My last post concerned purchasing a Tinker long sword from Hanwei but fortunately the vendor didn't follow thru with the order in a timely fashion and I was able to cancel it. After serious negotiation with my wife (the way it is done in our household) I got to order the Baron from Albion and she...well, I shall not go into that part of the deal.

I noticed a $100 price increase (ouch! ouch!) but what the heck, I know Albion makes a good sword and have read the review here on myArmoury. Although the blade is touted as a Type XIIa for all the world it looks like a Type XXIIIa except for the tapering to a point rather than a spatulate point as on the Type IIIa blade. I can see why Oakshott made the mistake of labeling it a Type IIIA and then 30 years later recataloged it as a Type IIa sword.

Another note I made was that it was heavier than the Count and Gallowglass while the Chieftain was only 2 oz heavier which surprised me. The blade is slightly longer than either the Count or the Chieftan and only 1/8 inch less than the Gallowglass. Anyway, I have paid my money and now anxiously await the arrival of my new sword.

Chieftain
blade 36 inches
weight 3 lbs 13 oz

Gallowglass
blade 37 3/8
2 lbs 9 oz

Count
blade 34 inches
weight 2 lbs 12 oz

Baron
blade 37 1/4 inches
weight 3 lbs 11 oz

Just a bit of advice to everyone here, do not buy a copy of Oakshott's work on medeival swords or you will end up spending a lot of money buying swords after perusing the book several times.

Regards,

Harry

Harry,
Congrats on a fine purchase. :) The main difference between the Types XIIa and XIIIa is the amount of taper to the point. So if that's the only difference you see, it's correct. :) I think the decision Oakeshott made to make a Type XIIa and move some former XIIIa's into it was a wise one.

Would be correct to say that even a slight difference in the length of Fuller makes different the two types?
At least as an archetype or an ideal example of a type XIIIa.

Ultimately I think a lot of people (myself included) tend to try to shoehorn blades into the specific categories as defined by Oakshott's typeology. Some swords defy strict classification and instead blend together aspects of the various types. Point in case, the Albion Brescia Spadona - is it a type XVIa or XVIIIa?

Neil,
I agree in general, especially when discussing surviving antique swords. But in this case, it's pretty cut and dry. The swords in the Next Gen lineup are, by and large, meant to be pretty classic (typical) examples of the type they represent. The Museum Line swords are pretty exacting copies of extant swords, so they wil ride the lines between types as much as the original sword did.

Very true when it comes to the Albion Next Gen lineup, it was more of a commentary about not getting too hung up on typology, but rather just enjoying a blade for its finer qualities. For instance, not too long ago I saw a post on a different forum where someone criticized the Valiant Arms Malatesta for failing to neatly fall into one of the Oakshott types...

Chad and Neil: I think that as Oakshott pointed out, cutlers sometimes used whatever crosses and pommels they had or that these parts were transfered from a worn out blade to a new blade. So there was a mix and match going on in medieval times much as sword manufacturers today tend to do the same with the parts on hand. Again as Oakshott pointed out the only dependable part of the sword to type and date is the blade and its characteristics.

Harry