95cm! Wow, that's a heck of a single hander!
Makes sense from horseback, still, that's bastard sword territory. Looking forward to hearing the stats when she's done.
Here are the first few pictures of the final product. Craig is still figuring out his new camera so expect some better shots to come.
I asked Craig to do a shorter fuller (compared to their St. Maurice) with a flat lenticular tip, modeled on the historical example above with the type 2 cross. I thought this would give it a more 13th century look compared to older XI blades, and a bit more power to the slice.
The grip design is Craig's. I asked him to do it in red so it would stand out a bit from most other swords...and you know how it is, things can get pretty messy sometimes on the battlefield. ;)
Let us know what you think!
Attachment: 73.05 KB
Attachment: 30.93 KB
Attachment: 24.42 KB
I asked Craig to do a shorter fuller (compared to their St. Maurice) with a flat lenticular tip, modeled on the historical example above with the type 2 cross. I thought this would give it a more 13th century look compared to older XI blades, and a bit more power to the slice.
The grip design is Craig's. I asked him to do it in red so it would stand out a bit from most other swords...and you know how it is, things can get pretty messy sometimes on the battlefield. ;)
Let us know what you think!
Attachment: 73.05 KB Attachment: 30.93 KB Attachment: 24.42 KBI love it! I think that the shorter fuller and red grip were particularly good choices. The flat lenticular tip is nice to see, a lot of otherwise nice swords miss this detail. I would love to hear some more details, like blade width, thickness, distal taper and forward and rear pivot points. Congratulations, you have a top notch sword there.
That is a beautifully simple sword, though the pommel isn't as simple as one might think
If things get that messy, I don't think a red grip is going to stand out that much.
| J.D. Crawford wrote: |
| The grip design is Craig's. I asked him to do it in red so it would stand out a bit from most other swords...and you know how it is, things can get pretty messy sometimes on the battlefield. ;)
|
If things get that messy, I don't think a red grip is going to stand out that much.
Very, very pretty! I like the red grip! I prefer a longer fuller for my swords but do like how this one turned out! You've won this round Moriarty, but I will be back...and soon!
| Roger Hooper wrote: |
| That is a beautifully simple sword, though the pommel isn't as simple as one might think |
How right you are Roger. It looks simple and organic but the curvilinear geometry is challenging. This one gave Craig quite a bit of trouble, from what I recall. I think this is part of the reason he is thinking of putting it into production; you have to invest a lot in developing a sword like this for just a one-off. And I'm OK with that if it happens, I'd rather see more people enjoy the piece than horde it in my display case where very few people will ever see it.
Tim: I'm trying to get some variety in the fuller length for my collection so those 'naked blades' don't all look the same against each other. The next one(s) will be different again, although from this same period.
Scott: I expect Craig will be supplying some detailed measurements soon, but if any details are missing I will fill in the gaps when I get my hands on it. There will be a hands-on review in the end.
Looks great!
Like others have said- the red grip and fuller are really nice.
I note that the guard slot for the blade looks pretty clean and tight= always great when done well.
Congratulations!
I just can't keep up with you guys! :confused: :D
Like others have said- the red grip and fuller are really nice.
I note that the guard slot for the blade looks pretty clean and tight= always great when done well.
Congratulations!
I just can't keep up with you guys! :confused: :D
Here are some clear and nicely posed shots from Craig. Stats coming soon.
Attachment: 81.87 KB
Attachment: 24.7 KB
Attachment: 36.73 KB
Attachment: 81.87 KB Attachment: 24.7 KB Attachment: 36.73 KBReally an outstanding creation.
And here are Craig's Stats:
______________________________________
Overal Length: 42 11/16"
Blade Length: 35 9/16"
Blade Width: 2 3/4" *
Guard Width: 9"
Grip Length: 4 5/8"
Pommel Width: 3 1/8"
PoB/COG: 5.75"
Wt: 1322gr or 2.9 lbs
______________________________________
*(I'm pretty sure Craig meant 1 3/4" here)
The blade is a bit shorter than I was expecting, but still on the long end of the range for a single-hand sword (90.4 CM). I don't want to scoop my own review, but the weight and COG look good for a sword of this size.
I'm looking forward to handling this sword!
