|
Post by cptraph on Mar 14, 2024 5:17:56 GMT
I want to say that I've been doing research on sword design and I have a particular interest in learning as much as I can about the Wallace Collection A474 but right now I'm currently struggling to find information on it's blade thickness and I'm personally curious to know about said blade thickness. I've heard the Arms And Armor 15th Century Two Handed Sword has a design flaw in the form of having a blade that is apparently thinner than that of the A474 which causes certain problems with the sword's functionality and it's for this reason that the Arms And Armor sword is lighter than it's supposed to be so I'm kind of wondering if anybody might be able to give an idea for how thick the blade is likely to be either by way of having seen the sword in person or could just give a potentially accurate estimation of the blade thickness based off of the stats on Wallace Collection's website.
|
|
mrstabby
Member
Posts: 1,216
Member is Online
|
Post by mrstabby on Mar 14, 2024 9:13:12 GMT
This is only a guess, but probably the same as the IX.1787, like 8mm. A474 is a bit heavier but it's also broader by 13mm at the guard, which would already account for a lot of the added weight. There is one almost side-view picture, comparing this to the A&A I'd say 2mm thicker? Again, only guessing.
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 14, 2024 9:21:59 GMT
This is only a guess, but probably the same as the IX.1787, like 8mm. A474 is a bit heavier but it's also broader by 13mm at the guard, which would already account for a lot of the added weight. There is one almost side-view picture, comparing this to the A&A I'd say 2mm thicker? Again, only guessing. Okay well what about the blade thickness at the tip? Is it the same thickness at the tip?
|
|
mrstabby
Member
Posts: 1,216
Member is Online
|
Post by mrstabby on Mar 14, 2024 9:42:07 GMT
Very hard to say from the pictures, the RA is 4mm, the A&A is 2,6mm... The middle ridge on the A474 looks quite pronounced compared to the A&A in my opinion, I'd say closer to 4mm than 2,6mm. All speculations here. The taper on the A&A is pretty close to the H/T bastard sword, it has good stiffness for 33", but I could see it being too flexible for 45" and 2mm make a lot of difference. Of course it depends, a wider thinner blade cuts better, a thicker one is stiiffer and stabs better. Seeing that there are around 400g/1# missing on the A&A vs the A474 I'd wager it is closer to 8->4mm than 5->2mm in reality and a lot stabbier.
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Mar 14, 2024 9:49:15 GMT
Why not send the Wallace collection an email asking what the thickness is?
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 14, 2024 9:52:36 GMT
Why not send the Wallace collection an email asking what the thickness is? I did that and they themselves didn't know and apparently didn't have a curator to find out for me
|
|
mrstabby
Member
Posts: 1,216
Member is Online
|
Post by mrstabby on Mar 14, 2024 9:55:19 GMT
Why not send the Wallace collection an email asking what the thickness is? I did that and they themselves didn't know and apparently didn't have a curator to find out for me Yeah, I thought as much. They also probably don't want to disturb the conservation of the sword for "some person on the internet", no offense, really.* If they had the measurements they probably would be on the homepage.
*or they're lazy
EDIT: Hugh, it looks like the weight of the A&A is all over the place, some are very close to the 2,8kg of the original, do they have different versions of it? EDIT2: Nah, they say it's 6,2lbs on their homepage, but 5,3lbs is what you get it seems, weird their own product video also mentions "slightly over 5lbs"
|
|
|
Post by madirish on Mar 14, 2024 13:15:39 GMT
Apparently, the Wallace Collection is hemorrhaging curators....lots of issues in management there right now per the news.
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 14, 2024 22:56:40 GMT
Very hard to say from the pictures, the RA is 4mm, the A&A is 2,6mm... The middle ridge on the A474 looks quite pronounced compared to the A&A in my opinion, I'd say closer to 4mm than 2,6mm. All speculations here. The taper on the A&A is pretty close to the H/T bastard sword, it has good stiffness for 33", but I could see it being too flexible for 45" and 2mm make a lot of difference. Of course it depends, a wider thinner blade cuts better, a thicker one is stiiffer and stabs better. Seeing that there are around 400g/1# missing on the A&A vs the A474 I'd wager it is closer to 8->4mm than 5->2mm in reality and a lot stabbier. So would you say the thickness of the A474 blade is either equal to or somewhat less than that of the Royal Armouries sword?
