|
Post by cptraph on Mar 17, 2024 5:12:06 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 Do you think the A474 would be good enough in terms of durability? Since most swords with thin blades aren't very durable
|
|
|
Post by willaumep on Mar 18, 2024 1:10:03 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 Do you think the A474 would be good enough in terms of durability? Since most swords with thin blades aren't very durable hello I know it is kind of a crap answer but it depends what we think the sword in question was used for. Which will in turn colours what we think the blade looked like and what it should be capable of. If we take an "alexandria" type XVIIIC, it is fantastic to cut tatami and probably at the time people in days to day clothing, Since it is stiff and pointy i think it should be able to thrust against large aspect ratio mail. (it is quite stiff for what i understand). If we are talking about the Swedish sword, i can't really tell until i see it but with the width and the spine/ridge i expect it to be a larger version of the Alexandria, with what i suspect a thinker and stronger point, so may be more polyvent. For the sword in question (A474) having the thickness at the base and at the tip would help, but given the sword disused above, If that sword was 5-6mm thick at the base and 2.75-3 near the point, and provide the spine/ridge is marked enough, I would not say that would cause a durability problems. by 1420 you can see what the opponent is wearing, if in doubt you can dealt with it as if it is armour, so provided that the point is strong enough, you coud even ave a relatively keen edge around the COP but on the other hand given that level of "oumph" the blade will have, it might not mater that much We have other swords from the periods and place that are less wide and more rhomboid with a somewhat strong ridge like the IX.1787, which seen to be around 8.5 mm thick at the base and close to 4mm near the tip in the repro of windlass. Though the picture sword from the met seems to have quite a big ridge and more slender bade "wings". I would think that it this would be too thick for the A474 6cm base. May be the met version could help (it is 110 cm blade but looks similar at the top. as well A&A has a version and Gael Favre had another and the original walace link
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 19, 2024 6:33:45 GMT
I've actually developed another curiosity does anyone have a potential idea for what part of the blade the sword's centre of percussion might be?
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,853
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 19, 2024 9:01:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 19, 2024 9:23:14 GMT
I think I made a mistake what I meant is where on the blade is the centre of percussion located?
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,853
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 19, 2024 9:47:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Mar 19, 2024 11:42:34 GMT
Isn't the short definition for CoP the spot where most energy of the swing is transmitted to the target instead of translated to unwanted movement. Hitting the pommel does not necessarily show the CoP, that only shows vibrational nodes*. It is in the last 3rd of the blade on most swords, but can be off the vibrational nodes by a bit. You can estimate, as in last 3rd, but the exact spot can be up or down an inch or two even on multiple swords of the same type from the same manufacturer (depending on many small factors). It is something that you need to measure, there is no way to do this from pictures or other measurements.
*EDIT: What I mean to say is this vibrational node is in a different vibrational plane than the CoP is, of course the CoP is also a vibrational node, but in plane with the blade while the other is at a right angle to the blade.
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 20, 2024 8:19:45 GMT
Do you think the A474 would be good enough in terms of durability? Since most swords with thin blades aren't very durable hello I know it is kind of a crap answer but it depends what we think the sword in question was used for. Which will in turn colours what we think the blade looked like and what it should be capable of. If we take an "alexandria" type XVIIIC, it is fantastic to cut tatami and probably at the time people in days to day clothing, Since it is stiff and pointy i think it should be able to thrust against large aspect ratio mail. (it is quite stiff for what i understand). If we are talking about the Swedish sword, i can't really tell until i see it but with the width and the spine/ridge i expect it to be a larger version of the Alexandria, with what i suspect a thinker and stronger point, so may be more polyvent. For the sword in question (A474) having the thickness at the base and at the tip would help, but given the sword disused above, If that sword was 5-6mm thick at the base and 2.75-3 near the point, and provide the spine/ridge is marked enough, I would not say that would cause a durability problems. by 1420 you can see what the opponent is wearing, if in doubt you can dealt with it as if it is armour, so provided that the point is strong enough, you coud even ave a relatively keen edge around the COP but on the other hand given that level of "oumph" the blade will have, it might not mater that much We have other swords from the periods and place that are less wide and more rhomboid with a somewhat strong ridge like the IX.1787, which seen to be around 8.5 mm thick at the base and close to 4mm near the tip in the repro of windlass. Though the picture sword from the met seems to have quite a big ridge and more slender bade "wings". I would think that it this would be too thick for the A474 6cm base. May be the met version could help (it is 110 cm but looks similar at the top. as well A&A has a version and Gael Favre had another and the original walace linkOut of curiosity what is this Swedish Sword you mention?
