Hello all!
Let's assume for a moment, since Sonny asked the question on a forum dedicated to historic arms and armour collectors, that his audience is, well, historic arms and armour collectors. Then historical details and at least ball-park historical handling
are important to what his goals are. I think it's not unreasonable to expect that some improvements along these lines can be made - other makers (Museum Replicas and Generations 2) have or are currently making such improvements, perhaps with varying success.
Is it impossible to produce a sword with the roughly historical look of the nicer MRL's, but the apparent durability of Generation 2s? Of course, some of the grosser durability will be lost with a thinner, lighter blade, but I'm talking more along the lines of tang and hilt durability. Generation 2 swords have a reputation, perhaps dubious, for being durable but not always aesthetically pleasing. Some MRL's are fairly good in looks, but not always as durable in tang and hilt as they should be. Is it beyond possibility that a maker who wishes to make improvements to his product could combine the two aspects without undue increase in cost? MRL can do fairly nice looking swords at times, and Generation 2 can make some durable swords, so I think a maker in their league (and that's part of the point here, I believe) could reasonably combine these two aspects in their product.
On another note; I have thought of a few ways that certain MRL swords I own fall short, and how they could be improved with little extra cost. I say that these improvements could be made fairly inexpensively because I've seen each attribute in different MRL swords, just rarely all together. I speak from personal experience; I own several, and have taken apart my share of MRL hilts to shim the grip cores and the like.
I'll start with my observations about the MRL Towton; a nice-looking sword, but a bit light. This one was arguably one of the best-looking MRL's so far. The pommel and cross are fairly well done, and the blade is finished fairly nicely. However, it suffers from the standard MRL loose grip; the threaded part of the tang goes through a circular hole drilled in the cross and grip, and the grip isn't as tight as it could be. This could be solved in one of several ways. The maker could make the grip core fit tighter, but this may up the cost. Alternately, the grip can be shimmed. I did this to my Towton; a few slivers of wood help keep the grip core tight. This might sound like sloppy workmanship,
but this was done historically. Take a look at the study
Oakeshott made of what he called his "Morgarten" sword in "Appendix C" of
Records of the Medieval Sword. The close-up shot of the split-open grip core clearly shows how a shim was inserted to keep the grip core tight. Another method that could be used, and is used by some "lower-end" makers, is using epoxy to secure the grip core. This may not be historical (was mastic ever used in the grip core of medieval swords? - I'm not sure on that point), but it can work. Some MRL owners use this method.
The Towton also suffers from the typical flaw amongst MRL swords; the juncture of the tang and the shoulders of the blade lack a real radius. This juncture should have at least a slight curve. Now, some may feel that MRL swords always lack this,
but this is not the case. I also own the MRL Patay, which did have a small radius at this important juncture. It might not have been as great a radius as seen on some higher-end maker's swords, but it was there. If they could do this on at least one of their sword models, then why not others? It may boil down to laziness or sloppiness. The point is, a lower-end maker was able to make a radius at the tang-shoulders juncture on at least one of their swords. If they could have done it on the Patay, then I suspect that they could have done it on the Towton.
Another flaw that the Towton suffers from, and one that's shared by many MRL thrusting or cut-and-thrust swords, is that the blade is too flexible. A stiffer blade would have been better for this type of sword, and may have led to a more durable blade. This could have been at least partially remedied by shortening the fuller, and having a larger ridged section near the point. This probably would have altered the balance of the sword a bit, but this one feels almost "too-light" in the hand. I can use it in one as easily as some of my one-handed swords, even though the Towton is supposed to be a type of bastard sword. A slightly thicker blade near the tip (a reinforced point) may also have helped this sword be truer to historic forms. This may be the costliest improvement to make.
The positive attributes of the Towton are it's looks and overall fit. The cross slot at the shoulder of the blade may still be a bit wide, but it's a closer fit than some older MRL swords. Both cross and pommel are nicely done; maybe not a "lordly" weapon, but not an inelegant weapon either.
