I appologize if this has been mentioned before, I searched and found nothing.

I am looking at the 1501 Longsword here: http://www.leesarmoury.com/ds1501.htm

However, I am a bit irked at the blade length at the crossguard, as it reads one inch. Isnt this a tad thin for a blade that reaches 36 inches?

Would I be better off looking at the other longswords, which have a crossguard width of one and a half inch? I like this one more because I love fullers, but would be willing to switch if the blade is truly too thin.

I think that one inch listing is incorrect. Looking at the listed width of the guard and its proportion to the listed width of the blade, I'd guess the blade is more like 1.5 inches wide.

However, something with a thick blade, like an estoc, could be as little as an inch wide or even less.

Maybe I'll shoot Lee an email. Twould be nice if the blade was thick, I heard that some of the other early Atrims on the sight were a tad blade-thin.

Just a dumb thought but the Longsword looks like an Oakshott Type XIX to me. Check the ricasso, and remember what the master said about swords not being totally classifiable because both the bladesmith and the knight who used it had their own ideas about what constituted a proper blade.Even modern re-creations have this, although I agree the only longswords with narrow blades I can think of are either estocs or type XVII's

By all means drop Lee a line, but I have an Atrim from this same era (albeit a different model) and the blade is 1.5 inches wide at the guard.

Its been 7 years since I made a lot of the stuff on Lee's site. But I can tell you that the thinnest width blade I made for a longsword was just a bit under 1.5 inches. 1 inch has to be a misprint...........