ArmArt has posted a new "one-of-a-kind" Viking sword on their website: http://www.antiquanova.com/armart/Veligradsword.htm.
The guard and pommel have extensive inlays in silver copper and brass wire. The pommel is of two-piece construction, riveted together.
I think it looks pretty nice. How accurate is this sword when compared to historical originals?
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
I'm not sure about the style of the inlay - haven't seen anything like it, but then, Viking swords aren't within my main area of interest. The sword looks OK to me, anyway.
I don't know if that style of inlay is historically accurate. I've never seen it in photos or artwork, but that doesn't mean anything. The inlay is actually the only thing that I like about the sword.
The pommel construction is a nice historic detail. On the other hand, the bare wooden grip really destroys any aesthetic value that the hilt might have. It gives the sword an unfinished look, at least to my eye. The spatulate point, and lack of profile taper in the blade really give the sword a graceless appearance.
Just my opinion of course.
The pommel construction is a nice historic detail. On the other hand, the bare wooden grip really destroys any aesthetic value that the hilt might have. It gives the sword an unfinished look, at least to my eye. The spatulate point, and lack of profile taper in the blade really give the sword a graceless appearance.
Just my opinion of course.
The inlay is quite attractive, though I don't know if it follows a known historical pattern or not. I've checked out the TEMPL (Barta) website, and the inlaid Vikings blew me away, even though that isn't really my taste in swords.
Would that be a Geibig Type-1 blade? Anyone here have "Swords of the Viking Age?"
Would that be a Geibig Type-1 blade? Anyone here have "Swords of the Viking Age?"
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
| I don't know if that style of inlay is historically accurate. I've never seen it in photos or artwork, but that doesn't mean anything. The inlay is actually the only thing that I like about the sword.
The pommel construction is a nice historic detail. On the other hand, the bare wooden grip really destroys any aesthetic value that the hilt might have. It gives the sword an unfinished look, at least to my eye. The spatulate point, and lack of profile taper in the blade really give the sword a graceless appearance. Just my opinion of course. |
I agree about the grip, but that would be a soluble problem. I think the blade is an improvement on the last similar offering from this source. It may be my eyes, but it looks to have profile taper to me (at about 'Clontarf' level) and I think the tip is better done. The separate upper guard and pommel are good. I don't particularly like the decoration or the apparent 'texture' on the hilt metal (looks modern to me, but probably shows my ignorance).
Yes, it does appear to be a pretty close approximation of a Geibig type-1. Although, according to Geibig the standard type-1 variant is a bit shorter than that, at least by judging from the relative scale of the photos.
Geoff,
I agree, I do prefer this blade to the last one we saw, although I liked that hilt better. I'd still prefer a blade that was wider at the base, and with a bit more profile taper.
I agree, I do prefer this blade to the last one we saw, although I liked that hilt better. I'd still prefer a blade that was wider at the base, and with a bit more profile taper.
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
|
...the bare wooden grip really destroys any aesthetic value that the hilt might have. It gives the sword an unfinished look, at least to my eye. |
I thought the same thing when I saw the hilt of this sword. The grip really wants a leather wrap. I find it interesting that the bare wood grip on that ArmArt viking sword looks so awkward to me yet the bare wood grip on my Jody Samson Carolingian sword seems in perfect aesthetic balance with the hilt and blade. Especially since both of these swords have a similar shape and style.
| Jay Barron wrote: | ||
I thought the same thing when I saw the hilt of this sword. The grip really wants a leather wrap. I find it interesting that the bare wood grip on that ArmArt viking sword looks so awkward to me yet the bare wood grip on my Jody Samson Carolingian sword seems in perfect aesthetic balance with the hilt and blade. Especially since both of these swords have a similar shape and style. |
Jay,
could it have something to do with the inlay making you expect something a bit more flashy/finished overall? I know to me, the bare wood doesn't bother me on a rather plain, pretty, but undecorated (ie not multimaterial) hilt... but on this, it does seem odd. its almost a letdown to see bare wood, after the work that went into the inlay.
I have a 19th century fencing sabre, on which I've replaced the grip with bare wood (had a broken leather and cord over wood) grip.... and while the shape of the new grip is nicer, and the finish on the wood doesnt look bad at all.. it still looks unfinished. needs leather.
Chris
| Chris Holzman wrote: |
|
Jay, could it have something to do with the inlay making you expect something a bit more flashy/finished overall? I know to me, the bare wood doesn't bother me on a rather plain, pretty, but undecorated (ie not multimaterial) hilt... but on this, it does seem odd. its almost a letdown to see bare wood, after the work that went into the inlay. I have a 19th century fencing sabre, on which I've replaced the grip with bare wood (had a broken leather and cord over wood) grip.... and while the shape of the new grip is nicer, and the finish on the wood doesnt look bad at all.. it still looks unfinished. needs leather. Chris |
That's probably the reason. The Carolingian sword has bronze furniture that is patinaed to give it an antique look. It goes very well with the striped ebony grip.
Here is a quote from the ArmArt site about this sword:
Material
Blade : carbon steel (0.5-0.6 C)
Guard and pommel : 140 years old iron
Grip : walnut wood waxed
Scabbard : beech wood and calfskin
Historical data
Dating : 10th century, Slovakia
Reference : Bohuslav Chropovsky, The Slavs – Their Significance Political and Cultural History, page 137
Sword decoration
The Veligrad Sword is the "Viking" type of Slavonic sword used in 9th and 10th century in Northern and Central Europe. The pommel and crossguard are highly decorated by inlayed single even twisted silver, copper and brass wires. Additionally some surfaces are granulated.
It isn't clear to me how extensive and detailed their source data was, how many original swords they looked at, measured, held in their hands.
140 year old iron for guard and pommel?
Material
Blade : carbon steel (0.5-0.6 C)
Guard and pommel : 140 years old iron
Grip : walnut wood waxed
Scabbard : beech wood and calfskin
Historical data
Dating : 10th century, Slovakia
Reference : Bohuslav Chropovsky, The Slavs – Their Significance Political and Cultural History, page 137
Sword decoration
The Veligrad Sword is the "Viking" type of Slavonic sword used in 9th and 10th century in Northern and Central Europe. The pommel and crossguard are highly decorated by inlayed single even twisted silver, copper and brass wires. Additionally some surfaces are granulated.
It isn't clear to me how extensive and detailed their source data was, how many original swords they looked at, measured, held in their hands.
140 year old iron for guard and pommel?
To quote Patrick, this really chaffs my butt. While many don't know that "Viking" swords was a pretty generic type of swords found all over Europe, I really dislike the use of "Viking" in marketing a sword which appears to be of Slavic origin. As far as I know, that style of inlay wasn't used in Scandinavia, but it seems like ArmArt fell to the temptation to slap on the more selling "Viking" label.
| Björn Hellqvist wrote: |
| To quote Patrick, this really chaffs my butt. While many don't know that "Viking" swords was a pretty generic type of swords found all over Europe, I really dislike the use of "Viking" in marketing a sword which appears to be of Slavic origin. As far as I know, that style of inlay wasn't used in Scandinavia, but it seems like ArmArt fell to the temptation to slap on the more selling "Viking" label. |
Yes, but. Most people they are trying to sell to would recognise that label more than the accurate one and they do qualify it with the details. Also, in their defence, 'Vikings' ranged a lot farther afield than Scandinavia and had a lot of contact with Slavic peoples.
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum