Hello everyone,

I have been following this thread regarding the acceptable levels of variance on a given Albion sword and the consequent quesiton of what expectations are appropriate given the limitations of manufactureing a handmade piece.

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25468

I, personally believe that the variance, or seeming variance, in the piece in question is certainly acceptable given what I understand to be be the design and execution principles involved in the Next Generation swords.

Now, this question of "variance" led me to think about what levels of variance would be acceptable in a Museum Line sword versus a Next Generation model.

I would personally expect a lower level of variability between models in a ML than in a NG sword given the ML's thrust of presenting us with exacting reproductions of specific historical examples. Certainly, there will always be some level of variance between models given the handmade nature of the craft, but given the philosophical approach of the ML, should I, or a perspective customer desire a given ML to more closely match the listed specs. on the site?

The spec. in question in the thread above seems to be a 1 cm. difference in length and a slight shape difference in the point section of a sword. Like I said; I would be totally OK with such a level of variance and would even appreciate it to a degree. Howwever, a 1 cm. difference in a ML sword would be a bit much for me personally. I guess the question is s a 1 cm. difference in length and point section be within accceptable variance in a ML sword?

Perhaps Albion already applies a "tighter" standard to their ML swords regarding specs. I don't know.

Is a different specification tolerance between ML and NG's even an appropriate expection for customers to have given the dynamics of sword production? What do folks think of this? How closely do your ML swords match the specs. found on Albion's site? I don't have my hands on an appropriate scale to weigh my Solingen but I will try to do some measurements.

I'm not sure, but I don't think PJ would be happy if, after all his careful research in order to design as good copy as possible, Albion would make a blade 1cm too short or too long.
I know I wouldn't find this satisfying. In NG line however, it is acceptable although I still think 1cm is not that small a difference.

This is a good question and a great idea to form a base line.

In the other thread Josh S made a really good point (excuse the pun) and I think it’s partly to do with the way Albion’s are made, as opposed to say A&A. Using 1cm as the reference point, I don’t feel it makes any difference to the “overall” blade, i.e. as I understand it A&A forge their blades from start to finish and a difference could easily occur in this process and 1cm could easily be gained or lost along the length of the blade. Whereas Albion’s have the main sword blank precisely cut/milled by machine, so given this any variation in length is only going to occur at the tip and therefore you end up with a greater difference concentrated at the tip. So I think it’s more of exactly where the 1cm difference is, in the overall blade, or just at the tip.

I think this milling process, for me anyway, is one of the things the gives you a higher expectation for the finish of the Albion Swords, I guess I have it in my head that they are starting with an “exacting” sword blank? I for one need to place more emphasis on the hand grinding process involved to achieve the finished product.

The milled versus forged comparison isn't a good way to view it. In both processes hand grinding is used to finish the blade and that's where some of this variance will come into play. Both forging and milling will bring the blade blank into its rough shape. Milling on a CNC machine will bring it much closer to the final form, but a skilled forger can get it surprisingly close. Regardless of the process it still involves some handwork in the final stages, thus there will be some amount of variance from piece to piece, it's simply unavoidable.

Speculation on Albions standards regarding the Next Gen line v. the Museum Line is really pointless and can only lead to harmful speculation. Jeremy, it would be far better to ask Albion directly then post their response, rather than to engage in speculation. It's always better to go to the source, yes? I've purchased two Museum Line swords and was quite happy with the final product. One was a gift to a good friend and he was quite pleased and surprised. neither one of us felt it neccessary to whip out the tape measure and compare our swords to the specs listed on-site. It simply isn't that important of an issue and if a person can't get past it they should probably find another hobby as this one will prove too frustrating for that kind of attitude. I've owned and handled many Next Gen. swords and compared them to like examples on several occasions. They have all exhibited a bit of difference here and there, whether it was the final shape of the point, some of the finished features of the hilt components, etc. There is simply no way to make them all identical given the processes involved.

