[Jon Butcher]

Has anyone had any hands-on experience with Michael 'Tinker' Pearce swords ? How do they compare to the Albion line in terms of blade quality and sharpness, build sturdiness and balance ?

[Nathan Robinson]

[Jon Butcher]

How about in the area of fit and finsih ?

[Joe Fults]

The samples I have seen exihit very good fit and finish.

[Nathan Robinson]

Well. I've seen a few dozen of Tinker's pieces through various avenues such as a local Renaissance faire many years ago, private collectors, samples sent to me, and of course the table of items found at the Blade show for two years running.

The following "essay" represents my observations and my own personal opinions.

"Fit and Finish" is a large category of characteristics. In the strictest sense, you could mean simply polish (finish) and a discussion of construction tolerances (fit). On these things, the Tinker swords I've personally seen varied. Some were absolutely excellent, while others had flaws, gaps, asymmetries, or unevenness of finish. Some items had silver soldier or other forms of filler that, for me, was not a good choice. Others were tight, symmetrical, and excellently-polished. Most had an overall "washed out" appearance without the kind of crispness of detail that I'd personally prefer: they had ridges, edges, fullers, and whatnot that were ill-defined, rounded, or overly-blended. I imagine that these things may well represent a range of prices and varying customer needs.

In the hands-on reviews on our site here, we include other things in the "Fit and Finish" section such as the discussion of shape, volume, proportion, and the general three-dimensional qualities of items. This is especially interesting when compared to similar historical swords used as a comparison, as it's a lot less subjective than simply discussing what a lot of people simply call "aesthetics" (which, to this day, I've no idea how to quantify). My own opinion on this matter is that the Tinker swords I've examined do not capture these characteristics well. If compared to historical counterparts, I've found his pieces do not represent the antiques, as they lack the lines, subtle shaping, and general three-dimensional volumes of the originals. When looked at on their own without comparison, however, the story turns into personal preference. I've found many of his designs to be extremely attractive, while others are not at all pleasing to me.

For me, my conclusion of Tinker's swords is that they are, by and large, excellent items in terms of construction, durability, finish, and what many call "performance" (dynamic properties: ie, how a sword feels when it is being used). For me, however, they are not a good representation of how antique swords of similar shape and style look or feel. For many, many customers, this last thing is completely irrelevant for their purchasing decision. For others, like myself, it's a deal breaker.

Dynamically, Tinker's swords are often considered to be absolutely excellent "performers". My own experience with them as that I've never, not once, felt an item that I considered to feel "bad". In fact, they are often extremely "lively" and dynamically pleasing. My critique in this area would be similar to the issues raised above: it comes from comparing his swords to authentic antiques. I personally have not found them, by and large, to be consistent with the antiques that I've been able to handle. While many models have felt like "a" historical sword, but did not feel like a historical sword of the same type, shape, style, or one from the same era that was used as inspiration. I've found that many of the ones I've handled each seem to follow a very similar design philosophy rather than represent a varied and distinct philosophy as authentic swords did. Again, this is often completely unimportant to many, and with these customers, they will certainly receive a sword that feels excellent and is quite usable in every sense of the word.


I've seen just about as many, if not more, separate models of swords from Albion. This number might run 30-50 (?) separate models by now, many of which I've seen multiple examples in which to compare.

In terms of design, Albion's products took a giant leap upon taking on Peter Johnsson as their consultant, researcher, artisan, or whatever they call him. Their products were pretty good before, but once they started the Next Generation line of items, they went a completely different direction. Their entire catalog is a very good representation of authentic historically-based swords. Often, they've chosen to pick pieces that are quite generic in that they represent an "average" sword of a specific type. Other times, they pick an oddball that might be on the heavy side of average, the light side, the weird-looking side, whatever. This range of products means that some items are going to appeal to a customer, while others may not. I can't say that I've personally liked every model they offer, but I imagine that's true for every person given their broad range of selections.

Albion's "fit and finish" from the perspective of polish (finish) and construction (fit) is generally extremely good for a non-custom maker. I've witnessed some variance in their products that leave the door, and this is often a much larger variance than I'd want to have were I to own the company. I'm pretty sure they know this and have continued to improve this, but it likely continues to be a struggle for them. Blade finishes are pretty consistent with their unique "satin" finish that they call a "Scotchbrite polish" after the Scotchbrite pad they use. I've seen some examples that weren't as even as others and other examples that were finished much better than I would expect for their price point. I've not personally seen problems with "fit" but have read a few accounts of such things. My experience has been to see crisp lines and well-defined shapes, though on some occasions, I saw samples that were "overly finished", resulting in the washing out of details and rounding out of things that were designed to be more crisp. This was rare in the examples I've seen, but shows a variance of finish quality. Overall, I think they're often extremely good in this department, with a few expectations here and there.

Given that Albion's core line represents historical swords, the issue of how they compare three-dimensionally to antiques is an important one. On this front, they are superb. No doubt, this is due to the fact that Peter Johnsson is the primary source of design. He is the one carving most, if not all, the masters for their sword hilts and defining the specifics of the blades based on his own research. His hands-on experience with antiques really shows when considering their product design, and Albion has done well to capture it in the final product with few concessions to production requirements. For me, this is hugely important. For others, it won't matter at all.

Dynamically, Albion's line of swords might appear to represent an extremely broad range of "performance" qualities from model to model. This is understandable, since they have chosen to represent a broad range of sword types from various eras. These swords should feel quite different from each other. It's evident that the research done on antiques was not simply on the "aesthetic" side of things, but focused on the entire sword, including the factors that determine dynamics. Given this philosophy, not every sword in their line feels "lively" or "handy". In fact, to some people, some of their models might feel "too light", "too heavy", "too cumbersome", or whatever else. Chalk this up to personal preference: not every model will appeal to every buyer. History has left us a giant pile of swords with a huge variance of qualities. Albion's done pretty well to land on various spots in this pile.

Because of their broad range of models and design philosophy, I think it's very important for a customer to choose a model for his own personal needs and go with that. Not doing this may result in surprises. To emphasize, each sword in the line often handles quite differently than the others. Often these differences are anything but subtle and this may be a big surprise to many customers not used to such variance.



Any comparison invariably must consider the fact that one party in this list is a custom maker, and the other is a production company. They also happen, in my opinion, to have very, very different design philosophies. They are quite different entities and really make it difficult to do a comparison of products. Tinker, for example, is quite capable of making just about anything you want him to given an appropriate budget and the necessary research data to accomplish it. Albion, on the other hand, would be quite unwilling to do that, as they are a production company.

The other important consideration is price. Albion's products, especially considering that they're not custom one-off pieces, are quite expensive. For many, they are going to be worth every penny because their philosophy is compatible with the customer. Others will not find this true. Tinker's items are often quite expensive, too, but there is a range of pricing and now that he sells directly to customers, his items can often be a better value than they had been. Mileage varies! It all depends on a customer's needs and what he deems important.

[Jon Butcher]

Nathan-
Thank you so much for the in-depth and thoughtful reply to my post. Obviously there is no substitute for handling swords of various makers prior to buying, as there isn't any better way to distinguish nuaance and subtlety. The problem , one we all face as interested practitioners and potential buyers, is that it's next to impossible to get access to all of the various choices available short of attending every fair or trade show in the country. Or having a rich uncle.
So, most of us rely on forums like this one to get as much second-hand information as we can, and I for one am grateful.
With this in mind I wanted to advance the discussion with several specific questions. Accepting the inherent differences between production and custom I have my eye on two swords ; the 'Tinker' made Longsword[ looks very nice via pictures] and the Albion Duke. Both are versions of the same hand-and-a-half design and general configuration, and both are in the same general price range.
Without getting into specific criteria, which maker would you choose for cutting excercises, handling and asthetic appearance ? More to the point, which represents the best dollar-for-dollar value ?And one last wrinkle- where do Atrium blades fit into the general parameters of the discussion ?

[Chad Arnow]

I've owned and sold two Tinker swords. They were nice, but in the end didn't meet my needs. Like Nathan, I tend more toward historical design and performance. I agree with his well-thought-out post entirely. Tinker's swords are more modernized representations than historical recreations.

Comparing swords by different makers is tough. Even examples from the same maker are different. You mentioned Albion's Duke and Regent. Those sword have next to nothing in common from a handling perspective. They are meant for different purposes and their handling shows that.

For me, I'd choose an Albion over swords I've seen and owned by Tinker, unless I were to commission one from him and ask for strict historical accuracy.

As for Atrim swords, his business sort of sprang off of Tinker's foray into the production world. I'd say their performance and handling would be similar in philosophy. From a standpoint of historical aesthetics, Atrim swords simply don't meet my needs. Atrim swords would be even farther from historical accuracy in finish and in the subtleties originals display than Tinker's.

This is not a condemnation of Gus or Tinker, by the way. Their swords enjoy wide popularity and people who own them seem to love them. They simply don't meet my needs, though they meets the needs of many other customers.

[Joe Fults]

Which philosophy most appeals to you at this time in your collecting? At one point I really liked the idea of "high performance", whatever that is supposed to mean, and there was a path for me. Now I value historical accuracy and there is another path.

When I started collecting I was always looking for the one sword that would feel right regardless of the fact that I did not really appreciate that different types of swords should feel different. I was drawn to the performance feel because I thought it had to be right, and, in many cases, visibly distinct performance swords felt similar. Since performance feel formed my reference point, sometimes I did not like things that felt different, even when they should have felt different. What I evetually discovered is that I am largely ignorant of what swords should feel like because there is not a single right feel and I have limited meaningful experience (something I think is pretty common). I'm slowly trying to change this by gaining experience with a wide range of reproductions that are generally accepted to reasonably capture the characters of histroric examples. Still my opinion is subjective and my expereince is limited to reproductions, so I try to be careful to qualify its value.

The point of all this?

When you start collecting you are on a learning journey. Consider that wherever you start collecting, in time your preferences may change. Don't trust somebody else to tell you what decision to make. Especially if you cannot qualify their opinion. Decide what you think or feel is the best choice and don't second guess yourself over it. Don't seek approval or validation of your decision. If you are happy you made the right choice, then you did. If you decide you no longer like what you have, sell it and get something else.

Many of us constantly move swords into and out of their collections for any number of reasons. We also tend to change our preference and opinion from time to time as we gain experience.

It just seems to be the way of things.

[Joe Fults]

People tend to be very passionate on both sides of this question. What side of the discussion a person comes down on is usually an issue of individual preference and opinion.

Preferences regarding hilt assembly.

Preferences regarding documentation of blade type and furniture combinations.

Opinions regarding observed cutting behavior or performance**

If it matters, I prefer Albion's hilt assembly and that ends up being the critical deciding factor for me. Seems pretty trivial, but it matters to me as nod to historical accuracy. That said, I'm fairly sure I could find a way to get a Tinker, Atrim, or whatever tweaked to my preference if I was willing to devote some extra time and money. I also know many people prefer the Tinker and Atrim style hilt assembly for some very valid reasons.

I think the real question you should consider, since time seems to be an important issue to you, is does each vendor have something that you want and that you can get in whatever interval you are willing to wait? If time matters, availability will be your critical deciding factor.




**IMO opinions about performance are very unreliable decision making tools. People normally provide very little context about how they evaluate perfromance so that results can be reproduced. Comparisons are often made based on very little product experience. Comparisons are also often based on the perfromance of dissimilar swords that may or may not incorporate recent product improvements. Finally most performance testimonials tend to exclude the bias and experience of the person performing the test as a factor in the evaluation.

In my experience, when comparing top tier vendors, the person executing the assessment and their ability matter much more than who made the sword.

[Chris Artman]

www.tinkerblades.com does not work anymore (the link provided by myArmoury.com). Does anyone have the correct website for micheal Tinker Pearce?

I found it through Google:

http://www.tinkerswords.com/

You might want to update the links section with the above URL....

Thanks,

Chris

[Greg Mele]

[Carl Massaro]

Interesting thread.

I was always under the impression that ATrim swords were very close to the originals, historically, in both handling characteristics and finish.

Any reason why you guys seem to think they don't stand up to the A&A and Tinkers in terms of accuracy? Just curious.

-Carl

[Chris Artman]

Can someone compare Angus Trim to Tinker, I would appreciate that.

I just read on Tinker's website that he won't make blades only, just complete swords. If he doesn't like to do complex hilt work, then basically you can only get basic hilts from him I suppose... And even if he would make an awesome blade, then he wouldn't give you just the blade so you could take it to CF to have him do the hilt... I haven't verified this, but that is what I am worried about.

I found Tinker to be an excellent communicator and seems awesome to work with on custom projects, my only concern would have to be staying within his abilities for the hilt work. I was hoping to get CF to do the hilt and Tinker to do the blade.

How does Angus trim compare with Tinker in regards to: blade quality? friendliness and commiunication on working for a custom blade?

I suppose that since ATrim works well with Christian Fletcher, that may be the only choice if you want to get a CF hilt?

(certainly if Tinker won't work with CF, then that would be limiting for complex hilt work goals. I guess I'll find out soon)

[Nathan Robinson]

[Bennison N]

[Roger Hooper]

Chris, what's stopping you having the Tinker hilt replaced by Christian Fletcher?



I'm pretty sure that Christian Fletcher will only do custom hilts using ATrim blades

[Anders Backlund]

Speaking of Angus Trim; what does one actually have to pay for one of his swords?

I've looked at his website but all products lists "price" as just a dollar sign with no actual quote. What gives?

[Corey D. Sullivan]

[Matthew G.M. Korenkiewicz]

Tinker-mon has a forum you can bounce into and read. I believe he updates going-ons
with work progress, set-backs, time-tables, other issues which a craftsman deal with on
something of a daily basis. You can also read what members of his forum have to say
about his work.

I had a custom order with Tinker-mon awhile back. There were issues, but we worked
things out. In the end the experience was a solid eye-opener, and I hope in some ways
for the Tinker-mon as well ... B-)

[Jean Thibodeau]