Now on to the Patay. I already mentioned that this did exhibit a radius at the tang-shoulder juncture, but this had a screw-on pommel, and both pommel and cross were made of brass. The cross slot was a bit overly large as well. In terms of looks this sword is rather appealing, but it falls short in the construction department. I had to epoxy the grip core and pommel to keep things from rotating. Again, some of these things could have been solved if MRL followed the same procedure it did with other swords. The cross slot could have been a bit tighter; they've done this with the Towton to a degree, and especially with the Arbedo and Schwert. Brass may not have been the best choice for this one, but they were trying to replicate a sword with a gilded bronze pommel and cross. They could have been made out of steel; MRL uses steel on many of their hilts. However, the pommel is very nicely cast, proving that they can make nicely-shaped pommels. The cross isn't as elegant, but it's okay, other than the overly-wide slot for the shoulders of the blade. Since MRL has done swords with either peened on pommels or threaded tangs ends with a nut, they could have done that with this sword. It would have improved this particular sword if the tang end had been peened over the pommel, instead of the pommel being screwed on. The blade is again maybe a bit too light and flexible for a true cut-and-thrust sword, but it handles fairly well for such a long blade. A bit more of a spine would have helped.
I already mentioned the Arbedo and the Schwert in regards to cross-slot fit. These two have the tang ends peened over the pommels. Both have tangs that are rectangular in cross section right up to where the tang is peened (or just about to where the tang is peened), meaning that the grip and pommels have less of a tendency to twist. The Schwert could be a little better in terms of
blade geometry - the point probably should have been of elliptical
cross-section instead of a flattened diamond - but it handles fairly well for a sword of it's type and price range. I don't have any higher-end swords to compare the Schwert's handling to, but I can say that is handles much better than some of my earlier MRL/Windlass swords such as the Norman Sword. The Norman sword feels very heavy and dead in the hand, while the Schwert feels livelier.
The Arbedo isn't an exact copy of the sword it is supposed to represent, the Oakeshott Type XVIIIa in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but it's not completely without possible historical precedents. The sword in the Met has a reinforced point with more of a tapered profile than the Arbedo. However, other historical examples of Type XVIIIa's have points with less of a ridge. It's obviously hard to tell from photos, but just a comparison of the Arbedo to a photo of a Type XVIIIa found at Schloss Erbach, the two both seem to have broad blades without a real reinforced point. The
Edward III sword is another example of this general type lacking a reinforced point. Here's what Oakeshott said about the point of the Edward III sword (in comparison to that of the Henry V sword) in
Records of the Medieval Sword (the emphasis is my own):
Ewart Oakeshott wrote: |
Comparisons (1). Actual Swords' Blades
(a) Sword of Henry V in Westminster Abbey
This has the same kind of blade, only about 5" shorter, with a similar section, but its central ridge runs right to the point which is reinforced, whereas the Edward III one peters out about 8" from the point. |
Again, some will argue that no MRL sword will ever match the dynamic characteristics of higher-end swords. And I agree with them in priciple, but I would argue that some are better in that respect than others. My point is that a lower-end maker could make a better product if he were more consistent, and combined several of the better aspects already present in various lower-end pieces.
I am not a sword maker. I am, however, a sword buyer. Someone like me may also be the sort of customer Sonny is targetting. If so, then I think my observations concerning the various MRL swords I have acquired over the years may be of some help to Sonny. (I started collecting somewhat functional swords when I purchased a Del Tin Man-at-Arms Sword from Museum Replicas back in 1995 or 1996 - before many of the higher-end makers even existed, or at least certainly before they were really known. MRL was pretty much the only game in town back then.)
I hope this was at least somewhat helpful!
(Sorry for the extra-long thread, even for me; I had thought long and hard about what flaws I've noticed over the years, and what could be done to imporve them.)
Stay safe!