[David McElrea]

Hello all,

Assuming this discussion was, in part, inspired the finish on Joachim's hafted-sword, I would look at it this way. The finish should fit the recreation. The hafted sword is a peasant's weapon-- if it was beautifully finished it would be anachronistic and... well, wrong. Its rough finish tells a story about who would have owned it and how it was made (you can almost smell the smoke coming from the village smithy). Before I wax to lyrical I'll move on.

If the weapon in question is a noble's weapon, I would want an excellent finish-- at least as good as an original's. That tells a different story. I agree whole-heartedly with what has been said about character etc. I have no problem with minor imperfections as long as they are that-- minor.

If I want a villager's weapon I would probably want something that showed the marks of the hammer. If I want a man-at-arms sword/pike/whatever I would probably want munitions grade. If I want a ducal sword it better not be munitions grade and it had better not be rough.

Although this is a sidenote on the above, I like Robert's idea of giving the sword a degree of weathering consistent with its use (salt water for seafaring weapons whatnot) but wouldn't lean towards heavy patination unless I actually owned a castle whose wall I could hang it on-- but that is just me. I might change my mind after a while

David

[Howard Waddell]

[Steve Fabert]

[Sean Flynt]

When I first got interested in experimenting with antiquing, I contacted the folks at Raven. They were generous enough to share their very straightforward methods. Basically, it's a conservation process that requires lots of hand work. The rest is just waiting around for the natural destruction of rusting to take place. I think the price difference comes in that painstaking professional conservation of the rusted steel. It's cheaper and more educational (and fun) to get a standard finished piece and do the damage/conservation yourself. Raven certainly does a fantastic job, though.

[Björn Hellqvist]

[Eric McHugh]

Here are my two cents as Albions Head Cutler. It is my responsibility to ensure each sword made at Albion reflects our commitment to quality. We do not compromise on this issue. I have rejected many swords because of minor issues. This, of course, does not mean that a few do not sneak through. In these cases, we pride ourselves on our return policy. We will fix it...period. I'm proud of the fact that we have an extremely low return rate (around 1%).

With that said, it is clear that our swords are hand-made. They will never have machine perfect tolerances to them. Our tolerances for blade blanks, rivet blocks, pommel and guard dimensions are very tight - but not perfect. Our tolerances for the consistent appearance of the sword are equally tight. Take the Tritonia, the guard, the pommel, the grip and risers, the way the fuller terminates, must be like the accepted prototype (which is based off of the original). It is clear that there will always be some differences because humans are making these swords, but they must reflect the character and shape of the original to a high degree.

This is our philosophy, but we are equally fond of "period" marks on swords. This is never an excuse for laziness, it is an authentic mark that results from forging, grinding, filing, or casting. It in no way should change the character or shape of the swords or fittings, and it should never look sloppy. In some situations, it would be wrong to remove a small scale pit because it would change the shape of the piece. In my mind, it is more important to have right shape and character than be mirror perfect on the finish. This was not how originals were, and it is not how we want our swords to be either. Our finish, I believe, is smooth, consistent, and indicative of period finishes. It is not a mirror finish.

This is a balancing act because there is a fine line (sometimes) between "character" marks and flaws that should not be there. We could take everything up to a mirror finish, but it seems to me that many foreign "wallhanger" sword companies are doing this, and it looks...well...not very authentic. It is our hope that our customers will understand that we are striving to build an authentic sword, in fit and finish, as well as performance.

Finally, the thing to remember is that the ancients were masters of harmony. Rarely, if ever, will you see a sword that is "perfect" in the mathematical sense of the word "perfect." But the best swords are perfect in the sense that the blade and fittings are in harmony with one another, and interestingly enough, the function of the sword often informs the form and proportions of the sword. Many times guards and pommels were asymmetrical, and these are on Europe's FINEST swords, but the really great swordmakers would have brought a harmony to the piece that was pleasing to the eye and reflected a high level of craftsmanship in spite of these errors! We are committed to making our fittings symmetrical, but we still want to strive for this harmony too. I believe the combination of the two make for an authentic recreation of a medieval sword.

[Jeremy V. Krause]

Thanks for your post Eric! It is albiosn's commitment to historical authenticity which has prompted my order,, and I have the highest confidence that my expectations will be met.

[Robert Zamoida]

Here's a question for Peter, Craig, or anyone else who've examined a good number of original swords:

For those swords where ownership can definitely be attributed to nobility and/or royalty, is there a high percentage of swords whose hilt components have been gilded/plated?

The reason that I ask is, if there is a high percentage, then maybe there is the possiblilty that it served not only as a decorative function, but as a protective finish to prevent the iron/steel from corrosion. If that's the case, where there was a trend to apply those finishes to those swords, maybe there was a parallel trend in swords for the common soldiers, minor nobility, etc using different methods ie. bluing/browning (contemporary methods) or even painting; if i remember right in Records of the Medieval Sword Oakshotte mentions that the pommel and cross of XIX.7 from Alexandria was painted with black paint.

[Brian M]

I think the key point is that the modern eye is very intolerant of asymnetries, vs. cosmetic flaws. I don't want to see noticable asymnetries in swords I purchase, for example, a wandering fuller or an uneven guard. However, I'm not bothered at all by cosmetic artifacts of the production process -- i.e. a few minor casting pits, a scratch here or there.
The masters of yesteryear were doing the finest work with the tools and methods available to them, which makes their product all the more amazing. But the makers of today have access to tools and methods that allow a level of perfection undreamt of before. I prefer the best that can be made today "in the spirit of" what was made 500 years ago.
Nevertheless, I can completely understand if someone specifically commissions a piece to look aged, distressed, or "period-made." If I were to commission a full-custom sword I would probably want some level of that myself.

I wonder what a smith/cutler of 1300 AD would say if he held (for example) an Albion Baron in hand? Would the (relative) perfection seem "magical" for lack of a better word? Interesting to think about.

Brian M

[David R. Glier]