|
Post by Afoo on Sept 21, 2015 19:07:48 GMT
My bet is its an American Artillery Sword from the 1812 era - I found one example on oldswords.com which looks similar. www.oldswords.com/database/viewItem.php?id=12848Most seemed to have had normal blades, but pipe-back blades could have been made for them on individual request. Yours looks to be missing the grip wrappings etc, and is in rough shape
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 21, 2015 16:47:23 GMT
Military Heritage also has an 1821/1822 repro which looks different from the "1845 Wilkinson" offered from KoA. The blade has different markings and has different dimensions. It is undoubtedly a smaller infantry version (artillery or rifles) base don the stats, rather than the full length trooper version. However, could be promising. I have been asking for more information about it from MH for over a month, but have not received a single reply (asides from the usual automated greeting), so not sure what is going on. If I do get it, I'll let you know how its like. On the note about the KoA munitions grade stuff - I had a Munitions Grade sword from them a while back. I don't do test cutting, but I really did not see why the sword could not be sharpened - there was some waviness to the blade, but nothing I would have noticed had I not been informed it was a munitions grade. I would personally have no issues sharpening it and cutting with it had I so desired. Pictures of the "Munitions Grade" Russian Dragoon Saber here: sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/42449/update-universal-munitions-russian-dragoon
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 21, 2015 15:46:42 GMT
You got me. I actually run a sword dealership on the side. On an unrelated note, you should definitely visit Afoo's Sketchy Sword Emporium today for all your sword buying needs :P
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 21, 2015 14:21:35 GMT
I understand what the issue was about - SBG is a community, not a tool for people to push their product onto unsuspecting members. That is perfectly clear, and reasonable.
I also believe that the "common sense" rule we have been using has worked fairly well in keeping the forums clean - at least in the areas which I frequent.
My point though was that, while we have this discussion going, maybe we could consider whether we need a more formal set of rules concerning posting links to external vendors - perhaps restricting them to certain sections or marking them with a tab - only because it may be difficult to determine the extent to which a given member is associated with a particular vendor. Again, for all we know, Demonskull could be a MRL employee, and I could be one from KoA. Alternatively, it could be easy to mistake a dedicated and vocal fan of a particular vendor from an undercover employee.
If my replies are un-necessarily complicating the matter or distracting from the purpose of this thread, please feel free to move them around or delete them. I do not have any problems with the contents of the announcement - I fully support your actions, and I apologize if that was the message which was conveyed in my previous post. I just think this is a good opportunity to have a discussion about how we approach posting links to external websites and vendors on the forums, and whether we can add or contribute anything further to the posted guidelines to ensure our forums remain a friendly and impartial place of discussion.
Again, I am all for keeping the common sense/moderator's professional judgement rule we have going on, but perhaps other members (especially those who frequent the parts of the forum I don't) might have other opinions to add. I don't want to knit pick or criticize or cause trouble of any sort - just seeing if there is something further to add to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 21, 2015 3:17:42 GMT
[...] Directing SBG members to other sites to sell items or posting on this site to get members to join other sites instead of SBG is not allowed. This site does not condone members advertising their sites on SBG [...] Just to clarify, would this restriction be limited to members promoting their *own* site for personal gain? We do have a few threads where we post to external websites (e-bay finds thread, the MRl Deal of the Day thread or the KoA thread pre-owned items alert thread) which would apparently violate these rules if it applied to all forms of re-direction and promotion of other sites. If this is the case, then would we be satisfied sticking with the "common sense" rule for regulating these posts (ie: posting links to KoA's discount section with a cool new find is fine, but me posting links to a cool new item at "Afoo's Sketch Sword Emporium that is Suspiciously Similar to my User Profile" is not)? The common sense rule appears to be working for now. However, to play devil's advocate, the distinction between promoting new specials at KoA, and promoting new specials at another site with which I may be secretly affiliated with, could potentially be a bit fuzzy. I mean, for all we know, SBG member Demonskull, who is usually the one to post the MRL DoD, could be an affiliate of theirs. Alternatively, for a while I was promoting Grommets Cutlery a bit. I discovered that they had quite a bit of OOP Windlas items, and figured people might be interested. I am not actually affiliated with them (beyond buying a single sword from them once). However, a new member may not know that, and get the false impression concerning the impartiality of our forums and the trustworthiness of the information we provide. Again, I like the common sense system. While it may have its flaws, no system is perfect. Besides, it seems to be working for now. However, some food for thought. maybe we can move all the vendor-associated threads ( MRL DoD, KoA used items etc) to the SBG Cafe, where they can hang out with the e-bay finds thread.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 20, 2015 5:15:14 GMT
That looks like an extremely lightly built saber. Wonder how it would do in combat.
