cash charge or check?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Jan 26, 2024 18:21:31 GMT
Who here wouldn't trade a Hanwei, Windless or Balar for the like/similar model of Albion for free if they could.... ![???](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ?
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Jan 26, 2024 18:36:24 GMT
...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? ... I don't know if anyone still reads this seriously, but as far as I know, Albion Sovereign is not a Museum Line sword, and is not a replica of Records or the Medieval Sword XIV.8 on page 124. It is far from the only sword with similar hilt outline and blade profile, measurements are quite far off for a single handed sword, and the small detail of, I don't know, number of fullers is something Peter Johnsson just miscounted? In that way yeah, I'm sure you can "match" Albion swords to historical originals. If you squint hard enough, something will surely fit! There were lengthy debates of why "The Next Generation" Albion swords usually don't copy a single surviving museum specimen, except in some instances - like Albion Munich, which closely follows sword from Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich, but omits all the complex engraving, gilding, tooling on leather grip, but which Peter Johnsson hoped they could develop in a Museum Line sword.
|
|
|
Post by cptnvimes on Jan 26, 2024 18:40:22 GMT
Dear Peter Johnsson and Albion, thank you for your contributions to the modern replica sword community, now if you would be so gracious and roll over and die without causing too much fuss, that would be nice. We are busy shopping for cheap chinese swords now.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Jan 26, 2024 18:59:19 GMT
Dear Peter Johnsson and Albion, thank you for your contributions to the modern replica sword community, now if you would be so gracious and roll over and die without causing too much fuss, that would be nice. We are busy shopping for cheap chinese swords now.The majority of people here are shopping for cheap chinese/Indian/Paki stuff...forget Albion or Arms&Armor, made in America by craftsmen who are paid enough to feed their families. Nonetheless, I do always enjoy reading all the major complaints by people who buy cheap/foreign and then are upset when they get what they payed for instead of some screaming deal. ![](https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/k72/newportkrieger/image.jpg1_12.jpg)
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,099
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Jan 26, 2024 19:27:15 GMT
...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? ... I don't know if anyone still reads this seriously, but as far as I know, Albion Sovereign is not a Museum Line sword, and is not a replica of Records or the Medieval Sword XIV.8 on page 124. It is far from the only sword with similar hilt outline and blade profile, measurements are quite far off for a single handed sword, and the small detail of, I don't know, number of fullers is something Peter Johnsson just miscounted? In that way yeah, I'm sure you can "match" Albion swords to historical originals. If you squint hard enough, something will surely fit! There were lengthy debates of why "The Next Generation" Albion swords usually don't copy a single surviving museum specimen, except in some instances - like Albion Munich, which closely follows sword from Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich, but omits all the complex engraving, gilding, tooling on leather grip, but which Peter Johnsson hoped they could develop in a Museum Line sword. Yes they do, again I can point out many of their long swords and arming swords that match and or replicate historical originals. So what the double fullwr exonerated Johnsson and Albion!? So why doesn't the twisted guard of the Balaur exonerate it from plagiarism!? It's a minor detail right? Case in point if you squint real hard and pretend the, The Vigil, Oakeshott, The Hospitaller, The Caithness, Sovereign, The Kingmaker, The Condottiere, The Lancaster, The Sempach, The Alexandria, and The Dane are all orginal designs and have no historical original they're based on...
|
|
|
Post by cptnvimes on Jan 26, 2024 19:31:33 GMT
I do have some cheap Clod Steel blades myself... and then I got my first nice sword from Landsknecht Emporium (Falke) and boy it's soo much nicer than the cheap stuff. But I guess we all need to waste some money on cheap stuff before we graduate to nice swords. In hindsight I'd rather have one Albion than ten cheap swords.
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,099
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Jan 26, 2024 19:34:39 GMT
Dear Peter Johnsson and Albion, thank you for your contributions to the modern replica sword community, now if you would be so gracious and roll over and die without causing too much fuss, that would be nice. We are busy shopping for cheap chinese swords now. Way to take it out of context. But again feed into that elitist mentality like they really care. It's all about the money in the end and Peter's behavior in the Facebook thread proves this. So if the cheap Chinese manufacturers can begin to replicate what the higher end manufacturers offer, is that bad on the chinese manufacturers? Is it bad on the buyer who can't necessarily afford a $1,000 sword and in turn appreciates the efforts of lower priced manufacturers upping their fit, finish and quality control to meet the expectations of the historical sword enthusiast?
|
|
|
Post by alientude on Jan 26, 2024 19:58:03 GMT
Thank you for proving my point.
