Since admiring the PJ hafted-sword currently being discussed on this forum I have been reminded of an issue that is of real interest to me, namely, the level of finishing/polishing applied to our beloved reproductions. On another recent post PJ and Craig from A&A discuss their ideas about the possible or probable "roughness" of even medium to higher munitions grade weaponry. I, as a collector obsessed with historical authenticity first and handling and performance second- would gladly pay just as much for a sword or other weapon with was "rough" versus "clean" like everything currently available to us- if this was felt to authentically re-express the period weapon. Do we need for our weapons to be finished to a pristine level even if this may be historically inaccurate? I, for one, think that less finished pieces can look really cool. What do you guys think? Especially Albion, Craig, and PJ. Are these less polished blades destined to be fulfilled in the costum department? Thanks so much. . .

Thanks Howard,
I personally really like "character" marks and requested them on a custom sword which I own from A&A. In talking about less finished swords personally, I'm not even thinking of less expensive swords, I'm thinking of MORE ACCURATE swords. I don't want a super-highly finished sword if this level of finish makes the piece less authentic. Some of my ideas, I am sure come from my personal current collection focus-- away from the swords meant for the highest echelons of society, but more for the average man. Now I do realize that when we speak of swords we often preclude the average man. I guess I am not interested in blades carried by kings, princes, or fuedal lords- but maybe men-at-arms.
And why don't production companies use iron when this is so often employed in period pieces?

I prefer to have my swords finished to more modern standards, but without going too far on producing mirror-bright finishes. I was always curious about the efforts at Raven Armoury to produce "aged" swords, with levels of corrosion consistent with the age of the original, but was never tempted to buy a piece that had been treated that way. I am more interested in seeing the design executed as intended, than I am in seeing something that looks old. If I want my sword to look old and used, I can abuse it myself., without any need for factory assistance.

To produce a believable facsimile of a hand crafted ancient sword would require more finishing, not less. Just stopping the production process prior to the polishing does not result in a more authentic replica. Modern swords, like reproduction firearms, can't help but be made of better materials than the originals. There is no current commercial source for the unique batches of metal that were available to ancient smiths. When modern tools are used rather than the uniquely crafted hand tools of medieval smiths, the finish will be different as well.

I am sure that a lot of sword buyers would like to have the option to buy less expensive versions of the new Albions, but I am quite pleased with the current combination of fit, finish, workmanship, and price. If I could also buy similar but less finely finished swords for half the price, I would just wind up exhausting my display space in half the time.

For myself, the finish level is more or less an issue of is it right for the sword in question to have a rougher or finer finish. Some seem to need it to look the part and some would probably look (and actually be) more accurate in a rougher state. In a sword to be used for extensive cutting, the finer finish, at least on the blade, is kind of wasted. And a fine finish is a lot of work.... (at least the way I do it... lol )

My conclusions on this issue, coming from the standpoint of someone who intends to do some blade work for income, is that I'll put in the work to give a high level of finish. The best I reasonable can without going broke. As Steve points out, if you want to distress a sword you can easily enough do that. You can damage a finish to your hearts desire. You want rough, you can have really rough. It is easy. Putting the fine finish on a rougher blade or fittings can be a lot more work. So, I'm simply going to save the customer the work by making it nice so that any modifications that suit them can be made with a minimum of work.

Ofcourse, if someone wanted something done and left rough from the get go, that is fine. It is easier, too. :D

A line of more munition grade swords with less in the finish department from Albion would be really cool, in my book. After all, I'm too poor to realisticly think of purchasing many of the higher end things (if any... :( ).

As a final meandering note on the finish issue, I'm going to say that I do think that if an historical sword/spear/axe/whatever would likely not have been highly finished, then I'm quite alright with the same finish. If it is a weapon I like, I'd buy it. But, that is just me. I've observed that the fine finish seems to be expected in the modern world, and since we can do that, I guess that is cool... just not always accurate to history.

It hasnt been to uncommon for my clientele to ask me for a slightly aged look. They for the most part do not want "Bright & Shiny.
So, unless some one orders a specific polish, I tend to leave the aged look intact. A mild etch and rub down with paper or leather works. On occassion a used up piece of 60 micron belt on a pad.

Wonderful thread.

I need some clarification. When we talk about finish, I assume we mean what the grit was of the last abrasive material used to polish the blade. That I can see how any one of us can alter after we get the blade. How about the evenness of the hilt components? I have seen on some Raven swords that the guard and the pommel look very old and have uneven surface. Very cool look.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem...gory=43339

How can we achieve at home with sand paper, or any kind of chemical treatment without the possibility of corroding/damaging the blade and the grip? Of course, I assume that we cannot easily disassemble the hilts at home (like we can do with ATrims). This same pattern is visible on Joachim's hafted sword by PJ: fairly well polished blade, rough cross-guards.
I would love to have an options of the hilt components' looks. I do understand that this is not always plausible/financially sound from the perspective of the makers. I think that these rough hilt components might even be more expensive to make especially if they need to be forged to get that authentic hammered look. Is it possible to cast the components with that sort of look?

Cheers,

Alexi

Less than perfect....
Well, this is an interesting problem.
As many have pointed out above there are different types of mistakes. Some glitches might add to the character of a peice, but in most cases it is something to avoid.

When making swords or edged weaponry in a modern world with modern tools and materials (unavoidable, more or less, unless you start by making your own steel and produce very singular and uniques items) the process of manufacture will leave traces in the finished item. The finished sword is the sum of all stages in its making.
If the ambition is to make a sword that gives a period feel, not only in style, shape and performance but also in surface treatment, visual character and finish, then it is necessary to bring the finish to such a level that marks from the belt grinder and other contemporary production methods are removed. After a high level of finish is acheived, then the sword can be distressed somewhat or patinated to perhaps bring out a more authentic feel in the character of the surface.
A final polish that hides gritmarks and avoids the sterile look of mirror polished steel can also be used. The way I prefer to do this is to use a scotch brite pad with oil with emery paper as a last surface treatment. This produces a nice soft satin finish that keeps lines and surfaces tight and clean, but avoids a buffed "chrome" finish that looks out of character.

Scotch brite finish is also applied to Albion swords. This has the added benefit that a customer easily can restore finish after cutting. Long gentle strokes lengthwise with a grey pad of scotch brite and some oil (taking care not to harm the very edge) and the finish is quickly brought back to normal.

The set limitation with this method is that only high end items can be reproduced. More rough looking swords need to show traces of grinding on a (fine) stone, perhaps some file marks and pits form forging scale. It is impotant to understand that these flaws are discreet, even on roughly finished originals. It is more of surface character than obvious flaws. When looked at carefully you start to see these minute "flaws" in well preserved originals. Even munition grade blades had a farily well defined and polished surface. There might be some grind marks to see and the occasional forging flaw or scale pit, but the overall finish looks completed and brought to its full. What mostly differ high end from low end blades is straightness of lines and symmetry. Midribs can be wavy, edges can undulate, blade can sabre, fullers can wander. This is mostly unacceptable in high end production swords or cutom projects.
When we see these flaws today in contemporary low end productions it tends to look not quite right. Why is this? An interesting question!

It is certainly the case that you will find traces of the process of making in well preserved historical swords. There is a very high level of awareness of shape and form, so the mistakes and dimples we see are easily overlooked. The finished whole has a harmonious integrity. Lines flow and shapes are complete. If there are irregularities and non symmetrical details, they tend to be less noticable than sloppy contemporary work.
This is in fact a very interesting aspect. The mistakes we see in ancient artifacts are the mistakes of a master. This is very different from sloppy work made to keep all costs down in a modern production enviroment. I am sure everyone can tell the difference if a slightly off-centre rapier from the 16th C is put side by side with a carelessly made 21th C replica on a table side by side. It is a world of difference!

I like to use the example of calligraphy to illustrate this: To make beautifull calligraphy you need to study each letterform with diligence untill they are ingrained in you subconsious. When this training allows you to write perfect letters, the scrip will still not be beautiful untill you can produce it at a certain speed: the writing has to express a will to be, an urge of creation, a flow that causes slight and inevitable irregularities in the letters. This is what gives the wrtiting its character. This is what makes the text come to life and reflect the atttude and temperament of its maker.
You cannot expect a novice to express his or her character in the mistakes made. They are just plain mistakes. It takes long trainig to make the mistakes of a master.
It is also impossible to program a machine to make the mitakes of a human being (or close to imposible) When swords are based on standardised components, like milled blade blanks and milled or cast hilt components, the aspect that brings them to final character and quality is the fact that a*person* completes them and puts them together. A process must be designed that allowes for the right type of "mistakes" to be made for the final product to look just right.
This puts a high demand on the definition of the blanks that the products are built upon.

A period looking, distressed or less than perfect finish often demands *more* work rather than less, since you first have to remove all modern toolmarks or use a very authentic production method in every step of the making.

Nice and informative post, Peter!

My guess appeared to be right: that aged/period look components will tend to be more expensive due to the labor involved in making them.

