[Paul Hansen]

[D. S. Smith]

Wow, I can honestly say I wouldn't own a sword in this entire thread. :P I don't think I've ever seen a collection of uglier swords. This is of course only my opinion, and fortunately we don't all think the same way. Variety is the spice of life and those are some pretty spicy blades.

My own opinion is that simple, classy, subtle, understated lines and colors are beautiful. This, to me, is a beautiful weapon:
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/ne...cy-xvi.htm

What's more, I think it would be right at home in the "fantasy" setting. I immagine Aragorn (did I spell that correctly for the LoTR fans?) would have been thrilled to use a sword like the Crecy (with a little elven magic of course).

Edited to add: I do understand the point of the thread. I agree that these real-life swords posted here are every bit as "fantastic" as modern fantasy swords. I'm simply saying that I agree with J.D. Craford's tastes in regards to what is attractive in a sword.

[William P]

[Anders Backlund]

Found this one while randomly surfing the Albums:



Love that crossguard.

[Chad Arnow]

There's an interesting dichotomy among we modern types. It seems very few people want to reenact or recreate low-class personas (who wants to be a peasant?). Most males into this hobby recreate at least a man-at-arms persona, which in period would have required some money to achieve. Many go for knightly personas and even noble ones, which presumes an even higher level of income and status.

But then many folks turn around and often arm themselves with pretty workaday weapons. So many people don't seem to mind the trappings of higher status, with brass-bordered up-to-date armor, and/or surcoats (not everyone had the rights to bear armorial charges), but still prefer weapons that might seem below their status in some cases. In period, if you could have afforded a fashionable harness and all the trappings on your rank, you could afford a little gilding here and there.

There are obviously levels of bling in between many of the examples here and plain, unadorned weapons. But we often see weapons that look plain when compared to the rest of a person's kit.

[J.D. Crawford]

I see your point Chad, but I also think there's room for different interpretations to suit these different tastes. For example, an upper class knight might have their ornamental sword for court and a plain warsword for the real deal, n'est pas?

I only 'suit up' up one day a year (Halloween) and don't really have a medieval personna, but if I did it would be either a highland/island Scottish nobleman or a knight of the holy orders, both of which would fit with a modest kit all around.

This is not to dispute Nathan's original point - that ornamental does not necessarily equal fantasy - that's pretty clear.

[Chad Arnow]

[Anders Backlund]

Hand-and-a-half sword from the Klingbeil Collection:



Okay, that totally looks like a Weta Workshop fantasy movie prop, right there.

Granted, its apparently 19th century pretending to be 16th century, but still.

[William P]

[William P]

http://www.facebook.com/baltimoreknife?sk=pho...mp;theater look at these daggers , the holes in the blades remind me of fantasy and sci fi daggers, BKS didnt say what period there were originals to but they look 16-17th century...

[Jojo Zerach]

Other than surviving examples, I notice a lot of 13th-14th century effigies show swords and scabbards that are much more decorated than modern reproductions.
These are usually done in a style that I find more tasteful than many of the swords in this thread. And considering the date, they were probably combat swords.

[Mohammed Alhassani]

some beautiful ottoman Islamic swords