Nathan and I were present in the Albion shop when the very first Next. Gen sword was assembled. I hate to think how long that's been, but from then to now there has always been some variance when the listed specs are compared to the final product received. Sometimes they're spot on sometimes there's some variance. I've never known these to effect the functionality or aesthetic of the sword but people do seem to get really fixated on such things. When writing reviews I can't tell you how much time was wasted because the specs of the sword received for review were a bit different than those listed on the site, this isn't just from Albion. So of course, a back and forth with the manufacturer always followed so we could get it as right as possible, because we knew people would panic. There's a difference, admittedly at times a fine one, between shoddy work and the natural variance that comes with handwork. Peter Johnsson has told me on more than one occasion that he'd love to incorporate more of those things into his own work, but the modern mind simply won't accept it and it will be seen as a lack of quality. I've also heard other collectors describe Albions product as being too clean and precise so it can go both ways.

We live in a world were most things are massed produced and there's very little difference from like object to like object. When dealing with a field such as this we really need to get out of that headspace. When items from centuries past are recreated using similar processes it's impossible to have every single example exactly the same. Why would we want them to be? Part of what makes them interesting is that variance and individuality.

I know the original request was for measurements for the M/L but I thought I’d add my 2 N/Gs
Note: lengths taken using standard tape measure, weight taken using standard non-digital kitchen scales, P.O.B obtained balancing sword on weight bar on my bench-press then measured. All done with care, but probably a degree of error.

Crecy:
Blade Length: mine 89.8cm official 90cm variance 2mm
Blade width at base: mine 5cm official 5cm variance 0mm
Guard Length: mine 19.5cm
P.O.B : mine 11cm official 10.16cm variance 8mm
Weight: mine 1.36kg official 1.39kg variance .03g
Blade edge to guard 1st side 71.5mm
Blade edge to guard 2nd side 71.0mm (variance 1/2 a mm .5mm but say nil)


Knight:
Blade Length: mine 79cm official 80cm variance 1cm
Blade width at base: mine 5.1cm official 5.24cm variance 1mm
Guard Length: mine 16.6cm
P.O.B : mine 9.5cm official 11.43cm variance 1.93cm
Weight: mine 1.125kg official 1.2kg variance .075g
Blade edge to guard 1st side 58mm
Blade edge to guard 2nd side 56mm (variance 2mm)

edited to add further guard measurements, overall the Crecy is near perfect, equal to any M/L QC measurements.

With your Knight the length difference wouldn't be very noticeable if the blade profile at the tip was a bit closer to a more acute point.

As discussed before in another Topic, in my opinion, this somewhat more rounded point has it's advantage but it does affect the aesthetics of the sword: I might not mind this sword at all, and if given a choice between a number of the same model of sword, I would probably chose the sword which appealed to my eye the most. I'm also very very personally sensitive to extremely minor shape differences because of an artistic graphic design background including sculpture.

Slight dimensional differences I wouldn't even notice if the overall visual character of a sword was the same.

I think one answer might be to ask for a pic(s) of the specific sword bought before it is shipped and having the possibility to reject and substitute for another sword of the same model: I don't think this is an issue for anyone living in the same country from where the sword will be shipped, but for foreign buyer living half way around the World with high shipping costs + all the " pleasures " of Custom clearance, this is something one could ask for from the vendor?

With a custom sword asking for pics or buying from pics of the actual sword to be shipped seems prudent, for production swords this might be a request that not all vendor would be willing to do, but then one can always take one's money to another vendor.

In any case I do like the rounded tip of your Knight but I would rather it be a choice rather than luck getting a more rounded
versus the more pointy one expected. ( With enough financial resources I might even want one of each. ;) ).

The sword may well be within normal spec variance but one can want to be able to select a specific sword from either extremes of the " normal " variance and know exactly what one has bought: For example I once bought and still have a Genaration2 Henry 5 sword and after reading some comments about point thickness being " variable " with these hand forged swords I e-mailed Ryan at Kult of Athena and he was king enough to check for me on the distal taper of the swords of the same model he had in stock and send me the one he considered to be the most robust. I didn't ask for pics but I trusted Ryan to judge which one was closest to my wants.

I think that was a reasonable request and extremely good customer service versus a vendor just picking a boxed sword from a pile of the same model and shipping the one at the top of the pile. ( If one doesn't ask individual inspection won't normally happen ..... the worse that can happen is one gets no for an answer. ;) ).

My Gaddhjalt is 2.5 cm shorter than specified on Albion's website. I have not done anything about it because: A, It cost me $180 to have it shipped out to me. B, I always expected some variation, albeit not this much. C, It took me several months to notice. D, It is still a good sword.
I have wondered if the discrepancy may be the result of a typo in the specifications, if any other Gaddhjalt owners can check and confirm this one way or the other I would be interested to know.

Having checked my other six Next Generation swords, none vary more than 5 mm from their advertised lengths. I would consider up to a 10 mm variation to be acceptable for a Next Generation sword, but would expect Museum Line swords to be made to tighter tolerances.

Jean, for what's it's worth my Gaddjhalt matches your measurements exactly.

On another note these threads have me checking all my Albions

So far the biggest discrepancy is in my new Kingkmaker, which has a heavily antiqued hilt and pommel but is 7 ounces lighter than the published specs, and it's amazing. Now I really want to handle a Kingmaker that's the published weight just to see the difference :)

Well, like I wrote, some difference in NG's seems entirely consistent with the philosophy of the line, but to what degree is variance acceptable in a ML sword while retaining the "exacting reproduction" driving the aim of line?

I take it as given that handmade items will have a degree of "variance" from one to another, and like a lot of others, I see that as a feature rather than a "bug."

However, the "occasional lemon sword" possibility alluded to by Mr. Thidodeau is a different matter, and the question is, when the parameters are unspecified, how do you know whether you've got what you've paid for? In the thread that began this discussion, Paul BG was smacked down and dismissed, by some on this board and apparently by the manufacturer as well, simply for asking the question.

If I recall correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) in another previous thread, Paul mentioned some sloppy resin that had crept up into the fuller on his sword as well. Now, I'm sure it's true that throughout the middle ages there were variable points and imperfect grinds and wonky blade profiles and broken tips reground and fullers with gobs of resin all over the place, but that's not what you think you're getting when you plunk down nearly $1000 for the cream of the crop of production historical swords.

If I'd received a sword with this issue that was shorter than specified and had a rounded tip that differed noticeably from the advertised images, ordered from a reseller rather than direct, I believe I might well have wondered whether the sword in question was a kind of "factory second" or a damaged blade that had been reground or something.

Now it's true that 1 cm doesn't sound like much, and I'm not saying there's any reason to suspect this to have been the case with Paul's sword. What I'm saying is, it's not a question of expecting an iPod, or a reflection of being a mindless robot conditioned by mass consumer culture or whatever. It's a legitimate question, and just saying "it's within our specs" doesn't address the (surely reasonable) question of what those specs are. Things slip by even the best company's quality control regimens, and the fact that it doesn't happen often doesn't mean, obviously, that it never happens. Seems reasonable to be able to ask about it if you suspect this to have been the case.

I don't measure my stuff, to be honest. I do it only for the benefit of the members here when posting to my collection. But otherwise, I don't care. All I care about is if it's a good item or not. That's it. I'm simple that way.

Like others I do not measure my swords either, indeed I have never done so.

I posted this thread as a discussion of variance as it relates to the philosolophical thrust stated by Albion of swords in the ML that are presented as precisely matching certain historical examples. It seems that the consensus is that, given Albion's and other vender's methods of manufacture variance to a certain degree is to be expected, and that expectation of precision to a given design are unrealistic. I do see a certain disconnect between the philosophical thrust of precision of reproduction and acceptance of some levels of variance (on the more extreme ends) but that's just me.

At a certain point of variance a sword ceases to be a precise reproduction of an original piece IMO, but that is clearly a subjective call. Case closed I suppose. :)

The blade on my Templar is one inch (2.5CM) shorter than the figure given on Albion's Web-site. Although its a perfectly fine sword, I was a bit disappointed by this. When I enquired about it here - http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8151 - the variable responses seemed to suggest that older models were longer and newer ones a bit shorter. PJ suggested it might in part be due to variability in the guard recess, but with due respect this could only account for a few mm.

I don't think such variations are a big deal on their NG line, since these are mostly generic designs rather than replicas. However, I do think the web-site should be updated if there are any systematic changes like the story described above. This influences customer purchasing patterns. In the case of my templar, I personally wanted a larger, blade-heavy sword, whereas the next guy might prefer a slightly lighter handier sword. I would also note that (I believe), if other manufacturers were off by an inch people would jump all over them, whereas people are reticent to criticize Albion because of their general respect for the brand and PJ.

When it comes to their actual replicas, whether in the museum line or the unofficial ones in the NG line, I think the standards should indeed be higher. However, bearing in mind that the pieces are finished by hand after the CNC process, a few mm here or there is quite understandable.

My 2 cents.