[Leo Todeschini]

Hi All,

I thought I would share this sword with you and any comments would be welcome.

This was a custom order for a Type XVII loosley based on one in The Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge and was for the sword and scabbard. I hilted and scabbarded the sword and the blade was by Owen Bush.

The blade is 34.5" long and about 3/8" thick at the hilt running down quickly over the first 10" or so and then a fairly steady taper to the tip. The deep fuller and the slightly hollow faces has allowed this sword to come in just under 3lb but is still stiff and will be a wicked thruster as well as a cutter.

Regards


Tod

[Bryce Felperin]

I really like the pommel you made! The blade is nice but that pommel stands out in your pictures and impressive.

[Martin Erben]

Nice work, but it does not seem to be a type XVII to me.... The grip fits the type, but the blade seems not to because of the long fuller and the cross section (I can not see any hexagonal parts).

[Glennan Carnie]

It's come out very nice, Tod.

But it still looks like a Type XVI to me!

[Ken Speed]

Tod,

You always hit the nail on the head. What I most enjoy about your work is that it always looks REAL. You seem to get the visual balance of weapon vs adornment dead on. I can see someone strapping this sword on and going out to fight to the death.

Great work as always.

[Leo Todeschini]

Martin Erben Wrote

[Martin Francis]

Hmmm

At the risk of lighting the fuse on my own petard here , and with appropriate respect to the opinions expressed in he thread. I wonder if the community is occasionally guilty of trying to fit everything into a scheme of classification as opposed to the reality where the scheme of classification derives from the historic examples, by definition an incomplete record.

I appreciate that this discussion is in relation to a modern reproduction, but it has highlighted a point that I have found myself being guilty of in discussion and presentation using such reproductions. It is very easy to compare the characteristics of the item in your hand with the Oakeshott et al classifications and point out the variances, and then by implication to apparently define the modern example as "wrong" as if the classification were some form of fixed writ.

From Oakeshott's own writings, it is clear that he intended it as a handy tool, not a master and that revsions ocurred as new findings were made or opinions changed. Nothing wrong with that, I think it's called progress.... My little hobby horse is that it derives from the extant examples and therefore that it will always be evolving rather than fixed.

I now make a conscious effort to point out there's no such thing as a complete classification and that within any category there will be variances. This does not excuse bad workmanship or offences against aesthetic feelings of course ! It simply allows room for a little freedom of interpretation by modern makers as opposed to slavish copying.

I apologise if this personal scratching of a mental "itch" has wasted your time in reading, but thankyou for reading.

Martin

[Chad Arnow]

Martin,
I understand your point especially as it pertains to historical swords, but I think many people feel if a modern maker decides to call their modern reproduction a Type XVII (for example) that it should conform to the Type XVII Oakeshott laid out. Otherwise, just call it a late 14th century sword similar to the Sempach family of swords. "Type XVII" is certainly shorter... Since a defining characteristic of Type XVII swords is the hexagonal cross-section, I think people's comments are valid.

But, as Tod said, he wasn't out to make an exact copy.

Anyway, it's a lovely piece of work, as I've come to expect from Tod.

[Julien M]

"Ye are more unwise, said Merlin, for the scabbard is worth ten of the swords"

Well though I like the sword, I think someone should salute your work on scabbards. I've seen a few from you now, and they all look fantastic.

Cheers,

Julien

[Martin Francis]

[Scott Hrouda]