Steve, as far as the Raven sword goes, I do like the look even though it does not have "smooth" transition between the aged guard/hilt and the shiny blade. If we were to assume that this is an old sword, one plausible explanation is that the blade got more care than the hilt. Further more it looks like the blade and the hilt components are made from different material, maybe they age differently. But at the end of the day it does not matter: Some people will like it, some will not. It will be interesting to know if period weapons survived with that kind of appearance.

On a similar note, I saw that Vladimir Cervenka's swords can come with an aged look.
http://www.sword.cz/swords.htm That look certainly has some appeal to it, but does that aging process diminish the performance of the blade. I think that even from historical/period perspective performance was the top priority and looks come second.

Cheers,

Alexi

Thanks to everyone joining in on the discussion. Peter, your insights are valuable as usual and provide the most pleasant diversion from the tedium of my occupation. :cool:

Howard Waddell,

From the photos of historic swords in my reference books, I see a lot of imperfections that would offend my "modern eye": Not just tool marks but a very glaring lack of concern about "perfect symmetrie."
Personnally these irregularities are not very attractive even if historically accurate.

If one could go back in time and have a discussion with the original maker I am wondering if it would even be possible to convince the maker that there is a problem to fix!

This said, if my interest was in having an exact copy of a period sword, I would want ALL of the so-called flaws.
The next question would be, would I want it as in new condition, aged or corroded condition!

My recently acquired Gaddhjalt has a few tiny casting flaws but I don't find this disturbing at all.
If the fuller was wavy or the hilt longer on one side this might bother me.

I found your explanation of these issues on this post very interesting and convincing.(It completely removes any remaining concerns: I was very satisfied with it before, now I'm 100% happy about it).

Perhaps a different perspective to consider is the "finish" that occurs on sword fittings not as a result of manufacture, but of use. Here's a good example: I recently acquired an Albion Next Gen Vinland with a black grip, and I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what I wanted to do with the hilt fittings. At firs, I thought of using a diluted bluing solution, but eventually decided against it. So then I considered browning; well, most commercial solutions require that the metal be heated prior to application (which I was NOT prepared to do), and some of the "home brewed" cold browning solutions require chemicals that are quite hazardous to your health, and probably hard to acquire. I recently purchased a copy of The Complete Metalsmith by Tim McReight, basically because I wanted to know about working with copper, brass and bronze; within there was a section on different ways to patina metals, and listed under steel, to produce a red/brown finish, was a strong salt solution. The more I thought about it, not only is this a realtively simple (and safe! ;) ) method, it is not only appropriate, but accurate as well for a Viking sword. If you think about it, the Vikings spent a lot of time at sea in essentially open hulled vessels, with constant exposure to, in various forms, salt water, and those swords with iron/steel fittings would be the most affected. The blades themselves would more than likely be kept within their scabbards and well oiled, and most likely they were well cared for, so it probably wasn't uncommon to see swords with brightly polished and well kept blades but "rusted" fittings.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the reason that Edward was called the Black Prince of Wales was that his armor had been allowed to rust, and then the rust was stabilized to produce a corrosion resistant surface. It could be that the same approach was used with sword fittings; they could have come from the cutler with a bright, polished finish but once in the hands of the customer finished in the same manner as Edward's armor. In addition to this I imagine there would have been many scratches, scuffs, dents, what have you when the sword was worn while in armor and banging against the plates and/or rings or various other objects while on campaign. Again, since the blade would be in it's scabbard more often than not, and would have received the most attention during maintainence, you would see the same contrast mentioned before. Hope this helps :)

Hi Markus,

Have you done cutting with that sword. According to the site it should be fully functional. How does it perform? Also, if you do not mid me asking, what is the price range of his swords +/- the aging treatment.

Any info is welcome.

Cheers,

Alexi

For me this is a difficult question to answer. I find that it can be hard to tell if the flaw on a sword is intentional character, lack of skill, or laziness. Especially on a production sword.

Strangly I do like some roughness on other weapon types because it often seems more appropriate to me. For example I hate high finish on axe heads.

Personally I prefer my swords to not have that sort of "character." I want my swords to exhibit the best fit and finish possible today not the best fit and finish possible hundreds of years ago. In a similar manner if given the choice I would rather have a sword made of modern steel then one made of steel produced the way it was in 1250. I'm betting if given the choice between a sword with "character" and one with a perfect finish the ancient swordsman would take the one with perfect finish. I suspect that ancient swordsman were rather a pragmatic lot. We are the romantic ones.