How so, care elaborate? Or are you going to base "your point" on the fact I didn't post a mile long post with pics proving each Albion Museum Line sword has a historical example it's a reproduction of? Because maybe like Peter maybe I don't feel my research should be free to the public anymore and I want cash charge or check?
My point is that you have not provided evidence for your claims.
Also, I have never compared the Windlass type XIV to the Albion Sovereign, so you are misrepresenting me.
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,099
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Jan 26, 2024 20:21:30 GMT
How so, care elaborate? Or are you going to base "your point" on the fact I didn't post a mile long post with pics proving each Albion Museum Line sword has a historical example it's a reproduction of? Because maybe like Peter maybe I don't feel my research should be free to the public anymore and I want cash charge or check?
My point is that you have not provided evidence for your claims.
Also, I have never compared the Windlass type XIV to the Albion Sovereign, so you are misrepresenting me.
I've provided enough, again if I really need to break down evidence to such an extreme detail to a equally aware peer in the field of swords, that again is a lot of work. I'm not misrepresenting you in the context of the discussion. I'm basing questions and evidence on your own opinions through your own reviews. Again there are numerous examples in the next gen line that are based and derived from the historical originals they're based on. So again you pointed out your cons of the Windlass in your review. If those cons were rectified by better handling, fit, finish and historical accuracy they wouldn't be cons now would they? Sure it's easy to write off much of those cons based on price point but if Windlass rectified those cons you'd have a sword more in common with the Sovereign than not correct? So when do we call plagiarism on Windlass then? Or do we really need to at all? Again this is where Peter put himself in a precarious situation claiming plagiarism, and also where those defending him in the thread are pointing out the hypocrisy of his claim based on his focus of his works with Albion offering historical accuracy. Even you in the Facebook thread emphasized how the Balaur and Albion weren't 1:1 exact copies of themselves. From what I read Peter and a few of his supporters even bit at you and Kane for pointing that out. Point is how can he have the stance that his reproductions are original when with for example the Sovereign is a clear replica "inspirational" or more of the XIV.8? He's basically wanting to have dominance in an area that is open to interpretation at best. Especially if he wants to make claims his Albion designs and their finished swords are as 1:1 accurate to historical originals as possible. That means any other manufacturer or Smith who also take a strong focus to historical accuracy is going to come out with the same results and product Peter and Albion has. Then on the back hand you'll have enthusiasts criticize the lower teir manufacturers like Windlass for "not getting it right" while praising the higher teir manufacturers like Albion for getting it right. But when the lower tier up their game to meet higher historical accuracy and standards to fit and finish, they'll get called out for plagiarism... It really is a hypocritical double standard.
|
|
|
Post by alientude on Jan 26, 2024 20:55:05 GMT
My point is that you have not provided evidence for your claims.
Also, I have never compared the Windlass type XIV to the Albion Sovereign, so you are misrepresenting me.
I've provided enough, again if I really need to break down evidence to such an extreme detail to a equally aware peer in the field of swords, that again is a lot of work. I'm not misrepresenting you in the context of the discussion. I'm basing questions and evidence on your own opinions through your own reviews. Again there are numerous examples in the next gen line that are based and derived from the historical originals they're based on. So again you pointed out your cons of the Windlass in your review. If those cons were rectified by better handling, fit, finish and historical accuracy they wouldn't be cons now would they? Sure it's easy to write off much of those cons based on price point but if Windlass rectified those cons you'd have a sword more in common with the Sovereign than not correct? So when do we call plagiarism on Windlass then? Or do we really need to at all? Again this is where Peter put himself in a precarious situation claiming plagiarism, and also where those defending him in the thread are pointing out the hypocrisy of his claim based on his focus of his works with Albion offering historical accuracy. Even you in the Facebook thread emphasized how the Balaur and Albion weren't 1:1 exact copies of themselves. From what I read Peter and a few of his supporters even bit at you and Kane for pointing that out. Point is how can he have the stance that his reproductions are original when with for example the Sovereign is a clear replica "inspirational" or more of the XIV.8? He's basically wanting to have dominance in an area that is open to interpretation at best. Especially if he wants to make claims his Albion designs and their finished swords are as 1:1 accurate to historical originals as possible. That means any other manufacturer or Smith who also take a strong focus to historical accuracy is going to come out with the same results and product Peter and Albion has. Then on the back hand you'll have enthusiasts criticize the lower teir manufacturers like Windlass for "not getting it right" while praising the higher teir manufacturers like Albion for getting it right. But when the lower tier up their game to meet higher historical accuracy and standards to fit and finish, they'll get called out for plagiarism... It really is a hypocritical double standard.
