[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Hi all,
I hope that is not a stupid question.
I met some sections, someone gave me the definitions to determine the exact name.
I want to know the community, if a section in particular may continue to be called lenticular and if the definitions I gave are correct.
Maybe it's a subtlety, but for me it's important to know.
I attach some photos, explaining the total number of edges or corners. I have omitted, for simplification, the fuller, as it can be disturbing for what I want to clarify here.
Any thoughts would be appreciated

[Paul Hansen]

Sounds about right to me.

I'd say that the third one is also lenticular, just with a slightly thicker edge. Not sure if that edge would be practical though.

Attached is another cross-section that I would still call diamond, even if it is hollow ground with a convex edge.

Anyway, I think that the overall cross-section is a different matter than the edge itself, so we have to distinguish between these two.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Peter Johnsson]

Maurizio,

A very important thing is to realize the reason for the shape of the cross section.
-What was the original shape intended to be?
-In what ways may this shape have been changed by time and possible restoration?
-How exact was the shape formed to begin with?

Your drawings are rather general and do not give a sense of scale (something that is important if we are to get a good idea of what kind of blade they depict).

The third drawing is especially problematic: it could be a lenticular blade that is actually very small and has been re-sharpened into a rather blunt edge angle. It could also be an octagonal section on a bigger blade that has been very worn and re-sharpened into a rather blunt edge angle. I do not get the impression that the shape drawn is the actual shape of any blade, but rather that some kind of vaguely defined principle is intended.

I may also perhaps add that in diamond, hexagonal and octagonal sections, you never see perfectly flat surfaces. Nor do you see absolute angles. The bevels tend to be convex to varying degrees and the "corners" are most often more or less rounded.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Hello Peter,
here a picture of a real section. The measures are 0.5 mm. under the guard. Why I got so close a section under the guard? To reduce the risk of any sharpening the sword may have had over time and that certainly had.
Analysis of the curves this section has, with reasonable deviations, two large arches and two smaller arches to the cutting line. Falls within my own definition of the third section. The measures at this point are: width 66.7 mm, maximum thickness is 4.85 mm.
I know you say I'm incurable for definitions and measures,
but a guide should have it, so I enlisted the help of you all.



correction:
before: width 69.7 mm
after: width 66.7 mm

[Jean Thibodeau]

Well, #1 to me could be a diamond section with a very wide secondary bevel and the thickness seems exaggerated just to show the shape in a clear way the " type ".

The same type much thinner and with a much smaller secondary bevel would very much be a diamonds shaped blade and it could have a flat, a slightly convex or a concave hollow ground main bevel.

I guess firstly we should decide if the final edge is a secondary bevel or a blended apple seed bevel.

In your drawing #1 could represent two major bevels for a true octagonal cross section and with the final edge bevel too subtle and narrow to show at this scale.

As Peter mentioned bevel ridges can be well defined or considerably rounded to the degree as to make an hexagonal cross section and a lenticular one almost impossible to distinguish from each other.

Wear, corrosion and re-sharpening could easily in time make a hexagonal section look lenticullar. A bad re-sharpening can give a wide secondary bevel to a lenticular blade.

Hope this helps rather than confuse more.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

To make the idea better, if we exclude the fuller, the arc passing through the two main arcs has a radius of 250 mm. We note the deviation of the two smaller arches.
See the section in red, in blue circle passing through the arches of the section.
I repeat that this section shall be taken under the guard. How do I call this section?

[Craig Johnson]

Hi Maurizio

In a broad definition I think you achieve some structure in what you are illustrating. I would support Peter's comments in that scale is very important. The thickness to width ratio seems off in these illustrations for a general definition. The structure of these types of specifics is something that makes it very difficult to generalize. It is such factors n the study of swords that makes typologies so difficult.

One can define several different blade sections as general categories but one decides to talk specific blades it becomes a descriptive guide post rather than distinct categories.

I think you have identified some of the general shapes above but to encompass the whole of swords it would be difficult. As Peter indicated to rely on flat surfaces or corners will make a great deal of blades difficult to categorize. Maybe the ideas of lenticular (convex) and hollow (concave) can be defining attributes but not the hole definition.

I would include several factors in the description of any cross section. Such things as wear, crispness of form, design of blade and several other factors would be considered in trying to define any particular blade.

Here is an image that I have used to illustrate blade sections to audiences and in articles.





Hope it helps

Craig

PS just saw your post above. I think I was being to general in answer to your question. The way I would describe your illustrated section would be a "softly defined fullered lenticular section blade".

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Peter Johnsson]

Maurizio, you know I am really interested in learning about your measurements. You can produce much more exact data than I could during my study and would love to benefit from this.

I am also sure you can find sections of the blade where the ridges are so washed out that the shape blends into mostly a lenticular shape. There are parts in the middle of the blade where this is more pronounced and also the point will no doubt today show a mostly lenticular form. That you have such a shape at or under the guard also does not really automatically prove anything one way or the other. This part can often be less refined to begin with. HAving a large body of exact data will allow you to show those sections that "prove" a lenticular section.

