These posts were split from This Topic as they were substantially off-topic to that conversation but worthy of discussion on their own.

Rod Walker wrote:

http://www.myArmoury.com/review_aa_vasa.html This is my dream 16thc sword.(Nathan you lucky bugger) I do love this weapon. At this stage I cannot afford the A&A version so I am looking at the cheaper Deltin version.

I don't own the Vasa any more. When I purchased it, I really bought it as a review sample only so had told myself I'd sell it soon after buying it. Trust me when Is say it was a hard one to sell!

What do you mean Del Tin version? There's really not a Gustav Vasa replica from Del Tin. Maybe you mean the DT2161? If so, just take note that they're completely different weapons with extremely little in common dynamically or otherwise. They're both fine swords, but just not similar in any way.

Hi Nathan, you are correct, it is the DT2161 and it is a different sword to the A&A Vasa.

Have you handled the DT 2161? I am after a cavalry weapon that I can use in my shows doing cutting with. Is the DT suitable, and decent quality, or should I just wait until I can afford the A&A Vasa?

Rod Walker wrote:

Hi Nathan, you are correct, it is the DT2161 and it is a different sword to the A&A Vasa. Have you handled the DT 2161? I am after a cavalry weapon that I can use in my shows doing cutting with. Is the DT suitable, and decent quality, or should I just wait until I can afford the A&A Vasa?

I owned the DT2161 as well. Check out my collection gallery for photos and stats. While it's a wonderful sword, especially consdering its price point, it's not really suitable for cutting. Del Tins are not sharpened, and while you could add an edge to them, the geometry would not be completely right as an end-product. The Gustav Vasa is not something I'd necessarily consider a cavalry sword, personally. I'd say it was more of a pure rapier, albeit stout when compared to later-period types. I'm not sure I'd use it for cutting, either: especially off horseback.

[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]

Looking at the two photos stacked above, you can see very little in common with these two weapons.

Have you looked at Arms & Armor's offering: #164 Cavalier Rapier?

Rod, just use your DUKE :D

Actually, Brother, if you want "cost effective" I have been using the MRL European Sword. I don't think that I would want to take it into battle, but it cuts through cabbages, melons, and tatami mats pretty well.

I don't know if I'd consider the Gustav Vasa a pure rapier (assuming you are meaning the primarily thrusting type). I would consider it a "sidesword", meant for cut and thrust fencing, though I agree that it doesn't seem suited for cavalry fighting.

If any long-ish sword of the general era will serve, MRL's Scottish Backsword (now discontinued) might be a reasonable candidate for cavalry use. Calling up this and the Dresden in the "Compare" feature of this site shows just how much bigger the Dresden is, but the MRL SB is inexpensive, probably of a useable length, has a simple compound hilt, etc. You can have mine...when you pry it out of my cold, dead hand :p

Rod;

There is also this one from MRL, though I have yet to hold it, and heck, it might be discontinued by now since I only found it in the Silvermane listing: http://www.silvermane.com/swords_broad-sword-double-ring.html I was thinking of getting one myself for some time, as it seems to have most of the qualities I'm looking for in a good horseman's sword. It's got a 36" blade and a reasonably complex hilt, and without a knuckle-guard you can still grab it with a mitten gauntlet if you so desire. I would love to know if anyone has any experience with this particular model, and know if it's still available.

The catalogue states that it's 46" overall, with a 36" blade 1" at the base, and weighs in at a hefty 3.6 pounds, and goes for $275 (at least the page I have bookmarked does, might have been changed at some point recently, who knows. But it's somewhere to start, at least.)

Good luck in your search!

Cheers,

Gordon

---

 Attachment: 16.63 KB

Yeah! And just lacquer the hilt!

"I see some bright steel and I want to paint it black" (apologies to the Rolling Stones)

Gordon,
This sword was the first MRL purchase I ever made (in 1996 or 1997). The hilt was nickel-plated, and some was flaking off. The wire wrap wasn't tight. One of the side rings had been bent, and may have been cracked where it joined the guard (or it could have been a crack in the plating). Best of all, the blade rotated in its mounting 10-15 degrees.

Hopefully I just got a crappy one and they've improved things since then.

But all that adds up to CHEAP on the used market! Sounds like a good project sword.

I always thoght that this was a great sword - used it many hundreds of times from horseback (cutting and spearing!) and it moved well, struck clean, and was lively in the hand:

http://www.swordsofhonor.com/cutandthruss.html :eek: :eek: :eek:

Thanks for that guys. I have some thinking to do.

As Sean Mentioned, the MRL "Scottish Backsword" is an awesome sword, especially for the price. I'd probably consider it a sidearm to a lance or a secondary weapon of a pikeman, rather than a true cavalry weapon. I'd like to get my hands on the MRL sword that Lloyd mentioned. As I stated previously, my experience with MRL in recent years is that they deliver a product worth the asking price and often more. No, they don't compare to products costing 3-4 times more, but that wouldn't be a reasonable expectation.

I still put forth the Arms & Armor #164 Cavalier Rapier as a top-notch candidate for any late 16th/early 17th century cavalry kit in the same range as the Dresden.

Having owned the Cavalier I can strongly recommend it as well. While it isn't the brute that the Dresden is it would fill this role quite nicely. It's also handier than the Dresden and would do well in sword and buckler use as well. I kind of regret getting rid of mine. It went away along with my other A&A rapiers because I was narrowing the focus of my collection, but I do miss those swords from time to time.