I am on the brink of purchasing a new Albion, and have narrowed it down to two: the Regent and the Earl. Both have the same blade, with the only major differences being in the hilt.

My main question is- is there any benefit to the s-guard over a standard straight one. The Regent's guard seems a bit more functional (I.E. I don't think that a strike from a curved S-guard would be as effective as that of a straight one because it would be more likely to glance off, at least that is how it seems to me)

I have also heard complaints about the pommels on both swords, but mostly about the Regent's.

Additionally, is there any significant difference in handling characteristics? I have read a few reviews stating that the Earl handles differently, and others saying that it does not.

Thank you for your help :)

I've never handled an Earl but I do have a a Regent. I don't have any problems with the pommel on the Regent although but I do not like that hexagonal grip. I had mine modified by Josh Davis and now I'm much happier with it.

I don't think either guard style is more effective than the other, I think that just comes down to personal esthetics, although as you say the straight guard might be better for striking.

I own a Regent and have handled an Earl briefly. Both are fine swords. Aesthetically, I prefer the Regent.

The S-curved guard could have some utility with some binds, where the curve may work to interfere with your opponent's attempts to slip off the bind. I see it most likely in the event of transmuting a strike to a farther opening while in the bind-- where you're effectively twisting the blade and guard around your opponent's at the crux.

And mind you-- not all Regents have an identical blade to the Earl. The earliest examples have the spiky tip profile.

One noticeable difference between both swords is the pommel. Both aren't what I'd call comfortable but I like the Regent's pommel more, the Earl's is spikey in all directions (like that thing on the Brescia, harmful to user and the unfortunate person being pommeled by it).

The other difference is the handling. The Earl has a bit more blade presence, not hugely more, but it's noticeable. I found the Regent to be a bit more agile and with slightly better point control. I handled a first-gen Regent and a second-gen Earl though with the latter having a thicker tip.

I don't consider the guard to make a real difference.

I have both and like the Earl more which is based on aesthetics more than function. Something about an "S" guard that looks good on this blade type. To be honest, the hilt on the Regent is more user friendly as I am not a practitioner and the Earl will sometimes hit my wrists/lower arms when handling. I am sure it is me and not the sword.

I believe Bill meant that his preference of the Earl was based on aesthetics, not function. He simply prefers the Earl's looks over the Regent's.

As a side note, I think one would be hard pressed to prove that an S-curved guard is a functional improvement over a straight guard. I personally believe it's mainly a fashion thing (with which I quite agree, it is a truly elegant shape).

In a time long, long ago I found that the Regent's pommel beat the hell out of my hand during test cutting. I tend to grip the pommel and without gloves, the fish tail just was not fun. I was not alone in this assessment.

I gave that feedback to Albion, and I know other people around parts of what was the WMA community at that time (10 perhaps 15 years ago) told them the same thing. The response from Albion was something to effect of "we'll have to see about that". Then came the Earl.

Before you write off the S-shaped guard as fashion, I'd suggest you try cutting with the Earl. Occasionally with the Regent, I'd snag my forearm with the guard. Not a big deal and certainly an issue of user error. Still, annoying. The guard on the Regent is long. On the Earl, the facets of the pommel still help with edge alignment but the S-guard neatly puts itself out of the way when you move the sword. It not a big thing or a big deal. Never the less, I did find I could do certain things more comfortably with the Earl. The pommel of the Earl was still a bit more spiky than I would have preferred, but it was sooo much easier for me to use the sword. The big trade-off to me is that the Earl is not as visually imposing.

That said, if you can't decide, just flip a coin. Seriously. Both swords are great and you're going to find things to love either way.

The Earl with a half-wire grip looks nicer than the Regent, in my opinion. I'm not sure if you're looking for a vote, but those are my two cents.

Intuitively I would say that the s-guard would assist in some bind actions, but I haven't had the chance to train with a guard like that, so can't confirm experimentally. At a minimum, I don't see that guard being a detriment.

Just curious? Do you plan on doing much cutting practice with the sword?

Leelund

This thread may be a great example of why we see so many different sword variations. Fashion plays into it. So does personal preference. Both can and do change!

The major difference between the Regent and Earl is that the Earl is dead sexy. Of course your opinion may differ :cool:

I have an early-design Regent from 2005 with the spiky tip, and knowing that Albion immediately changed the Regents over to the Earl's blade design soon as they introduced them makes me concerned about how much better the tapered tip is compared to the spiky one.