|
Post by Afoo on May 15, 2018 5:19:10 GMT
I said "his" design, and described "like a modern day lance", so I know he favored the thrust (a potent element of a cav. charge), though maybe he thought his design could cut better than it did, as I believe it wanting in that category. but yeah, a great thruster, for sure. Point/edge debate (and what is preferable) is always classic fodder for discussion. Personally, I think some combo is best and suppose we then get into nature of design and what was (opinion) all time best cav. sword. Entirely forum and related videos. Was I wrong, and why do you ask? Yet, you begin your current dissertation with wondering what Patton would say. My reply was pointing out that there was no reason to wonder, as Patton's thoughts are voiced and printed long before our time. My question as to your own understandings kind of underlines, to me, how many learn in a fairly closed and limited manner. One could do worse than abstracting from forums and videos but it reads as a bit shallow to me. Too lazy, gotcha ;) No reason for me to wonder.I dunno about you, but I am happy to accept that some people come here to learn. By extension, not everyone has read all the relevant literature, whether due to constraints of time, finances etc. Thats fine. Dun need to sass everyone up and throw the literature at them. If you don't feel like answering, then don't. I have tried to hold my tongue for a while, but attitude like what is shown here and elsewhere really kills the forum. Most of us are amateurs who do this in our free time, however sparse that may be. We don't pretend to be experts - we offer our humble opinion and discuss as best we can and with the tools we can. If I am going to get hammered in the face whenever I say something which is slightly inaccurate, then whats the fun?
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 14, 2018 15:12:03 GMT
I just read the review of the Pilsen rapier, which I thought was a good review. But I have a question about rapiers and similar swords generally. With some exceptions, most rapiers seem to have very complicated but fairly open guards. To me, they don't seem like they would offer sufficient hand protection for a thrusting sword, assuming the opponent also has such a sword. They almost offer no more hand protection than a smallsword. The exceptions (there are always exceptions) are rapiers with cup hilt and those with what are described as shell guards, as on the musketeer rapier mentioned here already. But none offer the hand protection of the later 19th century British army swords. Is this because those using rapiers invariably wore gauntlets or at least heavy gloves? Part of it as well could be that some rapiers like the Pilsen would be oriented more towards civilian usage - with its slender, shortish blade. As such, hand protection comes second to style 8-) Compare that to the Christus Imperat rapier from Windlass - that one seems to have a more military style blade, and the guard is beefed up to match. Getting through that would be a struggle.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 14, 2018 2:56:11 GMT
I have the pilsen, and thats pretty good
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 4, 2018 4:26:47 GMT
Thanks for the informative posts! I had (now with bfoo2) the 1890. Its....strange. I think its heavier and stouter than it should be, especially given the short length of blade relative to other sabres. However, it is still one of my favorite handling pieces. It other words, I shouldn't like it....but yet I do The grip on ours did come loose as well, so I drilled a hole to fix it. IIRC, the grip on ours had a wood core, but I could be mistaken. EDIT: So, is it possible that there are TWO versions of the 1890? I have what I believe to be an example of the same sword (discussed in full here). However, the length comes in at 33.4 inches Chilean is at the bottom, next to a US 1906 and French 1882/1896 Mine has a different profile tip, as well as fuller on the top of the blade (1890 is the one on top)
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Apr 17, 2018 19:11:06 GMT
Cant wait to see the dungeons Hopefully not from within
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Apr 16, 2018 13:02:55 GMT
Or style. Some officer swords are 50% practicality and 50% fashion accessory. Just look at the french 1896. Its a decent blade, but the guard is a work of art, with practicality and protection a distant second priority
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 22, 2018 20:12:07 GMT
I have the pilsen and its quite nice - the blade is stiff and not whippy. I believe its a more slender blade than the CS (KoA is blocked at work so I cannot verify). It does have a decidedly civilian feel to it though.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 13, 2018 5:02:42 GMT
I suspect this is a piquet weight sword - the width of <1 inch is a bit small - especially since the "pokey" 1897 comes in at 1.1 inches. Piquet weight swords were custom made - I do not know if there were any regulations which governed their dimensions. In theory this means you could have a huge range of dimensions, depending on what the officer wanted. If you look at John Denner's website and search "piquet", you get a few examples. The last one is a Piquet weight 1857 Engineers sword, but you wouldn't necessarily know that just by looking at it. www.denner.ca/weapons/british_cnd_swords/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 13, 2018 4:45:07 GMT
Eh, not anymore. I'm from Ottawa but just recently moved to NC. Looking forward to the day I return though
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 12, 2018 17:08:32 GMT
Welcome, fellow Ottawa dweller!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 12, 2018 14:21:30 GMT
Right you are. I should preface my thoughts with the fact that I only use my swords for display and dry handling, rather than cutting. In that regard its a pleasant sword for my needs, but your milage may vary.
I should also note that mine has developed a bit of a *tink*, which does not go away no matter how far I tighten the nut pommel. Its mild, but *may* be consistent with Uhlan's concerns regarding structural integrity.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 12, 2018 4:45:40 GMT
I spent another half hour drilling with it, and I think it's growing on me. I agree. When I got mine, I was put off because its not what I expect. After a while it becomes more likable. Its still too light, but its fun from time to time. I think it looks pretty nice too
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 10, 2018 19:08:34 GMT
Thanks for the writeup! Its a pattern I was always interested in, but never found one for the right price. In terms of handling, does it feel more like a thrusting sword or a bashing sword? The grip looks designed for thrusting, but the blade looks stout and short. As bfoo2 alluded to, our Argentine 1889 suffered from a split personality - wonder whether they have managed to rectify this with the Ottoman version
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 6, 2018 23:16:31 GMT
Also with Trump and his Steel tax talk do you think that will effect cost of swords? A 25% steel tariff would push the price of steel up by 25%, not the price of swords up by 25%. The wholesale price of 9260 is about $1/kg. So, if 4kg of steel was used in a sword, the cost of making it in the USA would increase by $1. I think sword prices will go up by more - simply because they now have an excuse to charge a bit more. Its like the fuel surcharge fee on airplane tickets which were ostensibly put in due to the increase in oil prices.....
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Feb 12, 2018 3:34:40 GMT
You have several times, but I will still ask every time it comes up :P It looks quite nice, and I like the blade profile
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Feb 12, 2018 3:10:10 GMT
I'll buy the pappenheimer off you if its a disappointment :P Thanks for the review. I had an old Windlass half-basket rapier which I cannibalized for parts. The guard was ar$e-ugly, but the blade was very reminiscent of the brass-hilt piece you have here. Seems like a common feature for the older MRL rapiers. Too bad about the pap., I don't mind rapiers with skinny blades, but I wish for a more diverse range of blade profiles to be represented in the repro market (basically the Pappenheimer blade done right) The Pap. reminds me of the Rheinfelden - the blade is a nice transitional type in appearance, but too floppy in execution (at least in my example)
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Feb 12, 2018 2:39:36 GMT
On a topic related to 1880/1882 transformations, what do people think of this? (https://www.ebay.com/itm/NICE-FRENCH-CAVALRY-DRAGOON-SWORD-p-1854-/183070006179) Its an 1854 HC sword, which appears to have "Tmre 1882" appended to it. It does have the correct length and scabbard - I know that some 1854's were shortened to fit regulations, but was not aware that they would actually denote this on the spine of the blade like we see below.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Feb 5, 2018 1:58:17 GMT
The Windlass one is out of production, though a few are still lurking around. We had one, but sold it to someone on the forums, who then listed it for sale again. Perhaps it will reappear at some point in the future.
Sometimes they come on ebay for a reasonable (~400) price.
Watch out, since someone on e-bay lists a "museum replica 1906" for around $70. This is NOT the MRL/Windlass one, but a rubbish piece of expletive.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jan 29, 2018 0:52:18 GMT
God Save the Queen! Also, the one they have on their website now shows a different grip material. Maybe they heard your comment about it being ahistorical? :P
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jan 28, 2018 20:56:36 GMT
Butter - I suspect that the private purchase one you show has better inside hand protection than the regular 1896 as well, which has an asymmetrical guard. Again another sign of personal preference on behalf of the owner.
Nice writeup. I did not know they re-did the guards for the 1882 models - I just assumed they stuck the straight blades on the same guard/grip as the 1822's that preceded it.
The 1880/1854 Kelly has looks very unbalanced to the eye - I can't imagine how it would be like in the hand >.>
|
|