MRL has a new sword out, based on the famous sword of Santa Casilda. Intriguing....

http://www.museumreplicas.com/p-2324-sword-of-santa-casilda.aspx

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

Pretty dang good replica. It's almost spot-on to the original, A bit gaudy for my taste, but nice. ;) ......McM

Not trying to troll, but I don't think that's a very good replica at all. They are off just by the two dimensions we can see. The blade length compared to the proportions of the cross-hilt and pommel is off by a good margin , the blade taper is different most notable at the tip, and the grip is parallel (tubular) on the replica, but tapered on the original. Also, it looks like the pommel MRLs is about 4 times thicker than the original. And I can't make out the raised boarder going all the way around the crosshilt of the original. But on the replica it's huge.

I like some of MRLs stuff for the price, but I think "spot-on" is a bit of puffery or wishful thinking going by these photos.
The fuller looks like a close representation, though.

-Terry

Santa Casilda is beautiful sword,I have replica in progess now...

Does the original have the diamond cross-section near the tip?

No wonder people call myArmoury elitist and snobby.... ;)

I agree it's not the finest sword in the world. But:

1) It's $400.
2) It's a sword made by Museum Replicas Limited that is actually a replica of a museum piece, something they don't do very much of it seems.
3) It's very detailed for a production sword of any price range.
4) As far as I know, it's the first MRL sword to have a diamond overwrap.
5) While the fuller width isn't great for replicating this original, it looks to be a wider shallower fuller than many they do, and I think it's a nice addition to what cross-sections they can do.
6) The scabbard appears to be several steps up for MRL, though it's not without its problems.
7) Together with the new Castilian rapier, they're getting ambitious and being historical too.
8) It's $400.

Anyone expecting a true lenticular blade section hasn't been paying attention to MRL through the years. Their 2-edged blades seem to be almost exclusively ground to a diamond section, then the fuller(s) is/are added. It's not correct but it's what they've done for the better part of two decades.

To me, this sword represents a good direction for MRL to explore. It's not a perfect offering but looks a heck of a lot better than much of what they've put out in the past decade.

Thank you for that, Chad. As a confirmed non-snob.....I just like kick-ass looking swords. Historical accuracy is great...but not essential...depending what you want....and what you can afford....and what the makers can do....and how damned worried you are about what someone else thinks about it. I like the sword...not something I'd buy...but I'll give it a 6 out of 10. Not bad, not bad at all............McM

I'm a sucker for historical accuracy. That's what draws my attention. I like having extant originals replicated.

Having said that, one has to acknowledge that any replica has its limits as to how close it got to the original. Nothing is going to be a clone. Nothing.

So when I look at a sword like this, I consider it in context. In this particular case, the context was explained in detail by Chad. For me, the most telling bit of this context is the price point.

It's not as close of a replica as I'd personally want, but I would of course expect to pay a great deal more to get my needs met. People like me are few and far between. We forget that on a site like this. The audience is very small. Museum Replicas has a different audience with its own needs.

I consider this a good direction by Museum Replicas and I'm happy to see it.

There are some pretty obvious differences, but as others have said already, I'm excited to see Museum Replicas branching into more historical designs again. The grip seems the most 'off' to me, but that is something that you can correct with a bit of time and work. Take the leather off, reshape the grip and rewrap it.

For the price, you get a decent reproduction. That's more than I can say for some of the designs.

[ Linked Image ]
(the Dresden rapier for example.)

I have to agree with Terry & Tim here, it just looks cheap, a la those Spanish made tourist swords, even at $400.
With MRL's low costs, additional effort per piece would probably do wonders to it's appearance, regardless of blade shape & dimensions. The original deserves better, which I truly believe MRL is capable of. It is, however, encouraging to see their attempt.

I'm looking for forward to Robert Moc's interpretation of the original.

What, me a snob?

Jon

Well, call me a snob. But the point I was originally making was specifically towards the comment of how identical it was to the original (which I was not agreeing with), regardless of cost. But on the point of price, I think Windlass has done a lot better on previous replicas at a much cheaper cost.
Immediately coming to mind are some of my favorites; German Falchion (Thorpe falchion knock-off. $220? 2/3 price of this one), the Italian Falchion (replica from painting, if I remember correctly; $295. 3/4 the price of this one), the Medieval Short Sword (copy of a copy of the MET sword; $160? less than half of this sword. Now the scabbard on this one was actually quite bad), and the german mace that had the solid (not hollow) handle. All of those I thought were great improvements that I was hoping would be a continuing trend for MRL.

And I want to quantify that I'm a fan of a lot more MRL swords at lesser price points. But at $400, personally, I would rather save-up another $100 and get a hold of a Valiant Armory sword, or hope that someone is looking to sell an A&A or Albion at a discount. In fact, there are several hanwei swords that I think are better use of $300- $400.
-Terry

The easy part would to get the grip/pommel right - the taper and length of the grip meeting the seemingly larger diameter pommel on the original being one of the quite noticeable misses on the reproduction. The blade is always harder it seems, the diamond vs. lenticular section of the blade below the fuller being a miss on a number of swords in this price range, along with the more difficult reproduction of the blade proportions, taper, and profile. Again, as others have mentioned, it usually comes down to the price. And has also been mentioned, in this thread and others, there are varying degrees of accuracy, utility, and quality at these lower price points.
However, I have to agree that for MRL this does represent one of their better efforts.

As I said before, I think this is an okay replica. Not something I would buy, personally. I agree, the grip could be reshaped a bit to match the original.....then it would be a GREAT replica! Then, and only then, might I think of adding it to my collection. I like this sword....but it just needs a few small tweaks to make it really stand out. It's like a fine micro-brew beer with just a hint of aftertaste... :lol: ...........McM

A good number of these mistakes are often present in much more expensive replicas. Arms&Armour are very respected and they still put diamond section where lenticular section should be on many of their swords.

I for one would be quick to say that I've forgiven a number of transgressions in a lower price point reproduction. The diamond section instead of the lenticular section is one of the most common. Pommel differences abound, more in the view less seen (edge) than in the full on view. If the sword in question fulfills the expectation of the buyer then the product will be judged as a success by that buyer. If the marketing produces an expectation that the product cannot meet, the outcome of course is different...... Any movement by any maker towards better quality product is a good thing in my estimation.

Here's a few colour pics of the original sword:

http://www.oronoz.com/paginas/leefoto.php?ref...p;usuario=
http://www.oronoz.com/paginas/leefoto.php?ref...p;usuario=

http://www.oronoz.com/paginas/muestrafotostit...bla=Claves

Hopefully the links above will work...


Danny