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 15, 2024 3:47:40 GMT
I also want to say that I am a bit curious as to the A474's grip length as well because although similar swords tend to have 9 inch grips I'd rather have a more likely confirmation rather than just rely on an implication of the grip length
|
|
mrstabby
Member
Posts: 1,216
Member is Online
|
Post by mrstabby on Mar 15, 2024 6:54:49 GMT
Very hard to say from the pictures, the RA is 4mm, the A&A is 2,6mm... The middle ridge on the A474 looks quite pronounced compared to the A&A in my opinion, I'd say closer to 4mm than 2,6mm. All speculations here. The taper on the A&A is pretty close to the H/T bastard sword, it has good stiffness for 33", but I could see it being too flexible for 45" and 2mm make a lot of difference. Of course it depends, a wider thinner blade cuts better, a thicker one is stiiffer and stabs better. Seeing that there are around 400g/1# missing on the A&A vs the A474 I'd wager it is closer to 8->4mm than 5->2mm in reality and a lot stabbier. So would you say the thickness of the A474 blade is either equal to or somewhat less than that of the Royal Armouries sword? Yeah.
Estimating size of anything on it is actually pretty easy with a picture and one set value. Put the picture on a screen, measure the blade with a ruler, divide 117 by the measurement from the ruler, measure what you need and multiply by the number you got from the division. Grip should be around 35cm, the leather part 22,5cm. From this I get 28,5cm for the guard and they say it's 27,9cm, so a margain of error of under 1cm is pretty good. You would get better resolution the bigger the image you measure on screen.
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 15, 2024 7:32:17 GMT
So would you say the thickness of the A474 blade is either equal to or somewhat less than that of the Royal Armouries sword? Yeah.
Estimating size of anything on it is actually pretty easy with a picture and one set value. Put the picture on a screen, measure the blade with a ruler, divide 117 by the measurement from the ruler, measure what you need and multiply by the number you got from the division. Grip should be around 35cm, the leather part 22,5cm. From this I get 28,5cm for the guard and they say it's 27,9cm, so a margain of error of under 1cm is pretty good. You would get better resolution the bigger the image you measure on screen.
Sorry I'm a bit confused and I'm not the best when it comes to doing measurements do you think you could clarify what you were saying about the blade thickness in terms of if it's the same thickness as the Royal Armouries or slightly less thick
|
|
mrstabby
Member
Posts: 1,216
Member is Online
|
Post by mrstabby on Mar 15, 2024 7:56:57 GMT
Again, anything on thickness is just a guess (and not even an educated one), and it's likely more similar to the RA IX.1787 than the A&A copy. I can't be more specific to be honest, could be slitghtly thicker or thinner than IX.1787, I can't give you exact numbers, it's quite likely thicker than the A&A though. Unless the 2,8kg weight of the 474 is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 15, 2024 8:16:48 GMT
Again, anything on thickness is just a guess (and not even an educated one), and it's likely more similar to the RA IX.1787 than the A&A copy. I can't be more specific to be honest, could be slitghtly thicker or thinner than IX.1787, I can't give you exact numbers, it's quite likely thicker than the A&A though. Unless the 2,8kg weight of the 474 is incorrect. Okay I understand but thanks anyway
|
|
mrstabby
Member
Posts: 1,216
Member is Online
|
Post by mrstabby on Mar 15, 2024 9:25:34 GMT
Yeah, sorry, only way to estimate would be a full view side picture and for specifics you would need to get hands on.