|
|
|
Post by willaumep on Mar 21, 2024 12:27:47 GMT
Out of curiosity what is this Swedish Sword you mention? This one it is in the Skokloster Slott (noth of Stockolhm) going there the 22nd of april to get more mesurement and have a look at the blade. (i call it swedish because it is in sweden :-) ) Full length: 1440 mm <== probably 1465 Blade length: 1000 mm Blade width/thickness at the base: 55mm/5 mm Blade width at balance point (120 mm from base): 50mm Blade width/thickness at 500 mm: 39mm/6mm. Blade width/thickness 120 mm from point: 29mm/2,5mm Quillion width/thickness at end: 22 mm/1 mm Quillions witdth/thickness at cross: 10 mm/24 mm Hilt width/thickness at cross: 32mm/29mm Hilt width/thickness: 38mm/34 mm Hilt width/thickness: 19mm/16mm Pommel length: 54mm Pommel width: 29mm and lesser Weight: 1850 grams Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Mar 21, 2024 13:29:06 GMT
Kinda looks like this one: or this
|
|
|
Post by willaumep on Mar 21, 2024 18:44:00 GMT
Kinda looks like this one: or this
Either 'Kinda but not quite' or 'may be yes'. :-) This the bugbear we try to recreate a sword that is at the limit of either what we understand about usage, what could be produced at the time and what we are let with. The type of sword you showed are definitly of the type XVIIIe. Most of the mesurments I have seen are about 15-20 cm long for the ricasso ricasso the is about 10 mm thick and 2 to 3 cm wide. and either a romboid blade ,with or without a ridge of variable probportion, of about 80-85 cm in most cases. At the ricasso the blades width is usually under 4 cm and in some case 13mm thick or at least have the same thickenss of the ricasso (10 mm possibly slightly less). I have no idea how thick those blades are at the tip. Now just to mess up with us: The 4th (D 16140) balde from the left of the picture seem to have quite a wide blade. The 5th (D 8804) is 151 cm with a handle of 39.9 and pommel of 5 cm... the 2nd sword (D 11695) seems to have has a slender and wider blade and equally long pommel The blade i am after is closer to an alexandia blade with a stiff point. (basically a stiffer version of the arms and armour alexandia with a 45 cm handle). Given how corroded they are some of the typeXVIIIe could have end up having similar balde profile. I would say that,except may be D 16140, I see the blades of XVIIIe as probably narrower around 4-4.5 cm with a more accute point than the Albion. (i would expecty the last 10-15 cm to look about the same on both types, with the type XVIIIe being thicker). What i am getting at with the "may be yes" is that using the 4.5 wide blade after the ricaso and more ridgy configuration, we can probably get close enough cutting performace betwen a type XVIIIe and the blade i am after. Phil
|
|
|
Post by cptraph on Mar 25, 2024 1:06:59 GMT
I want to say that I've spoken to the sword maker known as Gael Fabre and he said that apparently the A474's blade thickness is about 10mm at the base and 6-7mm at the tip but I find this questionable but I might need to hear from other's to see how plausible this is
|
|
|
Post by willaumep on Mar 27, 2024 0:06:21 GMT
I want to say that I've spoken to the sword maker known as Gael Fabre and he said that apparently the A474's blade thickness is about 10mm at the base and 6-7mm at the tip but I find this questionable but I might need to hear from other's to see how plausible this is It is really hard to say, other that every one having a different idea as what it can be. If we take Gael and arms and Armour version they all are possible interpretation (not sure if the are pointy enough) A narrower and shorted blade of the same period sword (alledgdly) had a thickness of 8.4 mm at the base and 4.5 mm at the tip so we are not in crazy territory If we take the top of the blade under the bit extending from the cross guard is lenticular, Fat diamond, octagonal or square, i would say no, i don't think the blade needs to be that thick, neither at the base nor at the tip. we would need a ridge to keep the balde stiff if we take that same section to be flat diamond and the ridge start to appear and is more and more pronounced as we got near to the to become much less pronounced at the very end of the tip. The blade is relatively wide until very late so slightly bigger/higher ridge we could have a stiffer blade with the same or better cutting angle that a narrower blade would not have and that until may be 10-15 cm from the tip where a more cruciform shape is not really detrimental. So a blade as thick as you mention could work as well Phil
|
|