Without further ado-
http://tinkerswords.com/2008CASHvikingsGlam1....dBlunt.jpg
http://tinkerswords.com/2008CASvikinghilt1.jpg
http://tinkerswords.com/2008CASHvikingHilt2.jpg
http://tinkerswords.com/2008CASHvikingscabbard.jpg
http://tinkerswords.com/2008CASHvikingChape.jpg
http://tinkerswords.com/2008CASHVikingLocket.jpg

Specifications: Blunt specs in "()" behind sharp specs
Oakeshott Type: X (same)
Peterson's Type: E (same)
OAL: 37-3/8 inches (37-1/2 inches)
Blade Length: 30-7/8 inches (30-1/8 inches)
Blade Width @ Base: 2-3/16 inches (2 inches)
Blade Width 5 inches from point: 1-1/2 inches (1-1/4 inches)
Blade thickness at base: .250 inch (.250 inches)
Blade thickness 1 inch from tip: .082 inch (.109 inches)
Distal taper is Straight
Hilt OAL: 6-1/2 inches (same)
Handle length: 4 inches (Same)
COG: 5-1/2 inches from base of blade (same)
Blade Node: 20-1/2 inches from base of blade (21-3/8 inches)
Primary Hilt Node: On handle approx 1/2 inch from cross (same)
Weight: 2lb 12oz. (same)

First impression- Thrilled! The execution of these is excellent- well done Paul and Company! The wire wrap on the pommel is a silver color instead of brass, which looks nice though I think brass would make it 'Pop' more. Mind you I am not complaining; the wire is a separate piece and nicely done. I really like what they have done with the scabbard, too. I like the suspension rings and the U-shaped chape is a nice touch; I particularly like that it is secured with nails instead of just being glued on.

I will note right now- these prototypes have take-down hilts so that I could examine their overall construction. The production swords [b]will not[/i] be take-down construction. They will be tang-riveted (peened) in period fashion as we all agreed that this would be more attractive to the market for these swords. Once the production swords and replacement blades are out I will offer the service of blade-replacement and re-peening. I can't quote a price for this service at this time, and won't be able to until I have done it.

I have to admit that when I weighed these swords this morning I was a bit baffled- they both weighed 2lbs12 oz. and balanced identically. Originally the sharp weighed 2lbs 8oz. and balanced at 4-3/4 inches from the base of the blade, with the blunt weighing 2lbs12oz. and balancing at 5-1/2 inches. I had decided that unlike the other swords in this series these did not need to balance the same as they are really aimed at different markets. Apparently Paul thought differently and I have to admit they came out very, very well. Now both swords handle much the same and the node location remains optimal because Paul did it right by increasing the thickness of the sharp at the base and maintaining the straight distal taper. So the sword remains well within the historical weight range for a sword of it's type and dimensions and still handles very well; it's just a bit heavier and now is a close match to the handling of the blunt. I still really like the sword and am satisfied with this change but I would value your input regarding this.

One issue that I know is going to come up- the edge thickness of the blunt. It is about 2mm at the base of the blade and tapers to about 1.5mm near the tip. This puts it in-spec for many re-enactment groups and not for others that demand a 3-5mm edge. I went for good, period-correct weight, balance and handing in an item that looks like the sort of sword it is meant to represent. We are well aware this will mean this sword isn't suitable for all groups everywhere but it's just not possible to please everyone all of the time. Sorry!

I've sent my official approval of the prototypes. I don't know exactly when the production swords will arrive but I know that the folks at CAS/Hanwei are hoping that they will be here in time for the SHOT Show in January.

Anyway comments are, as always welcome.

Cant wait to get the sharp. it sounds and looks amazing ,thx for the up date mr.pearce