Should "sharp" swords actually be sharp?

In a sense, it does boil down to a samurai vs night discussion but the context is so varied that it is easy to build misconceptions about armour and swords.

When looking at European development of the second millennium, the transitional and full plate era really only span a couple of centuries. Even taking that into account, far fewer were wearing as full a suit of armour as some may think.

Certainly, there are a lot of swords that try to do everything well but they are few and far in between. We see type XIV and XVI swords that are trying to be both as a best compromise. While XV and XII types don't need to be simply sharpened crowbars, that was really more the intent. Better can openers. Then we see XVIII types of many breadths and lengths that (much like the XVI and XIV) are trying to do it all well. The XVIIIb and XVIIIc maybe varying from the thought of being the best can opener but still somewhat thrust and cut capable.

Were does this leave the world of wonder about European type swords? Pretty much as sharp as one wants to make it and in what geometry one is trying to be a do-all.

Bill Tsafa once wrote a comment about wanting a golf bag of variety to truly meet some expectations about western swords. Quite an apt analogy, actually.

My favorite do-alls somehow always end up with type XVIII varieties. That despite really loving how my XVa handles without being the best cutter or my somewhat springy XIIIa being amongst the best cutter (including my PK in any circumstance).

I'll leave sharpening favorites out of any lecture simply because I'm still learning after fifty odd years of blades. I will say that a few (including the PK) are shaving sharp and most will at least slice office grade paper freehand or at least cleanly if cut at a folded sheet. Many of them will cut newsprint and many of my knives can fillet business card weight stock (lift the print with some).

Just as with some knives I have purchased over the years, the edges haven't been what I had expected. Of reproductions, I'd have to say it was only blunts that needed work out of the box. The only one somewhat sharpened that I modified from a factory sharp Godfred was because those came with only the first eight inches or so sharp. It still put a deep and long kerf through both sides of a hollow core door at ankle level, right out of the box. A sabre from the early 1800s arrived shaving sharp (it came scratched up that way and I'm still working on the polish).

Mr. Natural would simply say

Use The Right Tool For The Job

Cheers

Hotspur; the thin secondary that came from Gus with my newer XIIa (2003ish) was indeed scary sharp right out of the box and vies for my favorite as best but I still love my old XIIIa

Oh thats cheaper then the 60 dollar one I found...nice. The only issue I have with a 1x30 belt sander is not that the width, but the height. It's too small for longer swords to make a nice steady single pass for me. Then again I got spoiled by a 2x72 belt sander .

Man, you live in Adelaide! Isn't that where Paul lives? Maybe you could go meet our resident founder, and get some recommendations on sharpening...

Just a thought.

-Slayer

I have one of those, it works pretty well for rough sharpening. I like to touch up my edges by hand afterward though. I have a lot to learn but it helps make the process a lot faster.

I'm new to this forum and am not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to sharpening characteristics, but I feel I may say that if a sword is advertised as sharp then it should be sharp. I've also heard that there are differing levels of sharpness and that a sword being razor sharp wasn't historically accurate or very good for the edge itself. Anyone care to elaborate on that, is it really true?

Yep - but honestly I am afraid of screwing up my stuff (should have bought a Mushashi as a practice blade).

I'm sure I'll pick his brain when the KIs come in.

Well for removing secondary bevels, I would recommend starting with 120 grit. Although I use 80...because it works so dang fast. So I go 80, 120, 240, 320...and usually just stop there...for mirror polish, from there I go to 600, 800, 1200, 2000 and then polishing compound. Other then on katanas, I prefer the stain finish of the 320 just fine.

Although for the finishing part, I found that using the 100 and then the 320 grit automotive sandpaper sponges work great for a stain finish...and it's a lot easier to control then doing a full refinish job on a small 1x30 belt sander...and easier then switching out belts on a 2x72 belt sander hehe .

yeah I figured that was pretty much the price of fish in Dover. right now I don't have any real secondaries I'm looking to remove so I think I'll be good for now.

True...and I'm not saying you can't use it...but like I said, I got spoiled because I'm use to a 2x72 now. One of my friends has a 1x30 and I find it hard to use because I can't "shoot" the blade since the spacing is so small. 4 inches maybe bigger then most blade width...but it isn't bigger then a blade with my hands still gripping it (at least without some small clearance issues...and belt sanders hurt when your knuckles graze em ). . That means I need to move my hands during the pass...where with longer belts I can grip the blade at the tang and near the CoP and just run the edge in one long smooth pass. And being able to do that for me is key to getting an edge I like...but like I said...I got spoiled .