We finished up this piece the other week from our custom shop. Here is the Wallace-Records Xa1 Mark II.
[ Linked Image ]
This piece was based on and was constructed in the same way as the Wallace-Records Xa.1. However it's main difference is in the balance. Following the customer's desire for a balance point that is closer to the hilt, many changes were done that effected the weight distribution.
Weight: 3lb 4oz
Over All Length: 40.5"
Blade Length: 33.68"
Center of Percussion: 22.25" from guard
Point of Balance: 3.74"
Thickness of Blade: 1/4"
Blade: 1075 steel
Grip: wood, leather covering
Guard: steel
Pommel: steel
More info and pictures of this piece can be found on our website www.ollinsworddesign.com.
Best,
Matt
Spiffy.
Looks nice! I think that I am seeing some subtle changes to the shapes. Pommel looks hollow ground on Mark I, but not on Mark II. Cross profile seems more concave on Mark II than on Mark I. Can't tell what may or may not be different between the two blades.
Very nice. :cool: Maybe the hollow grinding is deeper on this one as well as the distal taper might be greater.
hard to tell without going to see the other one an comparing pictures: More dramatic lighting can also change the look of things.
Nice photography IMHO. :cool:
hard to tell without going to see the other one an comparing pictures: More dramatic lighting can also change the look of things.
Nice photography IMHO. :cool:
Thanks, guys.
You're right in that this pommel doesn't have concave attributes the first sword had. The extra material here aided in pulling back the balance point. This guard is also more waisted as the customer requested.
There are some subtle variations between the two blades. The first one was actually a little longer than the second, the base of the fuller isn't quite as deep, the fuller is a little narrower throughout the length of the blade, and the blade was ground with a smaller diameter contact wheel.
Thanks for the comments on the photography, by the way.
Mark
You're right in that this pommel doesn't have concave attributes the first sword had. The extra material here aided in pulling back the balance point. This guard is also more waisted as the customer requested.
There are some subtle variations between the two blades. The first one was actually a little longer than the second, the base of the fuller isn't quite as deep, the fuller is a little narrower throughout the length of the blade, and the blade was ground with a smaller diameter contact wheel.
Thanks for the comments on the photography, by the way.
Mark
Thanks Joe, Steve, and Jean very much for the kind words. It is always very appreciated.
Best,
Matt
Best,
Matt
Wow! I liked the first one, but this one is really nice. I was actually just at the Wallace museum and the pommel on mark II is very close to the original! I wish I could have taken photographs there. Great work again guys!
| Tim Lison wrote: |
| Wow! I liked the first one, but this one is really nice. I was actually just at the Wallace museum and the pommel on mark II is very close to the original! I wish I could have taken photographs there. Great work again guys! |
Really! That's great to hear Tim and thanks for passing it along. That pommel was really sort of mandated by the design constraints. Based on information I had gathered about the sword I believe that the balance point had to be moved closer to the hilt to make the sword handle more like the original. Mark played with several options but eventually was pretty much forced to add a more massive pommel to bring the balance point back. I had no pictures of the pommel from the side, but only from the "flat" side" so I had no idea if it was accurate or not but really had no other choice. It's nice to hear some confirmation that this one is pretty close.
I also should mention that Mark and Matt are great guys to work with. They try very hard to meet the customer's expectations and in this case took a substantial loss on this sword in order to make sure that I am satisfied with it. To which I can emphatically say that I am very much satisfied with this sword and would not hesitate to do business with this excellent outfit again.
I will go into more detail on that when I post my own review of the sword later. (Sorry guys I would have done it sooner but June is a REALLY busy month for me)
I will go into more detail on that when I post my own review of the sword later. (Sorry guys I would have done it sooner but June is a REALLY busy month for me)
Nice work, guys.
And congratulations, Russ! When you get a scabbard made, you'll have to post some pictures. Or will this end up being one of those cases where the cobler's children have to go unshod?
-Grey
And congratulations, Russ! When you get a scabbard made, you'll have to post some pictures. Or will this end up being one of those cases where the cobler's children have to go unshod?
-Grey
| Greyson Brown wrote: |
| Nice work, guys.
And congratulations, Russ! When you get a scabbard made, you'll have to post some pictures. Or will this end up being one of those cases where the cobler's children have to go unshod? -Grey |
Lol, probably. I really ought to make some scabbards for my swords, but when it's a choice of spending an hour making a scabbard I get paid for or spending an hour making a scabbard I'm paying for... :)
| Russ Ellis wrote: | ||
Really! That's great to hear Tim and thanks for passing it along. That pommel was really sort of mandated by the design constraints. Based on information I had gathered about the sword I believe that the balance point had to be moved closer to the hilt to make the sword handle more like the original. Mark played with several options but eventually was pretty much forced to add a more massive pommel to bring the balance point back. I had no pictures of the pommel from the side, but only from the "flat" side" so I had no idea if it was accurate or not but really had no other choice. It's nice to hear some confirmation that this one is pretty close. |
Russ-
I spent about a half hour in front of this sword trying to commit every detail to memory as I would eventually like a repro made myself. The only difference I can see between this one and the original is that the circles on the flat face of the pommel are slightly offset towards the top in the original, and the bottom of the pommel where it meets the grip seems to be a bit flatter. It almost looks the the shape of a balloon with the bottom cut off, if that makes sense. The thickness of the pommel seems dead on though. I was surprised by how the pommel was almost round from the side, but it makes sense in the handling. Altogether, this one looks like the best version I've ever seen. No surprise there though, I know how good the guys at Ollin are......
