I have a few A&A rapiers, and they are anything but flimsy. They have stiffer blades and weigh more than many of my Medieval swords.

^Yes, It was rather ingenious how smiths managed to figure out how to make a sword functionally a spear that you can carry at your side. I have absolutely zero interest in smallswords and khopeshs. IMO one is glorified sewing needle another is a glorified sickle.

I can't stand stage combat or sparring swords that are overweight crowbars with bad blade geometry. I want them to function and feel as much as possible like real swords, while still being durable and as safe as possible - a tough combination to bring off.

Multiple fullers that are spaced widely apart. Looks horrible.

sabres, tulwars, katanas, messers, falcions
you get the idea usually unbalanced or um unsimmetrical blades kinda bother me

As before, the phrase "I can't stand" is too strong for this post. What struck me recently, however, is that Petersen Type M Viking swords probably have the least appealing hilt furnishings of any Viking-era sword. From a time period that gives us triangular, tri-lobed and multi-lobed pommels, a simple horizontal bar, with a similar such bar for a cross, is pretty unappealing. Even the Type F at least has the button on top, while the Type Q has some curves. Not being particularly knowledgeable about Viking swords, I was astonished to learn that Type Ms were the most common type of Viking sword, after Type H. In a sense, this is understandable: the Type M seems to be the simplest hilt configuration of any Viking sword for a smith to make. Aesthetically, however, Type M's seem to lack everything that make Viking swords beautiful. Even most of the workman-like medieval swords have a more appealing pommel to me.

Does anyone see something in the Type M that I'm missing?

It has been suggested that M is a basic set of fittings bladesmith would put on just for the sword to be usable, but most customers would choose to send them to hilt cutler for a proper nice hilt. I don't know if theory holds water, one would have to search for signs of use on discovered type M's to see if they were used or did they wait for someone to hilt them properly but never were...

Really nice bascinet there Craig, as far as they go, I can almost stand that one! :D

I wish I had a nice example of a type M, but you are correct, they seem to be quite plain and utilitarian by comparison. I don't mind them at all, though I'd probably collect other types first. I can't say the Type M is my favorite by any means, but I admire the idea that it might be a stripped down, munitions-grade setup, to be anachronistic. And if the swords are being provided to the warriors by their Jarl or something, perhaps this is one way to look at it. I'd be interested in handling one. I always thought the Type H would feel uncomfortable with an outsized triangular pommel. But I like my Albion Berserkr. So it's worth seeing if the clunky looking bar actually provides some good handling features, I don't know.

Of course I'm aware I'm conflating these types across regions and times, a viking might not ever encounter a different type than an M or H or whatever. My point such as it is, that the utilitarian design of Type M might surely make up for its plain characteristics.