Greetings all!

I’ve been a lurker here on the forums for a good long while—one of the best places on the net for good, solid information regarding swords that go beyond the normal fan-boyistic tirades about 30lbs swords and cleaving anvils in half. Not that I’m not a fanboy, but I’d like to think that my interests are somewhat more academic and more on the historical side. I found that I would log in daily to check out this site and, when I got to the point where I kept having things to say, decided that I might as well join and continue lurking while still not saying much of anything. Hey, I’m being realistic!

My interest in swords must have been born in me (meaning the only logical explanation is that I spawned with love for swords from my two very practical Texan parents, since nothing they did in raising me could have caused it), and I’m finally getting to a point where I can freely pursue my interest in both combat and the higher-quality pieces themselves. Mostly due to the many reviews from this site (and I’ve read them all, believe me), I’ve just purchased an Albion Crecy, and it arrived last week. True to just about every source I’ve read, Mike was a joy to work with and talk with, and Albion will definitely be getting my business again.

And, of course, on to the sword. Wow. I chose the Crecy because when I first saw it on the website something clicked with me and it, and I’ve also been eager for a while to own a true two-handed sword (or hand-and-a-half). The finish is beautiful, the weight impeccable, and it immediately became the gem of my collection on sight. What I would like to talk about, though, were some surprises I noticed.

First off, I’m not the tallest man out there. I bought the Crecy with the feeling that using a sword that long (though it’s not too long, of course. I’m speaking comparatively) and large would be good for me. So you can imagine my surprise—and relief, to tell the truth—when I received it and it was much smaller than I had thought it would be, based on the pictures. Not shorter, for certain, but smaller. My best guesses on size based on pictures and measurements were very off from what I expected (which has happened before with other swords appearing much smaller than I expected, and could be attributed to my own lack of experience with different swords. i.e.: I need to buy more!). The grip was smaller than those of most of my other swords. The blade was thinner, but that was also the time period and I expected it to taper that much towards the point.

But it was the grip that I was most surprised about. First off, I’m comparing it to a MRL Norman sword (a model I don’t think they offer anymore) that I bought in 1999. I’ve read here and elsewhere about some ebb and flow the company has gone through in past years regarding quality, and I’m not sure where the company was in 1999 in terms of that. But the grip on the Norman is much thicker than on the Crecy.

I’ve noticed that both swords or available to click on the “Compare” screen here on the site (a really neat feature, I think), and from that the grips look identical in thickness. The one on my Norman, at least, is very wide. Not too wide to be un-wieldy, though, but simply wide. So when I first picked up the Crecy I was taken aback (and then delighted) at the way the sword fit into my relatively small hand.

So, the crux of my post is: is this an issue of a miscalculation in the historical accuracy department and functionality on my Norman sword, or is it simply a time period thing? I know the two weapons are a few centuries apart, so differences such as that are apparent, but the fact that a one hander that is supposed to weigh 2.75 lbs and the Crecy, that weighs 3.1 lbs, should have such differences seems interesting to me. The Crecy also feels much lighter and handles much better, but that seems to be a balance biproduct. Also, the metals may play a part. Maybe mass distribution? The fuller on the Norman is much shallower and the blade much thicker (to fit the time period) than the Crecy, so that could also be it.

Anyone own the Norman or the Crecy and can give any ideas, also? Anyone else suffering from the same misconceptions about swords they buy? It could be that the Crecy is my first sword of that fine of quality based on pieces from that particular time period, too. Basically, I’d love some discussion.

Also, it’s good to be here with all you fine folks!

The Albion sword has distal taper and is harmonically balanced (do a search with those phrases on this website and you will come up with many threads with detailed discussions) The MRL sword probably doesn't have these qualities, or if it does, it probably wasn't as well executed.

The Crecy, a type XVIa, and the MRL Norman, probably a X or Xa, are very different sword types with different blade geometries. A better comparison would be between the MRL Norman and the Albion Norman or Reeve.

Thanks for the input, Roger!

Any ideas about the grip, though? Does the width of the tang or blade geometry neccesitate a wider grip, which explains the Norman that I have? Or are other factors in play?

Ransom,
Welcome to life as a poster. :) Different blades types can necessitate different tang widths: tangs on many earlier medieval cutting swords were often wide and flat; some later thrusting types were thick and narrow (more square than rectangular). Check out our Oakeshott article for a little more info. While the different tang shapes did affect the grip's construction method, I don't know that it would have a big effect on the grip's finished shape. I suspect it's more the manufacturer's preference than anything else.

From my recent experience, A&A's grips are, on average, even thinner than most of Albion's. Some NG swords, like the Viceroy, have a big, thick grip.

Unfortunately, I've seen no studies on grip thickness that would let us know about historical trends. Hampering this, no doubt, is the fact that so many grips have been lost to the ravages of time.

I own both an Albion Crecy and a MRL Norman. I don't think there are two swords that could be farther apart. Since the Norman is a Type XI, it has a lot more blade presence (though in the case of the MRL offering, I think it goes to the extreme by simply being heavy and poorly balanced). I also think that the grip on the Norman is too big. I do not have hard data on which to base that statement; only the fact that it is uncomfortable. The rather slab-sided shape of the grip also keeps one from getting a truly good grip on the sword. You might have noticed that I'm a little biased against the Norman. I actually have plans to widen the fuller on mine (hopefully improving the handling a bit), and turning it into a Type XIIIb.

To answer your question: yes, there are some differences in the swords because of the time periods to which each belongs, but more than that, you are comparing a nearly $600 sword to a $275 (I think that is what I paid for my Norman) sword.

-Grey

One quick comment about comparing the Crecy in the "Comparison Tool": I haven't updated that tool in literally years. None of the "Next Generation" swords are there. The Crecy that is there is first generation.

Thanks, Chad. That's pretty much what I wanted to know about grip widths. From my limited hands-on experience I simply wasn't sure if it's a difference in preference by company or what, and your comment about the majority of information simply not being available due to the condition of old pieces is one of those things I didn't consider. I don't really see the grip on either my Crecy or Norman to really be superior one way or the other, but little mysteries like that are the kinds of things that pop up and that I find irresistibly interesting.

Thanks again!

(EDIT)

Gar, that's what I get for working on a post on and off while at work and missing stuff ;)

I noticed that the Crecy on the Comparison tool was a FG, but from glancing at the pictures the dimensions seemed to look fairly similar (comparing the width of the blade to the width of the grip) for what I was looking for. However, glad you pointed that out!

Glad to hear that someone else has one of the MRL Norman swords, Greyson. Since it was on the comparison chart at all I knew someone here had to have it! So it's not just me, thinking that it had a rather large grip. And I agree with you that it is rather slab-shaped, but again I was never sure if it was a design that was done that way for historical reasons or not. I always thought it worked for the sword, and didn't really notice its size until the Crecy was sat side-by-side with it. As I mentioned before, I suppose it's simply time for more hands-on work for me!

I also suspected that the price difference played a part, but was unsure how much of one. Thanks for, at least, letting me know I wasn't alone in my speculations!

That's certainly true, Alexander. I have my share of cheap knock-arounds, and then a few better ones, but nothing quite as good a quality as the Crecy until now. My introduction to higher end European-style pieces has left a wonderful impression on me, though I've never had any doubts about the quality of actual historical "tools." It's simply one thing to "know" it and quite another to "feel" it.