|
|
|
Post by willaumep on Mar 15, 2024 16:50:41 GMT
Hello Being into having replica made (not that particular sword), My limited experience is that they kind of used every trick they could to make those long blade stiff and light relatively speaking. There us usually a lot going on, so generic mesurement won't probably cut it. i am looking at Swedish blade that is 1000 mm long and it is about 55mm wide and 5mm thick. it neck down pretty fast (before the cog At the Cog (12 cm from the hilt) is 5cm wide and mid blade it is 39 mm wide and 6 mm thick. 120 cm form the point it is 29mm wide and 2.9mm thick. The weight is 1850 gm If i am not mistaken that the sword you are after. (https://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultDetailView/result.tab.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SelementList&sp=0&sp=0&sp=999&sp=SdetailView&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=2&sp=F&sp=SdetailBlockKey&sp=3) It seems that very early the width is getting wider and probably decrease slowly up to around the balance point/or when the central ridge appears. (the sword might be even thicker there ridge wise. we have the impression that the ridge is more pronounced as we go down the blade, but i think it is likely that the blade itself is getting thinner faster than the ridge. Not too sure what happens hat the point. I think that will cut and trust well (2.8kg but balance point at 13.9 cm) What mrstabby is saying to mesure the distance is: we use the picture from the Wallace. we print it on the printed version. we mesure the blade, mesure the hilt the cross-guard and the pommel Since we know the length of the blade we only need the relative proportion so if we divide the measured length of the hilt, by the measured length of the blade. We have the ration (or percentage) which will be smaller than one. if we then multiply that ratio by 117 (the actual length of the blade to have the estimation of the length of the hilt. Phil
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 15, 2024 23:46:05 GMT
Hello Being into having replica made (not that particular sword), My limited experience is that they kind of used every trick they could to make those long blade stiff and light relatively speaking. There us usually a lot going on, so generic mesurement won't probably cut it. i am looking at Swedish blade that is 1000 mm long and it is about 55mm wide and 5mm thick. it neck down pretty fast (before the cog At the Cog (12 cm from the hilt) is 5cm wide and mid blade it is 39 mm wide and 6 mm thick. 120 cm form the point it is 29mm wide and 2.9mm thick. The weight is 1850 gm If i am not mistaken that the sword you are after. (https://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultDetailView/result.tab.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SelementList&sp=0&sp=0&sp=999&sp=SdetailView&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=2&sp=F&sp=SdetailBlockKey&sp=3) It seems that very early the width is getting wider and probably decrease slowly up to around the balance point/or when the central ridge appears. (the sword might be even thicker there ridge wise. we have the impression that the ridge is more pronounced as we go down the blade, but i think it is likely that the blade itself is getting thinner faster than the ridge. Not too sure what happens hat the point. I think that will cut and trust well (2.8kg but balance point at 13.9 cm) What mrstabby is saying to mesure the distance is: we use the picture from the Wallace. we print it on the printed version. we mesure the blade, mesure the hilt the cross-guard and the pommel Since we know the length of the blade we only need the relative proportion so if we divide the measured length of the hilt, by the measured length of the blade. We have the ration (or percentage) which will be smaller than one. if we then multiply that ratio by 117 (the actual length of the blade to have the estimation of the length of the hilt. Phil Unfortunately I do not know how to do this measuring system so I don't think I can do it
|
|
|
Post by madirish on Mar 16, 2024 3:28:35 GMT
He is saying to just use ratios to figure things out, assuming you know the ACTUAL length of the sword. 1) print out a straight on picture of the sword. 2) measure the length of the blade in the picture as closely as you can. You get X.XX cm from this measurement. 3) Now, let's say you want to find out the width of the guard and you don't know what it is in real life. You will a) measure the width of the guard in the picture. you get Y.YYcm b) you will use ratios to figure out what the actual width of the guard (call it Z.ZZcm) in this instance)is: - Z.ZZ = 117 or expressed Z.ZZ is to Y.YY as 117 is to X.XX Y.YY X.XX
OR Or Z= (117/X.XX)Y.YY
4) you can find out the length of various sections by measuring the drawing (Y.YY is the measurement on the drawing) and multiply that time the ration of the actual length of the blade to the measured length of the blade on the drawing.
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 16, 2024 4:12:30 GMT
He is saying to just use ratios to figure things out, assuming you know the ACTUAL length of the sword. 1) print out a straight on picture of the sword. 2) measure the length of the blade in the picture as closely as you can. You get X.XX cm from this measurement. 3) Now, let's say you want to find out the width of the guard and you don't know what it is in real life. You will a) measure the width of the guard in the picture. you get Y.YYcm b) you will use ratios to figure out what the actual width of the guard (call it Z.ZZcm) in this instance)is: - Z.ZZ = 117 or expressed Z.ZZ is to Y.YY as 117 is to X.XX Y.YY X.XX OR Or Z= (117/X.XX)Y.YY 4) you can find out the length of various sections by measuring the drawing (Y.YY is the measurement on the drawing) and multiply that time the ration of the actual length of the blade to the measured length of the blade on the drawing. Just to clarify would this be to figure out the blade thickness?
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,853
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 16, 2024 6:06:36 GMT
No, if you have a picture that shows the length of the sword and the width of the guard, you can't see the blade thickness.
|
|