[Paul Watson]

After much deliberating it is looking likely that one of these two will be my next sword at some stage this year.

My questions are directed at those who have handled both swords.

I have read the reviews here and would definitely be happy with either but I would specifically like to know:

1) Is the Barons cutting ability substantially better than that of the Crecy.

2) Is the Crecy's speed/recovery substantially better than the Barons.

[Chad Arnow]

[Clayton Woods]

[Nathan Keysor]

I have not handled the Baron but I can vouch for the Crecy as a wonderful all around sword. It handles very well and cuts and thrusts with equal ease. If I had to pick one sword to carry it would be at the top of the list.

[Paul Watson]

Thank you all for the answers. Chad you were the one in particular I was hoping would comment as I know you have handled both and done or contributed to the reviews.

I am trying to collect a range of swords with no particular interest in a certain period unless you could call anything between 11th and 15th century a specific period.

I was unsure of both issues I raised and was of the belief that although the swords were different that the Type XVI was an improvement of the Type XII (different blade cross section and profile being the most obvious, but at the end of the day both swords intended for the same purpose although the XVI suited to combat improved armour) and therefore there might be some similar qualities between the two. Clearly this is an example of the effect of evolution having a huge impact on the swords performance.

One other question, would the handling of the Crecy as far as speed/recovery goes be similar to the Regent, which I have and can therefore relate to.

The other sword I have is the Knight and with the Baron being a larger version of this I can sort of imagine what to expect in relation to some of the Barons qualities.

[Nathan Robinson]

[Craig Peters]

Paul,

I found having briefly handled both the Baron and the Crecy that I preferred the latter, but that's because how a sword feels in hand to me is more important than how good it is for cutting. Of all the Albion's I've handled, the Baron is probably my least favourite so far. That's not to say that it's slow or poor in handling, but rather that I liked the way the other Albion's felt in hand more.

If you're considering swords that cut well, you might want to look at the Duke. On paper, I would have told you that I prefer the Baron over the Duke, but having handled both in person, I find that I prefer how the Duke feels in hand. As the description of the Duke says, "[d]espite the wide blade it is not a slow and clumsy cousin of the XIIa. Its heft and balance belies its weight." Conveniently, the Duke is also from the same period as the Baron, and costs exactly the same amount, and it's also a dedicated cutting sword. So, if you haven't considered it before, look into it.

[Nathan Robinson]

Craig-
To further demonstrate the idea that these things are subjective, I prefer the Baron over the Duke far and away. I'm not particularly fond, personally, of the Duke though I must say it represents the sword type well. I guess I'm just not particularly fond of those types of swords.

[Paul Watson]

Thank you Nathan & Craig.

I always find it amazing how little structural differences make huge dynamic differences to handling.

Unfortunately I only really get the opportunity to handle swords that I own due to my location so the input here from people is valued.

Craig, since about November I was leaning towards the Duke aesthetically over the Baron, and the fact that it is of a type that makes it a supereme cutter cannot be ignored. With regards to its appearance I found myself appreciating the wider, simpler guard and even the simplicity of the pommel. The fuller also seems to be even more well defined and deeper on the Duke, than the Baron which I also found appealing.

Your comments about how the Baron feels in hand have been made before, it may have even been you who has previously stated this on another topic. This gave me some cause for concern although you qualify this by still commending it's good qualities, so the aversion to how it feels may only be a opinion on your part, one I hope I do not share if I end up buying this sword. Either way as far as overall preference is concerned (and this is where paper statsistics can dissapoint once a sword is in hand) I have found myself back to the Baron over the Duke.

Although the handiness of the Crecy is a big tick in the plus column as far as buying it is concerned, I already have a very quick war sword in the form of a Regent (while still acknowledging Nathans comments about their differences).

As I stated in a previous post my aim at this stage in collecting is to get a range of sword types, and in many ways the Baron is the epitome of a war sword of it's time so I think I will lean towards getting this as it is further away in character from another sword in my limited collection than a Crecy may be.

My orignal intent for my next purchase was what I consider to be possibly the most attractive sword in the Albion line up and one that would "fit" my stature best, being the Sovereign. But as my last purchase was a Knight I felt the two swords were too similar (if only in a very broad sense in that they are both single handed cutters also capable of thrusting).

By expanding the type of swords I have in my collection I may end up one day concentrating on a favourite type but I think that is still some way off. So once again thanks for the input and for the moment it looks like I will get a Baron as my next purchase which will hopefully be this year.

Incidentally after the exchage rate for $US to $NZ (which is actually quite good relatively speaking at the moment from an importers point of view in NZ) , freight and the local Goods & Services Tax a Baron will cost about NZ$1,600 once it is at my door so you guys in the USA actually have it pretty good as far as what you pay for a sword is concerned from where I'm standing.