______________________________________
Overal Length: 42 11/16"
Blade Length: 35 9/16"
Blade Width: 2 3/4" *
Guard Width: 9"
Grip Length: 4 5/8"
Pommel Width: 3 1/8"
PoB/COG: 5.75"
Wt: 1322gr or 2.9 lbs
______________________________________
*(I'm pretty sure Craig meant 1 3/4" here)
The blade is a bit shorter than I was expecting, but still on the long end of the range for a single-hand sword (90.4 CM). I don't want to scoop my own review, but the weight and COG look good for a sword of this size.
I'm looking forward to handling this sword!
Thank you J.D. Interestingly, the blade length, cog and weight are practically identical to those of the sword I am just finishing, and the grip length just a bit longer. IIRC, the slightly longish grip is a characteristic of the later type XI's that differentiates them from the earlier examples. Is that correct? Anyway, awesome and truly unique sword, really looking forward to the review.
Edit: I called it a type XI, but I suppose that the shorter fuller is not consistent with the type. Too long and narrow to be a XII though. Just one of those that can not be neatly classified, I guess.
Edit: I called it a type XI, but I suppose that the shorter fuller is not consistent with the type. Too long and narrow to be a XII though. Just one of those that can not be neatly classified, I guess.
Last edited by Scott Woodruff on Thu 23 Aug, 2012 2:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
| J.D. Crawford wrote: |
| And here are Craig's Stats:
______________________________________ Overal Length: 42 11/16" Blade Length: 35 9/16" Blade Width: 2 3/4" * Guard Width: 9" Grip Length: 4 5/8" Pommel Width: 3 1/8" PoB/COG: 5.75" Wt: 1322gr or 2.9 lbs ______________________________________ *(I'm pretty sure Craig meant 1 3/4" here) The blade is a bit shorter than I was expecting, but still on the long end of the range for a single-hand sword (90.4 CM). I don't want to scoop my own review, but the weight and COG look good for a sword of this size. I'm looking forward to handling this sword! |
Interesting stats. Doesn't seem so hefty in looking at these but of course one can only tell so much. I am eager to hear your impressions on how she handles.
| Scott Woodruff wrote: |
| Thank you J.D. Interestingly, the blade length, cog and weight are practically identical to those of the sword I am just finishing, and the grip length just a bit longer. IIRC, the slightly longish grip is a characteristic of the later type XI's that differentiates them from the earlier examples. Is that correct? Anyway, awesome and truly unique sword, really looking forward to the review. |
Scott, I agree with the notion that there was a migration from short grip lengths 3.5-3.75" to longer 4-4.5" between the 12th and 13th century, correlated with the general shift of pommel preference from Brazil Nut to disc. These are not hard and fast rules, but there is a trend in both.
I believe (based on personal experimentation) that this was related to a functional shift away from using the pommel for contact leverage against the hand, toward a freer grip using the pommel as a pure balance mechanism. Mike Laodes made a similar observation in his swords episode of 'Weapons that made Britain', comparing Anglo-Saxon and later Medieval swords, but I think the transition in grip style can be better pinpointed to the period mentioned above.
So, this sword arrived the other day, and its a nice one. I don't have time for a review right now (maybe next month) but here is a teaser pic of it standing next to the other A&A pieces in my collection. For reference, the blades on these range 34"-37.5".
Attachment: 135.57 KB
Attachment: 135.57 KBVery nice...
The 4 single handers are quite long. Is that due to those specifics dimensionst being a personal preference of yours, or is it just a function of you gravitating towards 12th-13th C types?
The 4 single handers are quite long. Is that due to those specifics dimensionst being a personal preference of yours, or is it just a function of you gravitating towards 12th-13th C types?
Ahhhh. That looks nice! Well done Moriarty! How about a pic of some of your customs together. I'd love to see this one with your recent Helmes creation...
| Robin Smith wrote: |
| The 4 single handers are quite long. Is that due to those specifics dimensionst being a personal preference of yours, or is it just a function of you gravitating towards 12th-13th C types? |
A bit of both I guess Robin.
| Tim Lison wrote: |
| Ahhhh. That looks nice! Well done Moriarty! How about a pic of some of your customs together. I'd love to see this one with your recent Helmes creation... |
Good idea Holmes; I've got a couple weeks off coming up in late October and besides reviewing this one could try to get some better group shots. (By the way, still curious to see your new A&A!).
20 months later, and this sword's life has taken a turn that I did not expect in my last post.