To get an understanding of the shape we have to look at the overall effect, not just isolated points.
When you look at the sword there are very clear reflections of light that run the length of those rounded ridges that define the octagonal cross section. I think these are even more rounded today than they were to begin with. I maintain this even after you have shown the section at the guard.

Again, I want to stress that I find you study interesting and that I really would appreciate a good analysis of the results.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

@ Craig, thanks for your comment. I agree with your definition. I'd like to know which item you did tend to establish that a "softly defined fullered lenticular section blade." The great circle through the arches? What?

@ Paul, I extend to you the same question

@ Peter, will be a pleasure for me to share with you and get your opinion. Soon, I'll send you the sections and the measurements and my comments.

One more question:
hypothetical faithful reconstruction of a sword.
If you encounter dips in the correct section is also replicate these?
If you have the profile of the indentations, it is appropriate to replicate these too?
Or is it better to mediate values and build a more geometric sword.
The accurate reconstruction, it can be ugly, a reconstruction with a bit of interpretation, perhaps the most aesthetically beautiful.
What is preferable? I'd love to hear your views and comments.

If it is not clear I'll post a photo.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

For the fans, historical accuracy.
As you can see from the picture, the sword, presented two deviations, was make with a hammer, so ...
There seems to be in these areas, no re-sharpening, but there can be no certainty.
It can also be, if these areas are original, that the acient blacksmith wanted to give that form the tip.
In the hypothetical replication, these two deviations must be present?
I forgot one thing: the deviations are symmetrical.

[Peter Johnsson]

Maurizio,

Here we go again :-)

I have talked about the principles of reconstructions and re-creations many many many times on these forums.

I have also presented the ideas behind the work I do for Albion many many times.

I can say it again.

To make a single individual reconstruction in my own smithy is one thing. It can be a copy for museum use or it can be a sword made for a contemporary swordsman. Or any number of situations. All will have their own parameters that have to be taken into account. There is no one single solution that is ideal. You will have to decide what to aim for depending on what is expected and necessary in the given situation.

All swords that leave the shop will be slightly different. Each component is shaped and finished by hand. For this type of manufacturing it is not possible to expect flaws or irregularities of the original to be exactly reproduced. If I would incorporate the exact same irregularities i have found in the original (and they would not have been the sam all through out its working life) they would still not come out exactly the same in each and every sword from the workshop: all would be subject to the natural variability of hand work.

Even in a single hand made replica it is pretty difficult to get the mistakes of the original master right. You have t look at the original and seek the essential elements in the form. I have spent most of my life seeking the essential elements in form. It is what do for a living and what I do from personal attitude towards reality. To me it is second nature. That does not mean I am naturally very good at it. The process is just something that is difficult to explain to someone else.
Try define the color red to someone who is blind.

As you now have a digital scan of the original, you can appreciate the fact that the more you know of an original, the more things you can get right. At the same time, you can get the same amount of details *wrong*. The more you know the more demanding and involved the work becomes.

In its time, the Brescia sword was not alone. There would have been dozens of swords very like it. No one of these would have been identical. The Albion version of the Brescia Spadona is closer to the original than probably any of the other swords that were made at the same time as the original. Still, you will naturally find differences between the original and the Albion made swords. That is not so strange when you think about it. If you measure enough points with enough exactness you can always find discrepancies.
The real question is how much of the essential aspects we manage to get right. I have no doubt that I could do the work again, and I could develop another design that incorporates more exact measurements. I do not know how much closer the essental nature of the sword I would be able to get, but I am of course willing to try, if it is decided the extra work is worth it.

Both measuring an original and using these measurements to make a reconstruction demands different processes, and you have to keep in mind why you do this all the while you gather and process data. You extrapolate the essential nature of what you have learned. It is nothing like an automatic process. Two people measuring and reconstructing the same object will not arrive at the same result.
It is a bit like art: you translate your vision or idea into a form. It is always a search for the essential nature of something. You have to decide what is important, what points tell you the most essential about the object, what aspects and characteristics are most crucial in carrying function and expression. With the case of swords you can study either type, material, manufacturing methods, design principle, function, surface treatment, the effect or corrosion, the art of conservation or a combination of all above.
By forming an idea about something you create an mage in your mind. This image can be more or less refined and more or less removed from the original. It is all about your philosophy, quality of research material and attitude to your work. Here you will find that different scholars, researches, artists, craftsmen and aficionados will arrive at their very own personal idea of what is essential and important.

To you it is very important that the Brescia Spadona has a lenticular section. To me that thesis does not say anything essential or important about the sword. We differ on that point. To you some details are essential, to me they may not be important aspects of the form as they are the result of irregularities, mistakes and wear from use or rust or results of restoration.
The work I have done with the Brescia Spadona is to strive to reconstruct it in a shape it could have had when new. I have never wanted to re create it as it looks today. To do this I have had to extrapolate data from given measurements. I know the original has irregularities. They are part of the character, but not essential for the functional properties of the design. I also know that every sword tat leave the workshop of Albion will have irregularities all of their own. That is the nature of reality and hand work.

As to the shape of the point: it was not intentionally made to look just exactly like that. I am also convinced it originally looked different. If you wonder about the reasoning behind this opinion, you can perhaps look at my previous posts on the subject.

This whole post comes across as a bit frustrated. I am aware of that, but ope you do not take it as an affront to you. It is not meant to be that.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

I've said in other post, I've done scans on three original, never said such swords. Some photos are cut just because the sword is not important but the concept.
I never talked to this topic of Brescia Spadona. I have never claimed that the photo or section refer to this sword. For me they are just examples of generic swords, even if real and, hypothetical reconstructions to understand what this community think about the details of the micro-areas of the sword, that if we have reasonable reason to believe that these micro-areas are original.
For macro-area or obvious tampering I think the problem is less complex.
Peter, thanks for your comment, I will keep your thoughts in my mind.
I hope that your appreciated and authoritative interpretation dont' stop others from expressing their opinions.

[Jean Thibodeau]

In theory if one wanted to duplicate a specific sword perfectly to the smallest degree one would have to make it identical to the molecular level with every micro shape reproduced and all the variations in heat treat also duplicated: Think of it as scanning by a Star Trek type " replicator " and having an identical object produced identical to almost the quantum level !

As a scientific and engineering " tour de force " this would be interesting and would have great industrial, historical preservation and scientific applications, and I'm only giving this example as a thought experiment to illustrate the goal of making a duplicate object in the most absolute sense of perfection.

Now, getting back to learning the dynamics of real period sword to apply them to making the best swords we can there is a point where the specifics of a single sword/object is the enemy of the general understanding of what is important versus what is random and irrelevant.

QUOTE PETER JOHNSSON:

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Star Trek replicator?
No, Jean. Damn, your irony this time is not very veiled.

I want to explain what I mean by micro-areas: parts of the sword than have small recess with respect to what should be a normal profile.
The question is, normal for who? If the area is original, and I repeat, if there aren't reasonable reason for believing altered, I must repeat that detail?
The visual appearance is not molecular.
Back up, see the photo, there are those deviations. My point is not whether this changes the qualities / handling, I know that does not change. Those recess are small but are visible to the eye. If you put the sword in front of you, note that there are. Is a detail, not important, I' agree, but there is.
My point is that maybe the ancient blacksmith wanted that form, I studying Oakeshott known that the details are important to him.
This is not to influence anyone, I just wanted to clarify the issue.
For macro-areas, I mean the overall profile of the sword, the section, the guard, the pommel.
On the sword there are many other recesses, but I do not speak of these, it is clear that it is re-sharpened, those is stupid replicate.
Below two photos: one without interpretation, the other, is a profile does not consider these recesses and followed a "normal" ideal line.

[Jean Thibodeau]

In other words wanted and designed in irregularities or what appears to be irregularities versus surface features that may be simply due to it not being important relative to the usefulness of the sword and that the medieval makers where usually not too fanatical about geometric imperfections that our modern aesthetics would consider to be sloppy and rough work.

I agree that one shouldn't assume that some odd variations in dimension are accidental and not purposeful: I can see a blade's cross section to vary greatly along it's length to distribute weight but also to control the degree of rigidity wanted in the forte, mid-blade or weak of blade.

Identifying variations that are wanted and originally in the piece versus later alterations/restorations or wear and corrosion is part of the problem.

So, if I understand you correctly: When you find some change in cross section at different parts of a blade the question becomes how to know which are relevant to making a good ( One assumes good blades, studying bad or mediocre blades might only be interesting as points of comparison ) sword and where wanted and not just accidents and incidental in the making of the sword ?

If they wanted that form then it has to be something that makes for a better sword in some way ? I tend to think that as with lumpy pommels and asymmetrical guards most of these blade variations didn't affect the use of the swords and where not worth to the makers the effort to correct ...... as long as they did not harm by being too extreme they where not so much design features as they where not something that the " quality control " of the period would have taken serious notice of.: Just opinion and conjecture here for the sake of argument.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

I spent much time thinking about how an ancient blaksmith could make such a masterpiece, doing all the work at hand.
If we measure is an extraordinary fine detail, even when they are scaled to fit the profile of the blade. I also thought a lot about other works, described by "Lionello Boccia, and then seen in museums. In the end I have a certainty. The ancient blaksmith had a keen sense of proportion but also the detail.
With all our knowledge today, we would find extremely difficult to carry out the details of the blade in the photo. These details are repeated across the blade, the ancient blaksmith to replicate itself.
Perhaps few realize the difficulties to perform with such precision a piece of steel heated to red.
What is most amazing is the depth of the grooves.
A steel hot deformed leaves, perhaps with a punch, the force applied varies with temperature, you imagine the difficulty, manipulate a glowing piece to perform the exact distance and the exact depth.
Those who think that it's easy, did not understand the difficulties
Yet not a single detail seems to be left out ...
This ancient blaksmith deserves the title of Star Trek Replicator.
If I were to make this blade with a modern CNC, without replicating the smallest detail, I rape the memory of this old master.

[Nathan Robinson]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]