When things finally pick up for me, I am thinking of getting the Trondheim. However, I wanted to see if anyone here had handled it before, and what their opinions of it may be.
The main thing I like about it is that it is relatively short. Though my favorite period of study in history is the Dark Ages, I am not a fan of longer one-handed swords, at least in so far as actually using one for cutting or training. I much prefer the deftness and range of a shorter sword.
I also noted that the PoB is listed as under 2 inches. This seems strange to me as I have never handled a sword with this balance. I would think that this would make it lighter feeling in the hand, but I cannot be sure.

It's pretty heavy for the size. The one I've handled was 1.2kg, POB at about 6cm (so a little over 2"), comfortable grip and pommel, grip of good length (i.e., not excessively long as is common, and not cramped). Fuller edges are pretty soft, not sharp like on some pics. There's a leather "liner" of the grip side of the guard and pommel; some photos show this and others don't. I don't know if the currently available ones have this. I think bare metal would be better.

Handling is OK. It's short and has a close POB, so it has a low moment of inertia. Thus, agile for the weight. Centre of percussion, in the sense of rigid body dynamics (i.e., pivot point, nothing to do with nodes) is well-placed so should cut OK. I haven't cut with it, but it seems well-balanced for cutting. Given the weight, I have no complaints about the handling. It feels OK. Doesn't wow me with super-great handling. If it was lighter, and still well-balanced, I think I would like it more.

I don't know if it will stand up to cutting. Given that not all Hanwei Godfreds stood up to cutting, one might wonder about the Trondheim. You also end up with less usable in hand if it fails, since you won't have a recyclable guard and pommel (without a lot of work). I wouldn't buy one for cutting without some experience-of-others to judge.

It's pretty, and has an ornate well-done scabbard. It's sort-of historical, but not historical. The one-piece construction is obvious, since the base of the blade merges smoothly into the guard. It's a bit of a fantasy sword, perhaps 80/20 historical/fantasy, not counting the scabbard. The fantasy part is prominent if you look closely, but unobtrusive if you don't (again, not counting thr scabbard).

Thank you so much. You pretty much answered all of my questions.
Also, I didn't notice the blade was one piece with the guard....don't know how missed it in the first place...