I just read the review of the AT/CF Redeemer and, as Gus probably already knows, I've got a soft spot for the type XVI's.
My question to Gus, after reading his comments on the project is this: it seems to me that the AT1429, although in your words, "a versatile design", sounds to be a bit of a compromise as outlined in the review as the sword is described as designed and built from the ground up for the Redeemer project. I am curious to know, the Redeemer project aside, what your original vision for the AT1429 was as it sounds as if the sword you delivered to Josh and what became the final prototype sent to Christian were two different swords.
I guess, in short, I would like to know what a true, traditional, type XVI built off this blade design would be like - pommel, cross, grip length, POB, COP, etc. from the man who made it.
Oh, and how's my "other project" going. . . ;)
Thanks!
| Jonathon Janusz wrote: |
| I just read the review of the AT/CF Redeemer and, as Gus probably already knows, I've got a soft spot for the type XVI's.
My question to Gus, after reading his comments on the project is this: it seems to me that the AT1429, although in your words, "a versatile design", sounds to be a bit of a compromise as outlined in the review as the sword is described as designed and built from the ground up for the Redeemer project. I am curious to know, the Redeemer project aside, what your original vision for the AT1429 was as it sounds as if the sword you delivered to Josh and what became the final prototype sent to Christian were two different swords. I guess, in short, I would like to know what a true, traditional, type XVI built off this blade design would be like - pommel, cross, grip length, POB, COP, etc. from the man who made it. Oh, and how's my "other project" going. . . ;) Thanks! |
Hi Jonalthon
I just read the review, and I'm not sure I understand your question..... the review is great, but has one typo, the sword weighs less than 3lbs, I think its more like 2lbs 11.
The sword {the stock AT1429} was designed to be able to deliver hard blows, thrust efficiently, recover quickly, and be an excellent choice for 14th century singlesword or sword and shield work.
The design features I have put into some of my single hand swords after getting the opportunity to handle, measure etc, X.10 {Records} {I saw this sword at WMAW Racine, where Craig Johnson brought some of the Oakeshott collection}, ie pulled nodes, and a closer cog {to the cross} than I had previously thought possible in a optimum harmonically and dynamically balanced sword.........
Which means that the sword tracks very well in the cut, follows the tip the way it should in the thrust, cuts superbly, and you're not likely to find a similar sword anywhere which has better harmonic or dynamic balance.............you certainly won't for the money........
Auld Dawg
it just sounded like you had some other ideas in mind as far as grip length, pommel, etc. that might have changed the character of the product as produced. [shrugs]
thanks for the insight in any case!
thanks for the insight in any case!
Hi Gus,
Overall I thought that you and Christian did a very fine job in producing a sword that stayed true to its inspiration (the film sword) yet retained a high level of handling quality. The criticisms I had of the sword in the two-handed mode were more a result of the design limitations imposed by the film sword, so you two really can't be faulted for that. It was a very responsive sword when used one-handed though, and it featured great point control. This one would be great for sword and shield work.
Don't know where the weight typo came from.
The scabbard was pretty too :D
Overall I thought that you and Christian did a very fine job in producing a sword that stayed true to its inspiration (the film sword) yet retained a high level of handling quality. The criticisms I had of the sword in the two-handed mode were more a result of the design limitations imposed by the film sword, so you two really can't be faulted for that. It was a very responsive sword when used one-handed though, and it featured great point control. This one would be great for sword and shield work.
Don't know where the weight typo came from.
The scabbard was pretty too :D
| Jonathon Janusz wrote: |
| it just sounded like you had some other ideas in mind as far as grip length, pommel, etc. that might have changed the character of the product as produced. [shrugs]
thanks for the insight in any case! |
Hi Jonathon
I'm not sure we're on the same page here, what I was referring to in my post was the AT1429, which is a single handed sword with a 4.5 inch handle, and a large wheel pommel.
The 7 inch handle sword was a one off prototype for a fantasy type sword, I made it a year ago, don't remember the specs, and have no written record of what they were........
Gus
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
| Hi Gus,
Overall I thought that you and Christian did a very fine job in producing a sword that stayed true to its inspiration (the film sword) yet retained a high level of handling quality. The criticisms I had of the sword in the two-handed mode were more a result of the design limitations imposed by the film sword, so you two really can't be faulted for that. It was a very responsive sword when used one-handed though, and it featured great point control. This one would be great for sword and shield work. Don't know where the weight typo came from. The scabbard was pretty too :D |
Hi Patrick
I'm afraid you and I may be on different pages too. I have no qualms about your review, none whatsoever. My post in response to Jonathon was about the stock AT1429, which I thought he was asking about. It looks like I might have misread him, thus compounding the misunderstanding.....*g*
Yeah, I like the Redeemer too, but it does respond differently than the 1429, even though the main differences are tang, handle length, and pommel......
Gus
| Angus Trim wrote: | ||
Hi Patrick I'm afraid you and I may be on different pages too. I have no qualms about your review, none whatsoever. My post in response to Jonathon was about the stock AT1429, which I thought he was asking about. It looks like I might have misread him, thus compounding the misunderstanding.....*g* Yeah, I like the Redeemer too, but it does respond differently than the 1429, even though the main differences are tang, handle length, and pommel...... Gus |
Actually I think we're on the same page *g*
I wasn't defending anything, just making a comment and providing some further feedback.
Gus,
the last post clarified everything; i got confused in thinking that the 1429 and the nameless fantasy sword were one and the same! i figured out my mistake most of the way after checking out allsaints and the stock 1429.
thanks for the info and the clarification!
. . . i think i might have to make room in the piggy bank for a 1429. . . three atrims so far and only five weeks left on the next. . .
the last post clarified everything; i got confused in thinking that the 1429 and the nameless fantasy sword were one and the same! i figured out my mistake most of the way after checking out allsaints and the stock 1429.
thanks for the info and the clarification!
. . . i think i might have to make room in the piggy bank for a 1429. . . three atrims so far and only five weeks left on the next. . .
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum