Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Makers and Manufacturers Talk > Kingmaker hilt waxes Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
Howard Waddell
Industry Professional



Location: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2003

Posts: 716

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2006 5:32 am    Post subject: Kingmaker hilt waxes         Reply with quote

Here is a preview shot of the waxes before molding...



Best,

Howy

Albion Swords Ltd
http://albion-swords.com
http://filmswords.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jonathan Blair




Location: Hanover, PA
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Likes: 4 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 479

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2006 7:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

WOW! Can't wait to see this one in steel.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - The Lord Jesus Christ, from The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, chapter x, verse 34, Authorized Version of 1611
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Grisetti




Location: Orlando metro area, Florida, USA
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Likes: 7 pages
Reading list: 28 books

Posts: 1,809

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2006 3:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ahh. My favorite pommel and cross combination! But is that the Kingmaker blade, with a fuller? The website 'artist concept' still shows a typical XVIII, with a strong central ridge all the way from cross to tip.
"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Kelly




Location: Wichita, Kansas
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 5,682

Feedback score: 100%
(5 total ▮ 100% positive)
PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2006 4:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steve Grisetti wrote:
Ahh. My favorite pommel and cross combination! But is that the Kingmaker blade, with a fuller? The website 'artist concept' still shows a typical XVIII, with a strong central ridge all the way from cross to tip.


It looks like a ridgeline from a hollowground blade blank to me, compare it with the shape of the tang and you'll see what I mean. This is one of the ones I've been eager to see completed.
View user's profile Send private message
Jonathon Janusz





Joined: 20 Nov 2003

Posts: 467

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2006 5:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Big Grin

Right on time Happy
View user's profile Send private message
Phill Lappin




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11 Apr 2005

Posts: 44

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2006 5:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It definately looks like a fuller to me.
IN NOMINE DOMINE
IN NOMINE CONVIVOR
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Aaron J. Cergol





Joined: 02 Aug 2006

Posts: 45

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2006 7:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Is the kingmaker based off of Henry V sword?

Man oh man Albion just keeps adding more and more swords. I had decided on the prince, then the constable, then the yeoman and now I like the kingmaker. Sheesh Big Grin
View user's profile Send private message
Chuck Russell




Location: WV
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Reading list: 46 books

Posts: 936

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2006 7:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

well if its a kingmaker then its a 15thc based sword no? then theres no fuller that i'm awaire of used then.
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional



Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,757

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Fri 04 Aug, 2006 1:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hey all, and thanks for positive remarks.

The Kingmaker is not based on the famous weapon of Henry V.
That sword is shorter and wider in the blade.
It does share some similarities in the hilt, but so does many, many swords of this type: many follow exactly this design concept.
The Kingmaker is a XVIIIa (according to the Oakeshott typology in The Sword in the Age of Chivalry): a little longer and slimmer than the typical XVIII. Some of these XVIIIa“s do have fullers, so you are not completely out of your way in thinking the Kingmaker might have one.
It does not however. What you see is shadings left by the milling in the tang plug.
Also to keep in mind, the tang plugs I use for the hilt waxes do not have to include all the features of the finished blades.

There are several original swords that are the source of inspiration for the Kingmaker.
I have used this opportunity to include features from s few swords that I long have admired, and relied most heavily on the ones I have personally documented.
There are two in the wallace Collection that belong to the XVIIIa grup and another in the Royal Armouries in Leeds (and this one have had the most prominent influence) that have all been an inspiration for the visual design of the Kingmaker. The Leeds one is published ion "Records": XVIII.3 page 174. Those who have the book might have a look. The kingmaker is much closer to this sword than the sword of Henry V.

Many swords of this type and from this time have similar look and character. There are a few features that you see repeated with small variations over and over again.

The Kingmaker is intended to be a homage to those swords.
I have documented some of these and used this detailed data to design the blade. It“s balance and mounting is also influenced by swords from the casitllion find that I have had the privilige to handle and take detailed notes of.

In hand the Kingmaker feels solid and substantial. The blade is thick and stiff, but light as a result of the deeply hollowed edge bevels. The very edge is of apple seed section, modelled after the actual swords Ive seen first hand.
When put in motion it shares the feel of many of its historical counterparts: a strong intuitive feel and an understated but clear aggressiveness. A good, dependable fighting sword in the press of battle for use by both foot soldier and mounted knight.
It might look a bit fancy, but it is all business.

I hope this weapon will meet and perhaps even exceed your expectations.

Thank you.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bryce Felperin




Location: San Jose, CA
Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posts: 552

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Fri 04 Aug, 2006 11:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Looking forward to that sword!
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Maly




Location: OKC, OK
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 23 books

Posts: 257

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Fri 04 Aug, 2006 2:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It looks GREAT! I do like the lines of the waxes. Just a matter of time now until mine arrives.... Big Grin
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." ~A. Maslow
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jeremiah Swanger




Location: Hershey, PA
Joined: 20 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 531

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug, 2006 12:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Johnsson wrote:

The Kingmaker is a XVIIIa (according to the Oakeshott typology in The Sword in the Age of Chivalry): a little longer and slimmer than the typical XVIII. Some of these XVIIIa“s do have fullers, so you are not completely out of your way in thinking the Kingmaker might have one.
It does not however. What you see is shadings left by the milling in the tang plug.
Also to keep in mind, the tang plugs I use for the hilt waxes do not have to include all the features of the finished blades.

There are several original swords that are the source of inspiration for the Kingmaker.
I have used this opportunity to include features from s few swords that I long have admired, and relied most heavily on the ones I have personally documented.
There are two in the wallace Collection that belong to the XVIIIa grup and another in the Royal Armouries in Leeds (and this one have had the most prominent influence) that have all been an inspiration for the visual design of the Kingmaker. The Leeds one is published ion "Records": XVIII.3 page 174. Those who have the book might have a look. The kingmaker is much closer to this sword than the sword of Henry V.


Hi Peter,

I'm wondering if the final product will differ in its dimensions from that listed on the website? The Kingmaker page specifies a 28.74" blade, with a length of 36.22"

That would mean a blade that is maybe an inch longer than the Henry V and a grip of 3.75" to 4" in length-- hardly the scale of sword that comes to mind when one gets familiar with the XVIIIa sub-type.

I'm certainly not questioning your expertise-- I just feel like I'm not understanding something. Worried

Either way, no matter what the dimensions, this is a sword that I really look forward to, and I'm pretty anxious to see the final product! Happy

"Rhaegar fought nobly.
Rhaegar fought valiantly.
Rhaegar fought honorably.
And Rhaegar died."

- G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jean Thibodeau




PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug, 2006 8:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jeremy;

Just had a quick look at Albion and the Kingmaker is described as an XVIII and not as an XVllla so the size makes sense.
( if I have it right " a " at the end usually means the longer variants ! Although there might be one or more exceptions to this. )

( Edited: rereading the Post Peter wrote I see that he wrote XVIIIa but the Albion site does say XVIII , so there may be a little confusion here with the type it's supposed to be ??? )

And as Peter said it's not a copy of the Henry V so dimensions should respect the type but need not be identical to the
Henry V .

I could be wrong but the Oakshotts typology is a system of organizing and describing swords in an organized way but it shouldn't be used as meaning that any variance from " type " is wrong: Many swords can be hard to type when they have attributes that could be seen as tweeners by having unique characteristics like fullers on types that usually don't have fullers or vice versa.

If you went back in time and told a swordsmith that a sword he is making is wrong because it doesn't neatly fit into a type he would not have any idea what you were talking about ! Eek! The whole typology thing is just for us to have an easy way to describe swords to each other in words and have an idea about it without a picture or having to go into a long description every time.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
David Ross




Location: Nashville, TN
Joined: 02 Mar 2006

Posts: 14

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug, 2006 9:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Perhaps part of the confusion lies in using different books as reference points. Peter was referring to the Kingmaker as an XVIIIa as defined in SAC, whereas the XVIIIa longswords as listed in Records were classified as XIIIb in SAC. I've not seen an explanation from Oakeshott as to why he adjusted the Type XVIII subclassifications, but it does seem to be a bit confusing, to me at least. So, to the best of my understanding, the Kingmaker would be a type XVIII according to Records, but a type XVIIIa according to SAC.

Clear as mud,
Wink
David
View user's profile Send private message
Jeremiah Swanger




Location: Hershey, PA
Joined: 20 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 531

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug, 2006 11:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Ross wrote:
Perhaps part of the confusion lies in using different books as reference points. Peter was referring to the Kingmaker as an XVIIIa as defined in SAC, whereas the XVIIIa longswords as listed in Records were classified as XIIIb in SAC. I've not seen an explanation from Oakeshott as to why he adjusted the Type XVIII subclassifications, but it does seem to be a bit confusing, to me at least. So, to the best of my understanding, the Kingmaker would be a type XVIII according to Records, but a type XVIIIa according to SAC.


Hi David,

I know what you have in mind, but Oakeshott pretty clearly defined XVIIIa in SAC (the only Oakeshott book I have a copy of, thus far) as having a blade averaging about 32" (a good four inches longer than the Kingmaker), and a grip of about 5" in length (about 1.25" longer than what the Kingmaker will appear to have).

For reference, the German Branch sword sold by A&A is classified in SAC as an XVIIIa.

I feel kind of dirty for bringing up typology again... but I'm feeling a little confused.

For the record, though, I thought having the sub-types of XVIII was not that bad of an idea. Now that virtually everything has been collapsed into XVIIIa, the sub-type is a bit of a quagmire.

"Rhaegar fought nobly.
Rhaegar fought valiantly.
Rhaegar fought honorably.
And Rhaegar died."

- G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional



Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,757

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Sun 06 Aug, 2006 3:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The blade length of the Kingmaker is 82 cm or a tad over 32 inches. This fits right with the typical XVIIIa.
The stats you see describing the sword are unfortunately quite dated, and belong to a very early proto version of this sword.
The Kingmaker has gone through quite a few transformations during its development.
We wanted to have a type XVIII single hander in the NG line.
Initially the Kingmaker was concieved as a shorter and broader sword.
I admire many of the swords in the Castillion find that is of this type. At the time we first started development of the Kingmaker it turned out it was not feasible to produce such a thin and wide blade in a hollow ground configuration.
Instead the Kingmaker became less wide and instead longer turning into a XVIIIa (according to The Sword in the Age of Chivalry), but still a XVIII if you go by "Records". In records Oakeshott only presents one subgroup of type XVIII. You can still see a progression from the shorter and broader XVIII via XVIIIa to the XVIIIb in the layout and sequence of the photos in the book. Many of those that are presented as XVIII“s would have been classified XVIIIa“s in SAC.
This is the cause for any confusion, I should think, plus the fact that old data for the dimensions of the
Kingmaker unfortunately has remained unchanged from an early stage in development.

In the end, if you choose to classify the Kingmaker as a XVIII or an XVIIIa depends on what version of the Oakeshott typology you feel most at home with. I normally refer to the typology as seen in SAC as it offers a more defined coverage of types. Oakeshott kept evolving and developing his typology, so one need to be aware this.

There are resons to return to the type XVIII for the NG line.
I still want to see a classic Castillion type sword with a bold broad and pointy type XVIII blade of handy size. To me those swords are among the most beautifull and functional shapes the medieval sword ever had.
The Kingmaker in its final shape is meant to be a sword just like those you see on many effigies of men at arms and knights of this period: a weapon with a little more reach than their shorter cousins, but a weapon that is still handy enough to be supremely functional in close hand to hand fighting.
The XVIIIa type (SAC definition) is a clear type with merits of its own. They do have a place beside the shorter XVIII swords. The XVIIIa“s might give a more "Knightly" impression, even if this was not so in actuality: both XVIII and XVIIIa were obviously used by nobles and soldiers of more humble standing.

Hope this helps to clear any misunderstandings and confusions.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Steve Grisetti




Location: Orlando metro area, Florida, USA
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Likes: 7 pages
Reading list: 28 books

Posts: 1,809

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Sun 06 Aug, 2006 8:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Johnsson wrote:
The blade length of the Kingmaker is 82 cm or a tad over 32 inches. This fits right with the typical XVIIIa.
The stats you see describing the sword are unfortunately quite dated, and belong to a very early proto version of this sword.
The Kingmaker has gone through quite a few transformations during its development.
...Hope this helps to clear any misunderstandings and confusions.

Thank you for this clarification, Peter. I now understand your earlier statement that XVIII.3 (in Records) had the most prominent influence for the visual design of the Kingmaker. I was having a little trouble reconciling 32 inch blade of XVIII.3 with the 28.74 inch blade length quoted on the Albion website.

What will the Kingmaker blade width be? I gather from your statements that the profile will be noticably less than the 2.2 inches quoted on the Albion website.

"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional



Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,757

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Sun 06 Aug, 2006 11:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steve Grisetti wrote:
Peter Johnsson wrote:
The blade length of the Kingmaker is 82 cm or a tad over 32 inches. This fits right with the typical XVIIIa.
The stats you see describing the sword are unfortunately quite dated, and belong to a very early proto version of this sword.
The Kingmaker has gone through quite a few transformations during its development.
...Hope this helps to clear any misunderstandings and confusions.

Thank you for this clarification, Peter. I now understand your earlier statement that XVIII.3 (in Records) had the most prominent influence for the visual design of the Kingmaker. I was having a little trouble reconciling 32 inch blade of XVIII.3 with the 28.74 inch blade length quoted on the Albion website.

What will the Kingmaker blade width be? I gather from your statements that the profile will be noticably less than the 2.2 inches quoted on the Albion website.


4.8 cm wide: just shy of 2 inches.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jeremiah Swanger




Location: Hershey, PA
Joined: 20 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 531

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Sun 06 Aug, 2006 10:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Johnsson wrote:
The blade length of the Kingmaker is 82 cm or a tad over 32 inches. This fits right with the typical XVIIIa.
The stats you see describing the sword are unfortunately quite dated, and belong to a very early proto version of this sword.
The Kingmaker has gone through quite a few transformations during its development.

...

...


There are resons to return to the type XVIII for the NG line.
...
The Kingmaker in its final shape is meant to be a sword just like those you see on many effigies of men at arms and knights of this period: a weapon with a little more reach than their shorter cousins, but a weapon that is still handy enough to be supremely functional in close hand to hand fighting.
The XVIIIa type (SAC definition) is a clear type with merits of its own. They do have a place beside the shorter XVIII swords. The XVIIIa“s might give a more "Knightly" impression, even if this was not so in actuality: both XVIII and XVIIIa were obviously used by nobles and soldiers of more humble standing.

Hope this helps to clear any misunderstandings and confusions.



Thanks for the clarification, Peter.

I agree with you in your preference for the SAC-era Oakeshott typology, at least in terms of the XVIII sub-types. XVIIIb and XVIIIe, in particular, are too well-defined and unique to be lumped into the rest of "XVIIIa".

I think it was a good idea to go this direction with the Kingmaker, as A&A already produces the "quintessential" short XVIII- the sword of Henry V. Seeing as how the western reproduction sword industry is still in its relative infancy, I think it is a good idea to continually "feel out" the various niches in the market, and try new, lesser-represented designs.

"Rhaegar fought nobly.
Rhaegar fought valiantly.
Rhaegar fought honorably.
And Rhaegar died."

- G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional



Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,757

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Mon 07 Aug, 2006 6:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jeremiah Swanger wrote:
....I think it was a good idea to go this direction with the Kingmaker, as A&A already produces the "quintessential" short XVIII- the sword of Henry V. Seeing as how the western reproduction sword industry is still in its relative infancy, I think it is a good idea to continually "feel out" the various niches in the market, and try new, lesser-represented designs.


Yes, and as no one is currently doing a good representation of one of the type XVIII in the Castillion find, that shall be done by Albion-
-most probably.... Wink
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Makers and Manufacturers Talk > Kingmaker hilt waxes
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum