The Albion Earl
--------------------

This will be an ongoing informal review of the new Albion Earl, beginning with photos and handling impressions, and eventually moving up to cutting and various other performance tests.

The Earl is a longsword of type XVIIIb, based on swords that were popular in the 15th century.

Length overall: 48"
Blade length: 37"
Weight: 3lbs, 6 oz
Width at base: 2"
Handle length: 7.9"
POB: 4.6"
COP: 23"

The blade is beautifully hollow ground, giving the Earl a thick, stiff spine without undue weight. It is barely light enough to be used with one hand, though only with two does it feel agile enough to inspire confidence. The hollow ground shape flows into a distinct, and intentional, edge bevel, and flattens out within a few inches of the point into a regular flattened diamond cross section. The Earl shares its blade with the Regent, and both have been redesigned since the earlier sword's inception. The original blade had an extremely acute point with a thin cross section, while the new blade lessens the acuteness and adds significant reinforcement (thickness) while somehow keeping a nearly identical point of balance to the original. While less likely to injure someone through a good mail hauberk than its predecessor, it is also less likely to deform on impact.


Fit and Finish
----------------

As would be expected, the Earl arrived with Albion's usual high quality satin finish, which is finished off with a hand polish using a grey scotchbrite pad and oil. Consequently, removing scratches and other blemishes will yield a surface that blends with the original finish. This is a big plus for those who intend to use the sword for cutting.

The finish on the fittings is of similar quality, and fittings themselves are beautifully cast without noticeable blemishes or flaws. The S shaped guard is very well designed and beautifully executed, with artful facets that compliment the look of the sword. The leather handle wrap is of very high quality and done in an attractive oxblood so dark it looks black or dark brown under all but the brightest indoor lighting.


Flexibility
-----------

The Earl is a very stiff sword, without noticeable point sag or wobble. To test the heat treatment, I pinned the first foot of the blade to the ground and flexed it to approximately 45 degrees. It returned to true without a trace of the sensation of over-flexing that can sometimes be felt when a sword is pushed too far. A 45 degree flex test is impressive for a sword of the Earl's stiffness.


Handling
-----------

The Earl is best described as a "war sword". Its edge is thick, as is its cross section all the way to the point. This is a very strong sword, and as such it is not as quick as some of the lighter longswords I have tested. The handle is also a little too thin for my liking, though someone with smaller hands would probably disagree. The pommel is not comfortable to grip during a cut, as the pointy facets cut into the hand, though it's smooth base allows it to be used as an extension to the handle (you can grip most of it, stopping just shy of the points), which makes a big improvement in the handling of the sword.

Overall, the sword is quick and agile enough to be used in blossfechten (unarmored fighting in the German tradition), and sturdy enough to survive significant abuse against armored opponents. It would not be my first choice if I was headed to an unarmored duel, though it would be a top contender if I had to wear a sword without knowing what to expect behind the next turn of the medieval road.


Performance
----------------

Thus far, I have only had the opportunity to test the Earl against the lightest cutting mediums. It cuts soft targets like milk jugs effortlessly, but doesn't like the stiffer plastic of juice bottles, most likely due to its thick cross section. It cuts them, and it cuts them well, but you need precision and speed to do so. When something heavy like a water filled bottle is cut, the sword blade has to force the bottle apart as it cuts, and as it does so, it is also pushing the bottle off the stand. The thicker the sword, the more of its energy translates into the pushing force, and the more likely a bottle is to fly off the stand. This is not a fault of the Earl, merely a result of its sturdy cross section. As I have said in the past, swords are not, and should not be, designed to cut plastic bottles. The impression I got from the Earl is that it would have no problems at all with heavier cutitng media.

In the coming weeks, I will be testing the Earl against tatami omote, wood and other materials. I will also test its point against mail armor and thin steel plate. Results, along with accompanying photos, will be posted here.

Summary
-----------
The Earl is a very good longsword, and it also happens to be quite beautiful. It is not the quickest of swords, but it was not designed to be. What is lost in handling is gained in resiliency. This sword is a lot more that just a Regent with different fittings. It has a unique look and a personality all its own, and would make a wonderful addition to any serious collector’s arsenal.


[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]


This picture shows the sharp points on the pommel that are not as clear at other angles.

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

The Earl vs. The Regent (old version)
------------------------------------------------

The Regent, despite an almost identical center of gravity, feels a bit livelier in the hand, with a tad less blade presence. Unlike the Earl, the Regent cannot be handled without gloves, at least not by me. The handle is too short to control the weight of the blade, and the pommel inflicts pain to the bare hand bold enough to grip it. With gloves, even thin ones, the Regent is transformed from a bad idea crafted in steel into a wonderful and agile sword. The pommel becomes quite gripable and that changes the performance of the sword dramatically. The Earl, while easy to manage with the naked hand, undergoes less of a transformation when the gloves come on. The difference between the two is slight, but its there.

[ Linked Image ]


The original (Regent) blade is on the left.

[ Linked Image ]

Its interesting how individual preference can change perceptions of details here and there. I don't much mind the Earl pommel at all without gloves, but I do share the Regent experience. Not sure why but net-net I find that I cut much better with the Earl than the Regent, with or without gloves. That said I have kept to light medium so I might not have stretched myself as much as you have in the exercise.

Good evaluation and good photos.

Why not make it a formal review, if you don't mind me asking overmuch?

Thanks Michael for your sharing. Your information on the sword is highly valuable to me because while individual preference can vary a lot, our handling preference and tolerance are very similar. :) Thus I look forward to read more about your further review and tests.

Thank you for the review and the excellent photos. I will look forward to the updates as you start cutting other mediums.

I edited the review slightly. What I originally wrote made it read as though the Earl had a problem cutting plastic bottles, and it does not. As I explained above, because the sword is so thick, more of its energy is expressed as a pushing force that may knock the bottle of the stand if the cut is not fast or precice enough. This is not an issue with milk jugs because they deform easily. To cut the thicker plastic, you just have to make sure your cut is quick.



It's not as effortless as a thinner sword would be for such media, but then a thinner sword may balk at some of the target the Earl can handle.

Nicely put together regardless.

On the subject of cutting performance and geometry -

This have been talked about quite a bit in various threads, and I don't want to provoke argument, but I think it fairly simple physics applies here. Cutting performance is a matter of sharpness, edge alignment, edge geometry, blade geometry, sword velocity, sword mass, etc.

Total energy distributed over the very slim area of the edge determines the initial "cut" part. Kinetic energy is proportional to mass time velocity squared. That is more mass is better, but velocity matters "twice". Applied to water jugs, a cut that bounce off did not make the initial penetration of the medium. The total energy concentrated and directed to the sword edge was not sufficient.

After the initial cut, the distance the sword travels through the medium depends on edge geometry, blade geometry, friction, etc. Now it is similar to am aerodynamics problem (in a medium with lots of friction). Here a hollow ground blade has a pretty big disadvantage over a flat blade. As the cut progresses through the medium, the friction tries to overcome the momentum of the sword. It either does, or it does not. Momentum is just mass times velocity - so now they matter equally. If you take a heavy sword and get it up to speed, you are going to cut well, esp if it does not generate a lot of friction.

You always have a tradeoff in sword design. A thick, stiff sword is built mainly for thrusting, and may cut well if you use it just right, but a wide flat blade with the same edge geometry is going to perform better.

I would add to Gordon's comments that once you get to the point that a blade can cut well enough it doesn't make a big practical difference if it can cut twice as well or even three time as well: In that case some design compromises that reduce cutting power to that 1X degree from a 2X or 3X but increases other valuable attributes like better thrusting ability ( pointiness and rigidity ) More weight and stronger edges that can crush though maille and wound even if the cut is stopped by the maille and not be seriously damaged is also a design compromise.

Since plate cutting is almost impossible anyway from what I have read here.