I have seen one post on the forum from one member who bought this sword. Has anybody actually handeled this one? I know the stats make it similar to the Albion Saint Maurice which I own. I know the Ulvbane Sword is based on the Maurice blade but longer, heavier but a closer POB.

Thanks in advance.

Hello
I had one,once. For a one handed sword, its a bit too heavy.And I`am a pretty big guy.But I loved the way it looks.

It's very pretty, but it's a bit of a monster. It's big, it's heavy, and it's at the limit of what can be put into a one-handed sword.

It handles OK (handles very well considering the weight and size), and feels lighter in hand than it really is. It's the length of a longsword, and about the weight of the heaviest longsword you'd want to swing one-handed, but I think it handles better than some lighter longswords used one-handed. In my experience, the best comparison is with warswords/longswords used one-handed. Well-balanced, but the weight makes it a bit sluggish to start, and even more sluggish to stop. Use with shield, or be a bit of a monstrous troll, or you'd be likely to lose a hand in a real fight before landing a blow.

I haven't done much with mine - it feels like the kind of sword you want to swing around a lot and get used to, rather than something to casually pick up as one of a crowd of swords.

Thank you for the input. Think this sword is off the list for now. Already have the Albion St. Maurice and it sounds like the Ulvbane will be very much the same in handling.

Bill

Hmm. The St Maurice seems to be of middling weight. True, a little heavy, but still well under 1.5kg. From the specs, I'd expect it to handle like a big long cavalry sabre. Ulvbane, on the other hand, is just plain heavy.

So while I'd expect both to be on the sluggish side (some might like to say "authoritative", because they're sluggish about stopping as well as starting), I wouldn't expect them to be that similar in handling.

How do you find the St Maurice? (I look at its specs, look at the specs for a big "modern" cavalry sword, e.g., a Pattern 1820 (British) Life Guards sword, and think they should be not too different in hand.)

The point of balance on the Maurice is around 9 inches or so which makes it very blade heavy. This a cav weapon designed for sweeping cuts from horseback but on foot, it is very hard to manage and get up to speed. Recovery is very slow.

The Ulvbane is heavier but has a closer point of balance and its blade is based off the Maurice blade so I was speculating they would be similar in handeling. One lighter with a very long POB and the other weighting more with a closer POB. Not scientific but both being heavy in hand and based on the same blade.

Did some cutting with the Ulvbane. A beginner to cutting cut with it too. Cuts well, feels good in hand. Needs some muscle to get it up to speed to cut well, which I think restricts the positions from which you can start and cut quickly. Once at cutting speed, it doesn't stop easily. One can't back out of the cut halfway through; it's a commitment. And then, of course, slow recovery (not a big deal when cutting targets that just sit there and don't cut back, but ...).

I still love the looks of this sword. It is still very tempting. :D

I agree. I was tempted too.

Mine is about 100g lighter than spec, 1.59kg. A couple of the Del Tin vikings are about the same weight, similar POB. Other heavyish single-handers are of similar size and weight (DT5149 from the specs, and a heavier-than-spec Valiant Armory Castile). So it isn't outrageous.

It's pretty and cuts nicely. If I already had a good heavy sword (like the St Maurice) and a Suontaka style sword (like the Knud, or the sold-out Valkyrja), I'd have been much less tempted by it.

i suppose that if it seems too heavy, an option could be to buy an albion knud and acid etch it. ;)