I just saw this custom piece on Arms & Armor's website.
This one's based on a well-known sword in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. The motto on the pommel is a request of the owner. Pretty neat.

[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]

http://www.arms-n-armor.com/2000/catalog/heritage.html

Interesting that they did it aged.

Maybe somebody from A&A will find this thread and share some details with us.

A&A are promoting the idea of customized pieces for special presentations, family heirlooms and such. They had another example of a customized Edward III:

I remember seeing that sword at the Met and might even have a few pictures some where around here. As I recall the description said something about the guard and maybe even the pommel being brass guilded with silver. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I know something bothered me about the choice of materials used. Anyway, as a whole is was a very attractive and functional piece.


This A&A piece is nothing short of awesome :D

If memory serves, it is believed that the original is some sort of presentation sword - not intended for combat, hence the seemingly less than ideal hilt components.

This is one of those sword designs that I can look at, the original and all the various recreations, and it never gets old. Generally speaking, a sword with the proportions of a type XIV with the diamond profile tip of XVI. . . I like very much :)
This is what I would call an I.33 sword if ever I saw one.

Thanks for sharing the pics and link.

Alina,

My (admittedly limited) interpretation of the text thus far suggested to me that a more compact sword than the classic type XII would lend itself better to some of the maneuvers in the manual, as a shield at arm's length (at most) doesn't give you much room to place a longer blade in a forward position with both the sword arm and the sword - tip inclusive - remaining clearly behind the shield.

Not to stray too far off topic, but an interesting (to me) observation a friend of mine had that surprised me when looking at the manual is how often the shield is used in an aggressive fashion while the sword is relegated to defense or a follow-up to an attack; not so much "lead with a block from the shield, advance with the sword", as "feint with the sword, or distract your opponent's attention with the sword, crowd your opponent with the shield ("attack"), follow with a thrust or other maneuver from grappling distance". These maneuvers in what I would consider nearing dagger distances are one aspect that suggested to me that a type XIV would fit the bill better than the type XII.

Another one we noticed is how often the shield and sword are held relatively close together (focus on the hands being close together) and at nearly full arm's reach to press an attack; this suggesting to me that to keep the shield as an "equal variable" in the mind of an opponent, the sword blade would be close enough to the shield face (shorter, in my mind, than the classic type XII) to keep the distance of the battle within equal reach of the shield and sword at any given moment. A longer sword blade would potentially narrow the options in the minds of both parties as to accompish this same goal, the shield and sword would have to take the time to "change distances", the sword withdrawing and the shield advancing to present an attack with the shield as an option. Not only would this transition take a moment longer (not much, I admit, but enough to change things between two skilled combatants), but it solildly telegraphs the shield as the leading aggressor rather than forcing the opponent to choose blindly between them and potentially commit to a tactically disadvantageous position.

In any case, there are some images in particular I have in mind. . . going to have to go digging around and report back. . .

Much of my interpretation of the swords in the manual as drawn come from measuring the weapons and the characters with my thumb and or fingers and guestimating the sword dimensions based on relative sizes as compared to an average sized (5' 8" - 6' 0") person.

. . . so, if the little guy in the picture is two thumbnails and a little finger tall, and the sword is a thumbnail and a quarter long and a half a little finger wide at the cross, and a person is about six foot. . . :lol:

in a little more intelligent input than my last post. . .

I guess what brought me to type XIV in I.33 (study of the manual's technique aside and now looking solely on the illustrations), was the prevalent combination of compartitive blade length, width at the base of the blade, pronounced profile taper, and the fullers being broad and only reaching about half way down the blade. I can follow where you could see type XII as, if I remember correctly, most of the crosses are straight rather than curved, the straight cross being rare for type XIV. The only thing that gets me is the length of the crosses (or width of the blades at the base, depending on how one looks at it). . . they just seem really short for either type. . .