I am thinking of getting an Albion First Gen sword with a bone grip. I like the aesthetic qualities of bone but also know it is fairly difficult to work and can be fragile. I tried mounting a sax with a bone handle and abandoned the bone in favor of wood. I see the Next Gen Roman swords are fitted with grips of holly wood.

I was wondering if the bone used in Albion First Gen spatha and gladius grips has been stabilized in some way? I know this makes the bone more durable and less prone to breaking or chipping. If the bone in the First Gen grips is not stabilized, how much normal use and abuse could they be expected to take before cracking or breaking (say from a drop to the ground or frequent light to medium target cutting)?

This is in no way meant as a slight to Albion as I have owned several First & Next Gen swords and always found them to be of the best quality.

Any answers or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Rob

You might also post this on www.romanarmy.comm. There RomanArmyTalk forum is all about things Roman.

I owned a FirstGen gladius for about four years and the bone grip never deteriorated in any way. It was beautiful aesthetically and was very secure on the sword.

Right, I have several first-gen Albion Roman swords, all with the bone grips (and a Celtic La Tene longsword, also with bone grip -- a very early model!) and all have held up fine. I don't do much cutting with them anymore, only dry handling ("air cutting"), but there's never been a thought in my mind that there would be a problem. Hasn't even been much discoloration, either!

There are bone grips/hilt components that date to Roman times in museums. They've held up okay for a couple thousand years....

Thanks for the replies and information, gentlemen.

It might be that Albion sealed the bone on First Gen grips to help lessen the possibility of breakage. That would help explain the good longevity of the material.

Patrick, yes it does seem we have several surviving examples of bone grips from the Roman Era. Good point, indeed. However, many things that would be very likely to break easily (pottery, etc.) have been found perfectly intact in archaeological sites. ;)

However, having worked with bone and knowing that it can be prone to fracture (pardon the pun), I would still like to know if Albion sealed or stabilized the bone on the First Gen grips. If bone is a strong grip material, then why are the current Next Gen Roman swords fitted with wood grips? I realize it may be due to economic factors or design limitations. I am just curious. :D

Rob,

You can read more about Albion's decision to use Holly as the grip material in this thread:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...mp;start=0

Here are some quotes from the above mentioned thread.

Howard Waddell wrote:

Quote:

Consistency is the main reason -- it is getting harder and harder to find bleached cowbone in the smaller diameters that we need (with no flaws). Holly is historically accurate and we can get them dead-on every time.

Peter Johnsson wrote:

Quote:

As has been noted, the grips are now holly and not bone. It´s as Howy said a matter of availability and workability of the bone. There is also a health issue.

Thanks for the link, Matt. Good information there. I should remember that the search function is my friend! ;)

Peter, thank you for your reply. Your explanation regarding large production difficulties when using bone grips makes perfect sense. I assumed it was something like that but wanted to hear it from an expert involved with Albion production and design.

I am also well aware of the serious health risks associated with working bone. Thanks for posting that information as everyone should know of the possible respiratory damage if proper precautions are not observed.

Best,

Rob :)

Peter;

Bone dust ? Is the danger mostly when using power tools grinding or sanding bone producing a lot of airborne dust ?

If sanding by hand there should be lest dust in the air but is it still dangerous but less so ? I would imagine that someone working on one project without power tools would be in less danger than somebody working bone as a job 8 hours a day 5 days a week for years at a time: Even if a small exposure wouldn't harm a hobbiest ( much ) constant exposure would add a cumulative risk.

Probably a good idea to not take any chances and use a mask anyway?

I remember sanding a lot of Rosewood years ago and being coated with dust: I had a bad allergic reaction that I blamed at the time on some anti- itch medication I was using at the time with Benzocain in it ! Not medically confirmed though, just that the doctor I saw also assumed the same thing I did that the Benzocain was the problem, never thought of mentioning working rosewood.

I suspect now that it might have been the Rosewood dust instead: I had worked some rosewood before with hand tools without a problem but the dust clouds produced by machine sanding was another story.

This was years ( decades ago ) and at the time had no idea that some tropical woods can be toxic.