After receiving this sword I wrote this review: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=27317
In short, it turned out very nicely, but with a few minor areas that might be improved, some objective, and some purely subjective. In my experience this is typical of custom swords. After all, they are all one-offs or prototypes, just like many of the originals likely were. It's not necessarily that the smith made mistakes or didn't follow instructions (neither was the case here), but rather that one learns something from the experience that one would like to apply in a second version if there was a chance to do so. But normally one takes this in stride and is just happy to have a great one-of-a-kind sword.
For some reason, this one brought out my perfectionist (perhaps obsessive-compulsive) side. I never quite felt satisfied. I just knew that a few minor changes could make this sword exactly what I really wanted (in terms of historical accuracy, performance, and personal taste), and that it was worth making these changes to be completely satisfied for the long term. So after a year or so I contacted Craig and we talked about it. He agreed to make those changes for a very reasonable price.
The actually changes, though small in measurement, required some fairly significant work, with only the original pommel and cross retained from the first sword:
- completely new blade (even longer, with a longer fuller, and more acute profile taper).
- shorter grip
- same red leather grip wrap, but increased underwrap structure for improved palm contact.
The result (D-pommel German Cavalry Sword 'Version 2.0') has recently been completed (see Craig's pictures below).
Some stats:
OL: 43.9
BL: 37.52
Weight: 2.8 lbs / 1272 gr
COP: 23.25" from guard
The sword is not yet in my hands. Should I write another review? Compare it to the first version? One might also compare it to A&A's production St. Maurice (which I also own). The new blade is a slightly modified version of the latter.
What do you guys think of all this?
By the way, I can't say enough good things about Craig and the other guys at A&A for bearing with me through this and never taking offense at my fussing about with this project. At least none that they ever revealed to the customer! :)
Attachment: 149.86 KB
Attachment: 197.07 KB
Attachment: 78.89 KB
After receiving this sword I wrote this review: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=27317
In short, it turned out very nicely, but with a few minor areas that might be improved, some objective, and some purely subjective. In my experience this is typical of custom swords. After all, they are all one-offs or prototypes, just like many of the originals likely were. It's not necessarily that the smith made mistakes or didn't follow instructions (neither was the case here), but rather that one learns something from the experience that one would like to apply in a second version if there was a chance to do so. But normally one takes this in stride and is just happy to have a great one-of-a-kind sword.
For some reason, this one brought out my perfectionist (perhaps obsessive-compulsive) side. I never quite felt satisfied. I just knew that a few minor changes could make this sword exactly what I really wanted (in terms of historical accuracy, performance, and personal taste), and that it was worth making these changes to be completely satisfied for the long term. So after a year or so I contacted Craig and we talked about it. He agreed to make those changes for a very reasonable price.
The actually changes, though small in measurement, required some fairly significant work, with only the original pommel and cross retained from the first sword:
- completely new blade (even longer, with a longer fuller, and more acute profile taper).
- shorter grip
- same red leather grip wrap, but increased underwrap structure for improved palm contact.
The result (D-pommel German Cavalry Sword 'Version 2.0') has recently been completed (see Craig's pictures below).
Some stats:
OL: 43.9
BL: 37.52
Weight: 2.8 lbs / 1272 gr
COP: 23.25" from guard
The sword is not yet in my hands. Should I write another review? Compare it to the first version? One might also compare it to A&A's production St. Maurice (which I also own). The new blade is a slightly modified version of the latter.
What do you guys think of all this?
By the way, I can't say enough good things about Craig and the other guys at A&A for bearing with me through this and never taking offense at my fussing about with this project. At least none that they ever revealed to the customer! :)
Attachment: 149.86 KB Attachment: 197.07 KB Attachment: 78.89 KBTo me, the refined blade shape is a dramatic improvement. I much prefer the second sword to the first. Looks good!
| J.D. Crawford wrote: | ||
Scott, I agree with the notion that there was a migration from short grip lengths 3.5-3.75" to longer 4-4.5" between the 12th and 13th century, correlated with the general shift of pommel preference from Brazil Nut to disc. These are not hard and fast rules, but there is a trend in both. I believe (based on personal experimentation) that this was related to a functional shift away from using the pommel for contact leverage against the hand, toward a freer grip using the pommel as a pure balance mechanism. Mike Laodes made a similar observation in his swords episode of 'Weapons that made Britain', comparing Anglo-Saxon and later Medieval swords, but I think the transition in grip style can be better pinpointed to the period mentioned above. |
Miight it also be related to a need for a larger grip to accommodate mail mufflers being added to the end of hauberk sleeves?
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum