Posts: 1,244 Location: New Glarus, WI
Wed 15 Jun, 2005 6:19 pm
Steve Grisetti wrote: |
Aaron Schnatterly wrote: | ...My immediate thoughts exactly. I had a rush of visions or feelings of how that sword could be used the instant I saw the sketch. I actually considered cancelling my Svante for it. Then I came to my senses... and just ordered one also.... |
Wow. I guess the Munich REALLY spoke to you :!: |
To steal lyrics from Queensryche - it hit me like a two ton heavy thing.
This particular topic could probably be both a separate thread and my ticket to the looney bin, but there have been a couple of pieces that really caught me on multiple levels. This, obviously, was one. The Knight, Brescia, and Svante were the others that really immediately evoked something deep within me. That's not to say that I don't have a good bond with my other pieces, but I have a much deeper connection with these particular ones.
But to get back to the point, yes. When Mike put the Svante into my hands, I can't imagine what my face revealed, but seeing Mike's reaction to my reaction was pretty interesting. I hated to put it down. Leaving it's aesthetic elements out of it, the feel of it was insane. The point of rotation was literally within a whisper of the tip. For such a massive piece, it was incredibly responsive. For any weapon to shake that foundation, that bond, is pretty spooky, actually. Yet, that's where I found myself... and I hadn't seen anything but Peter's line drawing. Yes, I had seen pics of the original, and those flashed through my head. If I were in the position where it was an either-or, I'd be in a bit of a pickle. If the Munich were in production now, I'm not sure which I would want first. As it stands now, it's all good. I'll just stay happily broke for a while.
Posts: 820 Location: Texas
Wed 15 Jun, 2005 8:47 pm
Sean Flynt wrote: |
For some reason, I'd like to antique this sword more than any other, especially if I could first tool the wrap and get some gold leaf to adhere to the fittings. I guess part of the attraction is that the threshold is a bit lower for an authentic looking antique job since the original is in such fantastic condition. If folks start antiquing Albion swords, I hope they'll start with this one. I'd love to see a meticulous job that would match the original as closely as possible. Beautiful recreation! |
Hi Sean...
I have often thought of taking a NexGen sword and making it look in it's prime. However with the Munich Sword that would be a strange proposition. It is one of the most well preserved swords I have ever seen. So... a new-for-old treatment would actually make it look older than the pristine condition of the original. I mean the pictures of the sword that I have seen you would think that it had been made yesterday and yet it is four centuries old!
ks
Attachment: 97.67 KB
Posts: 2,608
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 6:21 am
I just wish there was an ETA on the museum line version of the sword. Sigh... the problems I have... :)
Posts: 1,244 Location: New Glarus, WI
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 6:28 am
Kirk Lee Spencer wrote: |
I have often thought of taking a NexGen sword and making it look in it's prime. However with the Munich Sword that would be a strange proposition. It is one of the most well preserved swords I have ever seen. So... a new-for-old treatment would actually make it look older than the pristine condition of the original. I mean the pictures of the sword that I have seen you would think that it had been made yesterday and yet it is four centuries old!
ks |
I agree with this - that's actually part of the concept I had - a very sublte effect just to give it that "wait... you mean this thing is HOW OLD?!" feel. The original is absolutely amazing.
Posts: 9,555 Location: Dayton, OH
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 6:33 am
Interesting pics, Kirk, wow. I've never seen close-up color pics of this one. The selective gilding is very interesting; I also didn't realize the inscription was around the outside of the pommel. Any more pics?
What a fascinating sword.
Posts: 1,244 Location: New Glarus, WI
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 6:39 am
Russ Ellis wrote: |
I just wish there was an ETA on the museum line version of the sword. Sigh... the problems I have... :) |
I don't recall an ETA on the St. Maurice piece yet, either, but it's cool. Given the philosophy behind the Museum Line pieces, I'd much prefer them to be correct rather than rushed. I'm extremely impressed by all of the other ML pieces. This one should prove to be quite amazing.
Besides, if it comes out too soon, I'll just continue to writhe in financial hell as I scrap to pool the funds. Going through that with the Svante is bad enough.
Posts: 1,244 Location: New Glarus, WI
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 6:42 am
Oh, one other thought on antiquing one of these - I would be much more apt to do this with a Next Gen than I would with the Museum Line piece. I'm sure there were others similar to this, and the Munich won't be an exacting representation. As such, I wouldn't feel so attached to keeping it as close as possible to the original.
Posts: 11,553 Location: San Francisco
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 6:43 am
Chad Arnow wrote: |
Interesting pics, Kirk, wow. I've never seen close-up color pics of this one. The selective gilding is very interesting; I also didn't realize the inscription was around the outside of the pommel. Any more pics?
What a fascinating sword. |
Those photos appear in this topic, too, along with some others.