Also, how on earth did you track down all this information on this unusual peice?
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 18, 2015 22:50:18 GMT
I think it is good to make people aware of the issue, regardless of whether it is founded or not.
However, as @findlithui pointed out, this is the internet. While we do try to have a very nice and friendly environment, there is still some onus on the buyer, or indeed any forum user to verify information which they see, and to be responsible for any decisions they make. There are some people on the forums whose word I would take as fact, but this is after several months of research and discussion on the forums.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 17, 2015 16:22:53 GMT
did someone get the F1 as well?
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 16, 2015 5:02:40 GMT
Nah - I would only have gotten it if I could have gotten combo shipping with the F1. I have the Universal Princess of Wales sword, which fills a similar niche for me.
There is a review of the non blued version somewhere on the forums. Apparently its better than the 1796 repros, but not as good as the original. In my mind, its as close as you can get to an original 1796-style sword without having to take out a mortgage.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 16, 2015 4:15:02 GMT
Congrats. I was very sorely tempted - it looks well made with reasonable taper. I considered getting both that and the F1 together for a matching pair :P
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 16, 2015 2:39:03 GMT
They have a munitions grate 1853 available in the ~130 dollar range if I remember correctly
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 16, 2015 2:38:26 GMT
I think you are lying. You must have gotten a time machine and picked it up new from the factory
Looks great^^
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 16, 2015 2:36:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 10, 2015 21:01:12 GMT
Another mystery e-bay saber This is what appears to be an 1840 light artillery saber (as you can tell from the label). The seller had no info, but it went for a reasonable price so I picked it up out of curiosity (and partially expecting it to be the Windlass production). While the fixtures look very similar to the Windlass and the dimensions are spot on, there are no markings (whereas the Windlass has markings), and the false edge is also unsharpened, which seemed a bit odd. Up close, I could see that there is an actual peen on the back, so at least this is not a SLO wallhanger. The blade itself is made of surprisingly thick stock. I didn't have a caliper, but my pocket ruler gave a blade thickness of 7mm, 5mm and 2.5mm at the base, 1/2 up the blade, and 1' from the tip respectively. Any ideas? I am at work, but can grab better pictures later. I know Dixie Gun Works does an 1840 light artillery sword, so maybe this is one of their productions. The thick blade stock is unusual though Mystery sword Close up of the handle View of the peen Back of the blade Lack of false edge
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 9, 2015 1:31:30 GMT
I would tend to agree with that, though sometimes a second hand Windlass or other mainstream "normal" sword comes by which is worth it. I got the Universal Swords Princess of Wales sword second hand from them, and was quite pleased by it
The fact you save the sharpening on some of them might also make it worth it
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 8, 2015 23:00:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 7, 2015 23:04:30 GMT
Looks great...must have cost a great many appendages :P
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 1, 2015 21:10:24 GMT
The Windlass 1906 saber is on closeout at Atlanta Cutlery - $200 vs normal price of $250. Add the SBGWEB code for 10% off Review here. Comes highly recommended by the Kelly, so should be good. The steel guard also looks a lot nicer than the brass IMO
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 28, 2015 15:01:48 GMT
You have to upload the pictures using an external website such as imageshack (or facebook even works), and then use the image URL to insert it in the post
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 28, 2015 1:42:23 GMT
|
|