You said this:
"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."
Since I have never once compared the Windlass Type XIV to the Albion Sovereign, saying that my opinion is that the Windlass XIV is inferior to the Sovereign is indeed a misrepresentation. You are putting words into my mouth.
As for the rest of your comments, I will leave it at this: you have a wildly different definition that I do of direct replica.
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,099
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Jan 26, 2024 21:16:04 GMT
I've provided enough, again if I really need to break down evidence to such an extreme detail to a equally aware peer in the field of swords, that again is a lot of work. I'm not misrepresenting you in the context of the discussion. I'm basing questions and evidence on your own opinions through your own reviews. Again there are numerous examples in the next gen line that are based and derived from the historical originals they're based on. So again you pointed out your cons of the Windlass in your review. If those cons were rectified by better handling, fit, finish and historical accuracy they wouldn't be cons now would they? Sure it's easy to write off much of those cons based on price point but if Windlass rectified those cons you'd have a sword more in common with the Sovereign than not correct? So when do we call plagiarism on Windlass then? Or do we really need to at all? Again this is where Peter put himself in a precarious situation claiming plagiarism, and also where those defending him in the thread are pointing out the hypocrisy of his claim based on his focus of his works with Albion offering historical accuracy. Even you in the Facebook thread emphasized how the Balaur and Albion weren't 1:1 exact copies of themselves. From what I read Peter and a few of his supporters even bit at you and Kane for pointing that out. Point is how can he have the stance that his reproductions are original when with for example the Sovereign is a clear replica "inspirational" or more of the XIV.8? He's basically wanting to have dominance in an area that is open to interpretation at best. Especially if he wants to make claims his Albion designs and their finished swords are as 1:1 accurate to historical originals as possible. That means any other manufacturer or Smith who also take a strong focus to historical accuracy is going to come out with the same results and product Peter and Albion has. Then on the back hand you'll have enthusiasts criticize the lower teir manufacturers like Windlass for "not getting it right" while praising the higher teir manufacturers like Albion for getting it right. But when the lower tier up their game to meet higher historical accuracy and standards to fit and finish, they'll get called out for plagiarism... It really is a hypocritical double standard.
You said this:
"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."
Since I have never once compared the Windlass Type XIV to the Albion Sovereign, saying that my opinion is that the Windlass XIV is inferior to the Sovereign is indeed a misrepresentation. You are putting words into my mouth.
As for the rest of your comments, I will leave it at this: you have a wildly different definition that I do of direct replica.
Again as I stated, I posted a Question and then pointed to a Statement where you pointed out what you found flawed in the Windlass model. They were two separate point of debate. No I don't think they really are I think you're just playing coy to hold your stance in this thread. Which again is ironic because you had an opposite stance in the Facebook thread... So again I'll ask you, do you find the Balaur Arms Kreigmesser a plagiaristic copy of the Albion Knetch?
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 26, 2024 21:18:30 GMT
Knecht (engl. plagiate: knight)
|
|
|
Post by alientude on Jan 26, 2024 21:18:41 GMT
I did not read your question/statement as a question to me but you answering for me. I apologize for misunderstanding that. As for whether I find the Windlass type XIV lacking compared to the Albion Sovereign, I will refrain from answering that because I have not yet put the Sovereign through my review process, so I have not formed solid opinions about it yet.
As for the kriegsmesser plagiarism question, I already answered that in this thread and in my review of the Balaur Arms.
Your definition of direct replica appears to incorporate different fullers, tip geometry, and crossguard. My definition would say that any of those would mean it is no longer a direct replica and going into inspired by.
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,099
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Jan 26, 2024 22:07:50 GMT
I did not read your question/statement as a question to me but you answering for me. I apologize for misunderstanding that. As for whether I find the Windlass type XIV lacking compared to the Albion Sovereign, I will refrain from answering that because I have not yet put the Sovereign through my review process, so I have not formed solid opinions about it yet.
As for the kriegsmesser plagiarism question, I already answered that in this thread and in my review of the Balaur Arms.
Your definition of direct replica appears to incorporate different fullers, tip geometry, and crossguard. My definition would say that any of those would mean it is no longer a direct replica and going into inspired by. Understood, it's why I was hoping you would have taken the whole post into debate in regards to this situation. But again you have reviewed and handled both Albion and Windlass swords and it's apparent by your personal opinions Albion makes the better sword. So it's safe to assume if you had both on the table you'd pick the Albion over the Windlass correct? Yes I see that but it also kinda seems your being disingenuous to the current debate, refusing to pick a side simply because the new owner of KoA backed down to Peter rather than defend his product. Which obviously was a pretty standard PR move to avoid reputational risk even though there was no real direct evidence of plagiarism. This is where Peter's behavior in the Facebook thread comes off as elitist and hypocritical. So again back to the debate on N/G models and their "similarities" to historical originals. Again the hypocrisy is there when Peter can claim Plagiarism based on these similarities but then is somehow when defended by a fan base, he's exempt when such similarities are brought up on his other works and the historical originals he based them on? So again this is either a complete non-issue and there is no plagiarism whatsoever based on all of these swords falling under the umbrella of historical replicas. Or they're all in some form plaigarsitic based on each one being a representative of a historical original. It can't be both.
|
|
Nox
Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by Nox on Jan 26, 2024 22:10:11 GMT
Who here wouldn't trade a Hanwei, Windless or Balar for the like/similar model of Albion for free if they could.... ![???](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ? I wouldn’t. Unless I planned to sell the albion.
|
|
|
Post by alientude on Jan 26, 2024 22:30:31 GMT
I did not read your question/statement as a question to me but you answering for me. I apologize for misunderstanding that. As for whether I find the Windlass type XIV lacking compared to the Albion Sovereign, I will refrain from answering that because I have not yet put the Sovereign through my review process, so I have not formed solid opinions about it yet.
As for the kriegsmesser plagiarism question, I already answered that in this thread and in my review of the Balaur Arms.
Your definition of direct replica appears to incorporate different fullers, tip geometry, and crossguard. My definition would say that any of those would mean it is no longer a direct replica and going into inspired by. Understood, it's why I was hoping you would have taken the whole post into debate in regards to this situation. But again you have reviewed and handled both Albion and Windlass swords and it's apparent by your personal opinions Albion makes the better sword. So it's safe to assume if you had both on the table you'd pick the Albion over the Windlass correct? Yes I see that but it also kinda seems your being disingenuous to the current debate, refusing to pick a side simply because the new owner of KoA backed down to Peter rather than defend his product. Which obviously was a pretty standard PR move to avoid reputational risk even though there was no real direct evidence of plagiarism. This is where Peter's behavior in the Facebook thread comes off as elitist and hypocritical. So again back to the debate on N/G models and their "similarities" to historical originals. Again the hypocrisy is there when Peter can claim Plagiarism based on these similarities but then is somehow when defended by a fan base, he's exempt when such similarities are brought up on his other works and the historical originals he based them on? So again this is either a complete non-issue and there is no plagiarism whatsoever based on all of these swords falling under the umbrella of historical replicas. Or they're all in some form plaigarsitic based on each one being a representative of a historical original. It can't be both.
I do not provide thoughts on swords I have not reviewed, because I do not want to speak hastily and gave under-informed opinions. So I will decline to compare the Windlass type XIV (which I don't own - that was a loaner) and the Albion Sovereign.
I provided the facts about the kriegsmesser issue in a neutral manner, and stated my own opinion. You can interpret that as refusing to pick a side if you wish.
Thank you for the discussion. It has been very illuminating. I will not be replying further.
|
|
AJGBlack
Member
"This world will stress you like Orson Wells on the radio." -RTJ
Posts: 408
Member is Online
|
Post by AJGBlack on Jan 26, 2024 22:58:35 GMT
I may be off here, but I think part of the issue is where the work is derived from. PJ bases the Albion Next Gen line on a compilation of "typical" examples of a type, creating a new original derived from those historical examples. If another company copies that design, however accurately, they're not deriving their own version from history but from a modern interpretation. Meaning it's likely that certain important features and traits can be lost along the way. I see two main reasons that would be bad. 1- European sword replicas that wind up as muddy and generic as modern katana. Bleh. 2- people relate the derivative works back to the original, in this scenario PJ's Albion pieces, and they are thought "less than" by association. (Maybe far fetched?)
It's interesting, back in the day when Darksword basically copied the Albion Prince (down to an weird, integrated peen block). The sword community at the time flipped its collective [redacted] in favor of Albion and called Darksword out for it. Just noting because it looks like the tide has turned. I have no dog in this fight. 😁
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,099
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Jan 26, 2024 23:01:20 GMT
Understood, it's why I was hoping you would have taken the whole post into debate in regards to this situation. But again you have reviewed and handled both Albion and Windlass swords and it's apparent by your personal opinions Albion makes the better sword. So it's safe to assume if you had both on the table you'd pick the Albion over the Windlass correct? Yes I see that but it also kinda seems your being disingenuous to the current debate, refusing to pick a side simply because the new owner of KoA backed down to Peter rather than defend his product. Which obviously was a pretty standard PR move to avoid reputational risk even though there was no real direct evidence of plagiarism. This is where Peter's behavior in the Facebook thread comes off as elitist and hypocritical. So again back to the debate on N/G models and their "similarities" to historical originals. Again the hypocrisy is there when Peter can claim Plagiarism based on these similarities but then is somehow when defended by a fan base, he's exempt when such similarities are brought up on his other works and the historical originals he based them on? So again this is either a complete non-issue and there is no plagiarism whatsoever based on all of these swords falling under the umbrella of historical replicas. Or they're all in some form plaigarsitic based on each one being a representative of a historical original. It can't be both.
I do not provide thoughts on swords I have not reviewed, because I do not want to speak hastily and gave under-informed opinions. So I will decline to compare the Windlass type XIV (which I don't own - that was a loaner) and the Albion Sovereign.
I provided the facts about the kriegsmesser issue in a neutral manner, and stated my own opinion. You can interpret that as refusing to pick a side if you wish.
Thank you for the discussion. It has been very illuminating. I will not be replying further.
I didn't ask you to give opinions on the Sovereign, I asked you to take into consideration the similarities between it and the Windlass Type XIV to the historical original each is based on. Apparently there is no similarities due to a double fuller and a more romboid Style 7 guard... I don't understand why you're being so disingenuous in regards to you opinions on Albion vs Windlass as a whole. Seriously you can't answer which brand you personally favor? Or which brand offers a more historically accurate and well made sword. Here I'll help you out, it's Albion! So I guess we can agree on that maybe...? You gave your opinion and when that opinion opposed Peter's you went back on it, at least publicly. I just have questions now about your integrity regarding such matters, you apparently did pick a side and sadly it seems it was one that quickly changes when pressured by those you idolize. Figures, best to keep out of such matters, you know, just incase you get put on the blacklist of Facebook sword groups... either or I guess I'm just talking to a wall because you're dipping out since the thread isn't going in your preferred direction, right? Little annoyed by the condescending behavior but I'll live.✌️
|
|
|
Post by alientude on Jan 26, 2024 23:15:57 GMT
I do not provide thoughts on swords I have not reviewed, because I do not want to speak hastily and gave under-informed opinions. So I will decline to compare the Windlass type XIV (which I don't own - that was a loaner) and the Albion Sovereign.
I provided the facts about the kriegsmesser issue in a neutral manner, and stated my own opinion. You can interpret that as refusing to pick a side if you wish.
Thank you for the discussion. It has been very illuminating. I will not be replying further.
I didn't ask you to give opinions on the Sovereign, I asked you to take into consideration the similarities between it and the Windlass Type XIV to the historical original each is based on. Apparently there is no similarities due to a double fuller and a more romboid Style 7 guard... I don't understand why you're being so disingenuous in regards to you opinions on Albion vs Windlass as a whole. Seriously you can't answer which brand you personally favor? Or which brand offers a more historically accurate and well made sword. Here I'll help you out, it's Albion! So I guess we can agree on that maybe...? You gave your opinion and when that opinion opposed Peter's you went back on it, at least publicly. I just have questions now about your integrity regarding such matters, you apparently did pick a side and sadly it seems it was one that quickly changes when pressured by those you idolize. Figures, best to keep out of such matters, you know, just incase you get put on the blacklist of Facebook sword groups... either or I guess I'm just talking to a wall because you're dipping out since the thread isn't going in your preferred direction, right? Little annoyed by the condescending behavior but I'll live.✌️
Congratulations, you successfully provoked me into replying one more time because once again, you have completely misrepresented me. Almost makes me think it's intentional...
Here are the extent of my comments on said Facebook thread:
So, no stance taken other than the Balaur Arms is clearly heavily based on the Knecht.
In my review, and in this thread, I stated my opinion that the Balaur Arms is just different enough to not be plagiarism. Clearly in opposition to what Peter Johnsson said. I have not gone back on that stance anywhere in this thread, nor anywhere else. Do I think my opinion matters in this regard? No. I'm just a person on the internet who talks about swords. My opinion on the matter is just as irrelevant as yours. But it is my opinion, and it has not changed.
Since you claim I have changed my opinion on the matter, publicly, after it went against Peter Johnsson's opinion, I demand proof. Show me where I have since stated that I think the kriegsmesser is plagiarism. Since you will not be able to provide such proof, I demand a retraction of your false representation.
|
|