Interesting how much the character of the pommel changed from Mark I to II. The new one definitely has a Type I look, unlike the Type J of the original and the Mark I.
| Russ Ellis wrote: | ||
Lol, probably. I really ought to make some scabbards for my swords, but when it's a choice of spending an hour making a scabbard I get paid for or spending an hour making a scabbard I'm paying for... :) |
Better than paying someone else to do it I guess, and you should be able to easily know exactly what the client wants. :D
Oh, I'm getting " verified " by Paypall so my spending limit will get " unblocked " should make paying for a Rondel scabbard easier to do. Craig says that the Rondel should be ready in a couple of months. ( I' ll confirm the order with you at that time to make it official and have Craig ship to directly to you. Start thinking of designs. ;) )
( Edited: Oh, great sword, congratulations and i look forward to reading a review here or on your site. )
| Tim Lison wrote: |
| Russ-
I spent about a half hour in front of this sword trying to commit every detail to memory as I would eventually like a repro made myself. The only difference I can see between this one and the original is that the circles on the flat face of the pommel are slightly offset towards the top in the original, and the bottom of the pommel where it meets the grip seems to be a bit flatter. It almost looks the the shape of a balloon with the bottom cut off, if that makes sense. The thickness of the pommel seems dead on though. I was surprised by how the pommel was almost round from the side, but it makes sense in the handling. Altogether, this one looks like the best version I've ever seen. No surprise there though, I know how good the guys at Ollin are...... |
Hey Tim,
I totally agree about the pommel face offsets, I had noted that myself. I was willing to give a little on that point though to try to make it a bit easier on Mark. :) He had already gone WELL above and beyond the call of duty for this particular piece and I was much more interested in getting the functional aspects of the sword right along with the general aesthetic. I really am appreciative of your insight on the pommel shape and am just tickled that as it turns out it was a better reproduction then we knew. The Mark I had a much flatter as Chad noted type I sort of look to it, what we more generally think of as a "wheel" type. That type just could not bring the balance point back far enough though even when Mark and removed all of the material he felt he safely could from the blade. We knew we had the dimensions on the blade pretty much spot on. Our only option really was to add a bit of mass to the pommel and since we knew what the pommel looked like from straight on the only option was to add "thickness" to the pommel. Very cool how form follows function.
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
|
( Edited: Oh, great sword, congratulations and i look forward to reading a review here or on your site. ) |
Thanks Jean, and thanks for the heads up!
| Russ Ellis wrote: |
| The Mark I had a much flatter as Chad noted type I sort of look to it, what we more generally think of as a "wheel" type. That type just could not bring the balance point back far enough though even when Mark and removed all of the material he felt he safely could from the blade. We knew we had the dimensions on the blade pretty much spot on. Our only option really was to add a bit of mass to the pommel and since we knew what the pommel looked like from straight on the only option was to add "thickness" to the pommel. Very cool how form follows function. |
Oakeshott lists the pommel of the original as Type J:
[ Linked Image ]
Rather than Type I:
[ Linked Image ]
Type J has the hollowed faces that the Mark I had. Type I (and the Mark II) doesn't. It's too bad you couldn't keep the shape of the pommel closer to the original. When I was at the Wallace collection, I thought I remembered the faces of the original's pommel being hollowed like a Type J.
Mark I:
[ Linked Image ]
Mark II:
[ Linked Image ]
It's a while since I was last there, but I thought it looked closer to the second than the first version, wrt the pommel. The pommel highlights in the photograph also don't look like a curved surface. Oakeshott was known to change his mind on such things.
Geoff
Geoff
I actually still have the original pommel in the shop, so here's a a side view for a little better comparison between the two.
I also tried experimenting with a pommel that was somewhere between the two, making a pommel with a less severe hollowed bevel to it, but even that had more effect on the balance point than I was expecting.
Mark
Attachment: 72.86 KB
Attachment: 9.12 KB
I also tried experimenting with a pommel that was somewhere between the two, making a pommel with a less severe hollowed bevel to it, but even that had more effect on the balance point than I was expecting.
Mark
Attachment: 72.86 KB Attachment: 9.12 KB| Geoff Wood wrote: |
| It's a while since I was last there, but I thought it looked closer to the second than the first version, wrt the pommel. The pommel highlights in the photograph also don't look like a curved surface. Oakeshott was known to change his mind on such things.
Geoff |
Could be. Oakeshott did change his mind in cases where things where on the line between types. I'd think that J and I are different enough, though that you wouldn't get the two confused too easily: The bevels are either hollowed or they aren't. :)
I'd be curious to see how much moving the raised section of the pommel more toward the top (like the original) would affect the overall balance. There are many pommels whose main discs aren't the same thickness at the top as at the bottom or the middle or whose bosses were not centered. I'm sure that wasn't done randomly.
Also, how close is the tang shape and thickness to the original? That could have an effect on balance as well.
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum