[Simon G.]

Howdy, folks!

A recent post by Fabrice Cognot in another thread made me think about this: do we expect too much symmetry and regularity in our modern reproductions as opposed to what exists in period weapons? (I should note that this idea is originally Fabrice's, so I'm merely his humble intellectual henchman here ). Anyway, I'd like to see a good debate on this, and it would be interesting to see what other collectors and makers think, so to avoid clogging the other thread, here we go.

Let's start with the pic Fabrice posted to make his point:

The accompanying text (in French) can be found at http://www.photo.rmn.fr/cf/htm/CSearchZ.aspx?...6NU0TG59AV

As Fab noted and as written on this page it is the sword of a duke of Milan.

Some more pics of the same blade:


And this one of the other side of the blade, on which the symmetry seems "better":


There's another sword in the same museum (the Cluny), attributed to emperor Frederick III (additional data here: http://www.photo.rmn.fr/cf/htm/CSearchZ.aspx?...6NU0TG537C ), which has a similar central ridge and will also be interesting in this debate:



Apparently, the ridge on this sword is also "wavy", at least on one side (first pic), and on the other side (two last pics) it seems straighter but the guard, grip and pommel seem not aligned with the blade (or at least with the ridge), although that could very possibly be due to damage through time.

I'm sure other people will supply other pics (at least I hope so)... Or I will do so myself in the future.

Anyway, the question is this: used, as we are, to perfectly symmetric and regular pieces from quality makers, are our expectations in this regard in line with what some (certainly not all) period originals show? What qualifies as shoddy work and what qualifies as "historically accurate", should we accept that irregularities are sometimes so? As Fabrice said "what makes a flaw?"

(As a last note, both swords shown here seem to be prestigious blades, one that of a duke and the other attributed to an emperor, and in any case richly decorated, not "munition" weapons)

Thoughts everyone?

Cheers,

Simon

[Michael Pikula]

It is an interesting question... I don't think that we are asking too much in terms of symmetry and regularity. Technology has sufficiently progressed to a point where making a straighter, more symmetrical, harder, tougher, swords is easily within the realm of possibility if a craftsman does his homework, and is good with their hands. I think how a sword handles, and behaves is the most important factor. Some of the originals that I have had the opportunity to handle have had symmetry issues to the point that if I made an exact reproduction I would have an extremely difficult time trying to sell, if it would be possible at all, however it handled like a dream.

We have a different world view, different needs, different expectations then when swords were made in period. In my work I don't strive for absolute cnc perfection, the entire piece needs to work and function together as a whole. I think it is important for a craftsman to do the best work that they can, and aim for perfection, but when dealing with a forged blade, forged fittings, a forged pommel, and working with your hands there will be a little variation. The closer a craftsman is to becoming a master, the closer the work will be to perfection, and the higher the price.

However the most important factor is what your individual expectations are, and finding a craftsman that meets your expectations and budget, and have an open dialog with the maker about what you are looking for and what they can deliver. The market is pretty vast, there is something out there for everyone and every price range.

BTW http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...highlight= is the the thread discussing "How Perfect"

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

I once discussed this with a friend who made beautiful armor and quite a few rapiers and sabres ( Michal Dabek).
His explanation was that the tempering of the blade sometimes caused certain irregularities, a waving or warping of the blade.
He remarked that the effectiveness of the blade was not hindered, but the aesthetics could be affected.
Given the overall high quality of the blades shown in this post, it seems to me that this could be the case at hand.

[Peter Johnsson]

As I see it, it is not so much a matter of flaws being present in ancient work. It is rather about how good the work is.
You can have something that is "flawless" and still leave you with a feeling of emptiness.
On the other hand you can have something that is very rich and rewarding, that on closer inspection may not be perfectly symmetrical.
But that is beside the point. It is not about being symmetrical, or "perfect" in every detail. It is about being great.

See below two versions of beauty. Perhaps that is the best way I can express it.

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Here are a couple of pics of a pommel and button from a 16th c. Italian longsword that I did some work on awhile back. It was a very nice piece, and worth a bit of money on the collector's market. Proof positive, as if any more was needed, that the vast, vast majority of the craftsmen of the time cared NOTHING about symmetry or what WE call 'perfection'! They were much happier craftsmen, I'll wager, and had far higher productivity. I must confess that I am a 'recovering' perfectionist, and can't recover fast enough! The more I 'recover', the more real my work looks. I have nothing against passing the savings in time (=money!) on to my clients.

[Simon G.]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

[JE Sarge]

This is one reason I like my Del Tins. They are well-built, yet, they do have their imperfections. Each sword has a personality, not made from a 1000ths of an inch perfection duplication cookie cutter. Hell, I remember when comparing a friend of mines 5161 and my own 5161, one was substantially longer than the other. Still, both swords were good blades in their own right - neither of them being perfect. Such is the case for any hand-made sword. No swordsmith can turn out the exact same sword twice, each will different slightly. Look closely enough, and all have flaws when compared against computer precision lines, angles, widths, weights, etc...

I have seen alot of swords from antiquity. None of them are perfect now, just as they were not perfect when they were created. A sword was a tool for most of history. Ask me if I care about the symmetry of the tools in my workshop. Some work well, but are ugly as sin. Some are shiny and new, but don't work worth a crap. I feel that swords are the same way. They do not have to have perfect symmetry to be good blades.

Imperfections give swords character. I like it this way...

[Brian K.]

Great topic. I find myself being a perfectionist in my own craft, and yet there are things in which when made by hand the symmetry often has a little sacrifice in perfection.

Handcrafted creations of almost anything, makes it that much more desirable, in my opinion.

[Nathan Robinson]

I'm often turned off by machine-perfect symmetry or fit and finish and have been known to "muck up" the finish of many swords I've owned. I'm not talking about "antiquing" or "aging" or "beating it up" or anything like that, but rather more subtle things. I also tend not to really do much care and maintenance (if any) on the things I own. Having said that, I do live in California where the climate is stable and not prone to causing damage. I much prefer non-pristine items because they more closely resemble what is attractive to me: historical pieces as they were when they were first created or in use.

As mentioned above, this topic is a great read: How Perfect?

[Quinn W.]

Nathan,
May I ask specifically what sort of "mucking up" you have done on pieces you own? I would be interested to know what methods you use to achieve the results you are looking for without damaging the item or aging/antiquing it.
Thanks,
Quinn

[Nathan Robinson]

[Allen Jones]

I personally have an aversion to most replicas due to their machined look. You read reviews that so often talk about a replicas perfect symmetry, perfect fit, and unblemished finish. As an artist and craftsman myself when I look at antiques this is not what I see. In an antique you can see the craftsman hand in their work. I think to the modren eye, for the most part, that inperfection looks like shotty work. To me that imperfecton is beauty and the "perfect" replicas look foreign. That is why I started making swords for myself as a hobby. I can't afford the replicas I like and I don't care for the look of the ones I can afford, so I make my own. In the pictures provided at the start of this thread I would have to say those are extreme even for my taste. So that brings us back to what is acceptable and what is not? What is a "flaw"? I can't really say. It is personal opion based on a case by case situation. As I grow as an artist even that opion changes.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Swords made ​​of CNC are cold. Contrary to popular belief, perhaps 50% of the finishing work is manual.
Inevitably have flaws. Fortunately, this work by a manual imprint of the sword, takes a cold perfection.

The swords are a symbiosis of technique and art. The technique we can quantify.
A defect becomes good or bad, other than the sensitivity of the observer.

The art, by definition, not be defined.


P.S.
Above:
These slots in groups of different lengths, are in the depth of the frame and within a few tenths of a millimeter.
It seems that those who made this sword, had an idea of perfection out of the ordinary

[Simon G.]

Hey all,

Glad to see this thread growing.

Many speak of CNC, but is it not the intent of the maker, as much as his or her means, which defines the end product? As Maurizio said, CNC-made swords are hand-finished anyway. So I'd be inclined to think that symetrical perfection, which some see as cold and others might see as beautiful, is achieved in great part by hand (which speaks volumes about the technical skill of the makers).

I suppose one element of the equation is that, for production swords at least, in our economic model and especially as pertains to online sales, you need a product that will exhibit a great deal of regularity and conformity to photos posted on your website... Else customers might complain or perhaps even sue.

This thread is something of a religious conversion (or "starting to see the light") for me. I am the kind to obsess a bit over symmetry, although not volutarily. What I mean is that my obsession isn't borne out of ideology - it's just how my eye is trained. Recently I recieved a sword with a S-shaped guard and started remarking that one branch was a bit closer to the blade than the other, then measuring it with a ruler... Forgive me, for I have sinned

[Chad Arnow]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Simon G.]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Simon G.]

Indeed, I should have said "a sword needs to be able to do harm", but that would've sound creepier. However, regarding swords made for thrusting, isn't a thrusting wound a cut -- made on a smaller surface and with a different movement? The effect on matter (ie flesh) is physically the same (as opposed to ie blunt force trauma).

As to swords made purely for parade or training, I don't think I would be much interested in those, and indeed one could question whether they are swords... To take an extreme exemple, I wouldn't consider a fencing foil, the logical and historical descendant of trainer weapons, to be a "sword". The only interest I'd have in buying say a so-called Federschwert would be to use it for HEMA practice (which too corresponds to the initial purpose of such an object).

[Chad Arnow]