Posts: 820 Location: Texas
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 7:38 am
Russ Ellis wrote: |
Kirk Lee Spencer wrote: | Hi Sean...
I have often thought of taking a NexGen sword and making it look in it's prime. However with the Munich Sword that would be a strange proposition. It is one of the most well preserved swords I have ever seen. So... a new-for-old treatment would actually make it look older than the pristine condition of the original. I mean the pictures of the sword that I have seen you would think that it had been made yesterday and yet it is four centuries old!
ks |
Thanks for posting those pictures Kirk! Some of the better ones I've seen...Where did you get them? |
Hi Russ et al...
I had no source info on those pictures... So that means they were either from a time when I first began the photo archive and was not recording source data or they were taken off the internet where source was not given. (It appears the close-up of the pommel may have come from Kenneth's post that Nathan linked.)
[About five years ago I began a photo archive for design purposes. I did not even know about forums then... so I never thought I would need source info. I now realize how important it is and will include it if I have it. I now have about 8000 images and archeological drawings in the archive. After a year of recording source info and backtracking I have sources on about 90% of the material. However I did not have anything on these photos. If anyone runs across the pics, It would be great if you could PM the source to me and I will update the credit info.]
Thanks
ks
Posts: 5,981 Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 7:41 am
Kirk Lee Spencer wrote: |
I have often thought of taking a NexGen sword and making it look in it's prime. However with the Munich Sword that would be a strange proposition. It is one of the most well preserved swords I have ever seen. So... a new-for-old treatment would actually make it look older than the pristine condition of the original. I mean the pictures of the sword that I have seen you would think that it had been made yesterday and yet it is four centuries old!
ks |
But that's the challenge--to make it look like the impossibly well-preserved original! I certainly wouldn't want to see the piece look like somebody just fished it out of the Rhine. But to gild the furniture and then create the subtle wear patterns/patina of the original, that would be something.
Posts: 3,646 Location: Midwest
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 8:40 am
I like this one too.
And I will eventually probably have to break down and buy one. But its going to have to wait for a bit.
Posts: 2,608
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 10:50 am
Aaron Schnatterly wrote: |
I don't recall an ETA on the St. Maurice piece yet, either, but it's cool. Given the philosophy behind the Museum Line pieces, I'd much prefer them to be correct rather than rushed. I'm extremely impressed by all of the other ML pieces. This one should prove to be quite amazing.
Besides, if it comes out too soon, I'll just continue to writhe in financial hell as I scrap to pool the funds. Going through that with the Svante is bad enough. |
A couple of very good points there. I'd much rather them get it right then get it quick. This will give me time to put the pennies together to actually afford it when it comes out.
Posts: 2,608
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 10:52 am
Kirk Lee Spencer wrote: |
I had no source info on those pictures... So that means they were either from a time when I first began the photo archive and was not recording source data or they were taken off the internet where source was not given. (It appears the close-up of the pommel may have come from Kenneth's post that Nathan linked.)
[About five years ago I began a photo archive for design purposes. I did not even know about forums then... so I never thought I would need source info. I now realize how important it is and will include it if I have it. I now have about 8000 images and archeological drawings in the archive. After a year of recording source info and backtracking I have sources on about 90% of the material. However I did not have anything on these photos. If anyone runs across the pics, It would be great if you could PM the source to me and I will update the credit info.]
Thanks
ks |
WOW! Now that's very interesting...
Posts: 717 Location: Wisconsin, USA
Fri 17 Jun, 2005 4:37 am
Hey Kirk!
I believe those are from the set of photos Peter took of the sword during his documentation.
Best,
Howy
Posts: 820 Location: Texas
Fri 17 Jun, 2005 5:34 am
Thanks for the heads up Howy... I was thinking that the cross shot looked like his work.
I'll PM Peter
ks
Posts: 9,555 Location: Dayton, OH
Fri 17 Jun, 2005 8:42 am
Peter Johnsson wrote: |
About the future Museum Line version...
Gilding: The original has steel furniture (not bronze as Oakeshott writes) that has bevels and details fire gilded. |
Peter,
I have a question about the fittings and gilding in general. Oakeshott calls the fittings "bronze-gilt" (rather than "gilded bronze") when your pictures clearly show steel (or iron?) accented with a yellow metal. Oakeshott also refers to swords having silver-gilt hilts in his books. Obviously that wouldn't mean gold over silver fittings, since silver would be too soft to make components out of; those swords also appear silver, which would make that the top color, not gold.
Some people use the term gilding to mean applying any metal (most often gold but not always) over another. Could Oakeshott have meant that this sword's fittings had accents of bronze, applied via "gilding" techniques?
"Gilded bronze" would certainly mean gold over bronze fittings. Could "bronze-gilt" and "silver-gilt" mean putting bronze or silver over the base metal?
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