Stats: LOA 76.7cm, blade 62.4cm long & 4.5cm wide at 17.5cm from the point, POB 14.5-15cm from the hilt (I wasn't able to measure it real accurately), midrib thickness about 8.5mm next to the hilt, weight 1201g.
The point is sufficiently sharp. It has only the start of edges running 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the way back from the point (I haven't bothered to measure). The decoration is copied from originals and is very well done. There is some very minor pitting on the blade from casting, which I have learned is common with bronze swords. ArmArt did polish the blade, but not quite enough to remove them. I can do that myself if I wish, but I just may leave them. The scabbard fits snugly.
There are a few things not quite right, partly my fault and partly ArmArt's. It is about 3cm overall longer than the longest original shown in my reference. My reference is in Czech and German without a scale accompanying the drawings, so I had to do some guesswork. I wanted a sword on the long side and it's still shorter than a number of other bronze swords, such as a number of the Naue IIs which were primarily cutters. However, if I was going to order it now I'd specify a blade 58-60cm long and 38-42mm wide.
My guesswork was off more regarding the grip length of the handle. It should be around 1cm shorter. As it is now, the sword sits loose in my hand. Because the grip is a bit too long and the handle is not very wide or thick, I can't get a real firm grip on it. The sword could be used if it had to be and putting on a thick leather glove helps. The shorter grip would help more. This would be mostly my fault. I had to guess at the grips of the originals in my reference and I also considered the width of my hand when specifying length to ArmArt. Sure wish I'd been able to try some sample handles with varying grip lengths beforehand. I did originally want one even longer, but Pavel convinced me to go shorter; just not short enough as it turns out.
Where it is the furthest off from historical is in regards to the handle joining the blade. The originals had hollow cast handles that were riveted to the blade, which had about a half length tang extending into the handle. ArmArt cast the handle and blade as one piece. While I had never specified the handle had to be cast seperately and then fitted, I did have the impression that was what was going to be done. This may very well be a miscommunication due to language differences. However, I can't escape a nagging feeling a shortcut was taken to get the job done quicker (after 50 months!) and cheaper.
My reference doesn't give weights for the originals in it (when, oh, when are archaeologists going to learn to record and publish more of this kind of information?). However, I suspect this is on the heavy side. Part of that would be due to the little bit longer blade, the little bit longer handle and the solid rather than hollow handle. Some of the originals did have thicker blades than others, so I can't really say ArmArt made the blade too thick. But it would have been nice if the midrib was 1mm thinner. The original I used for a pattern was one with one of the thinner midribs.
A baldric had been part of my order and there wasn't one in the package. This could be an honest oversight and maybe I should contact Pavel before posting about it here, but frankly I'm not much inclined to give them any more benefit of the doubt. I've been doing that for years.
To sum up. I am pleased with the sword. Not wildly enthusiastic (that would have been if I'd gotten it 3+ years ago), but I am pleased. It is a very beautiful sword and as far as I know no one else is making anything like it. However, I don't feel dealing with ArmArt is worth what I went through.
First picture sword and scabbard.
![](images/icon_clip.gif)
![ArmArt Leafblade S1.jpg](files/armart_leafblade_s1_168.jpg)