[Markus Haider]

Yesterday in another forum an interesting question arose:

[Patrick Kelly]

While I'm as big of an authenticity nut as anyone, I do believe that things can be taken to an extreme level.

Taking this train of thought one step further: Not only have materials changed from ancient times, but the environment itself has changed. The composition of soils has changed, the plants that grow therein have changed as well. Therefore the composition of the animals that eat those plants has changed. Consequently, the natural materials used in a swords manufacture, from the leather coverings to the wood of the grip and scabbard will have changed at the molecular level.

How then, since these materials have changed, can you make an accurate replica at all?

[David Stokes]

No, and If people want something that authentic, they need to see about getting an original.
Replica swords are designed to replicate, not duplicate.
Every sword made in the world has some unique properties to it, no two are identical, so respect the uniqueness and enjoy the sword for what it is.

[Angus Trim]

[Allan Senefelder]

This is something i've put a little thought into over the years of doing what we do in our the shop and i've concluded from nowhere but my perspective that it is the manufactures responsibility to use the best materials avaliable for the task
the product is to be used for mediated by the market your able to attract . In other words the same rules as any
bussiness involved in producing something would have to use . Todays sword or armour collector ( of reproductions)
isn't paying for the prvilage of the same risk of critical failure during use that existed through more primitive techniques
used to extract ore or a merchant cotracted to find quality steel from Styria who's a fraud and brings low grade plate
stock or billets and keeps the difference . If the materials exist to make the product " better than " and the market
wants and can afford the improvement it should be done . The maker of the period would have done so in a
heart beat . They were bussiness men who were always looking for a better way and better material just like now .

[Allan Senefelder]

I've now thought about this quote for another hour and by implication I guess everyone should get rid of thier bench
grinders,beltsanders, drillpresses , lathes , gas forges ( leather and wood bellows from here on in ) ect . and
get out ye old tredel powered gringstone and an appentice to turn it . Oh and then have to charge for the massive
increase in labor . I thought these things were a manifestation of whats called progress . I agree with the stament
made by I believe Patrick that if thats whats sought you should by a period piece .

[Markus Haider]

This argumentation is not my opinion (or I would only buy antiques and smelt my own iron ), but I found it an interesting point and wanted to know what others think of it. Of course it should not be an attack on any maker or smith.


Maybe another example brings it better to the point:

A sword made of alloy-high-tech-steels is like a car, where you use the chassis of an oldtimer, but put a 2003 BMW-motor into it. The problem is not using a power crew-wrench, but that the main part of the whole thing may look historical, but is actually comparably high-tech.

We strive for getting swords which look as much like the original as possible, which sport the same edge geometry and handle like the original, try to avoid anachronisms, but overlook the point that the main part of the sword - the blade - is already an anachronism.

[Brian M]

Period artisans did the best with what they had to work with, and produduced some exquisite works of art at the "Monarch grade" of swords. However, even the finest period swords have flaws and asymnetries that would simply be unacceptable to a modern buyer spending a hefty chunk of change on a reproduction. Wandering fullers, non-straight edges, asymnetrical guards, rough finish, etc. The modern sword buyer will demand levels of perfection far in excess of what actual period swords could achieve.
I recall a customer who ordered a sword from Al Massey, and when it arrived was shocked at its hand-made appearance and vented about it on another forum. "I spent how much for something that looks like someone beat on it with a hammer?" Perhaps this case is extreme, but it is illustrative. The modern customer wants the best that can be achieved with modern methods, in an ancient style.
That said, there are probably customers out there who want "maximum period," or as close as can be achieved today. That's the great thing about the free market. There are smiths who will supply that service, or do their best. I believe TEMPL will actually smelt the ore in a period fashion and pattern-weld the blade, although from the very nice appearance of their swords some modern tools are used in the finishing. You could probably specify "maximum period;" you will just have to pay for it and accept the imperfections.

[Keith Larman]

As they say, there's a butt for every seat. In my little part of the world (Japanese Swords) you can get swords made the old fashioned way. And swords not quite the same. Up to really way out there. At some point they stop being the same type, but hey, everyone balances those factors differently.

Modern materials can make for higher performance, but usually changes the look of the final product. Modern processes can also change things but tend to make for less "organic" looks *sometimes*. It all depends on how those processes are used and integrated into the entire thing.

But personally there is nothing I like more than looking at a Japanese sword made of traditional tamahagane forged out by hand and properly polished by stones by someone who knows what they're doing. The look is distinct, beautiful and easily identified as being traditional. The more things vary from the tradition the easier it is to see it in the steel, mounts, whatever. That doesn't mean its not as good, just different.

I collect antiques. I work on modern pieces. I'd stack one of the swords from Howard Clark that I've polished and mounted up against any antique in terms of performance. But I'm not so naive as to think that you can even compare aesthetics. They're different. Apples and oranges. For some those differences are irrelevant. For others, they are precisely the point.

So I see nothing controversial or worthy of arguing. Some people's idea of a great dinner is burgers and fries. Some like filet mignon and a fine cabernet. Some like a good pasta. Some want sushi. Whatever floats your boat.

[Allan Senefelder]

Brians brought up another point that i'd left out . We purchased an orginal sallet helmet a while back to study and work from . It had a hole that had been misslocated and back filled with a rivet ( not an uncommon feature ) the medial ridge
in the bowel had at one point along its line been worked tofar into cool and had cracked ( it was simply folded under itself ) the visor hinge points were off center from the medial ridge and one of the holes for the visor rivets had been
misdrilled and had a piece of steel horse shoed through to make the location of the hole more on center . Most of
the examples of period work arms or armour i've owned showed these sorts of imperfections . Todays collector simply
would not accept this . That being said its the individaul making the piece that will impart its character . Everyones touch is a little different so four guys can do the same task and each ones finished result will vary slightly on close inspection .
That I suppose going back to the origianl quote would be the pieces soul . A grinding wheel is still a gringing wheel
wheather powered by electricity or a tredel . The technique and skill of the grinder ( hammerman ect . ) will give
the work its character . .

[Allan Senefelder]

And with Kieths last sentence i look like a schmuck . Good point Kieth .

[Sean Flynt]

I'll play the devil's advocate for a moment. I write the following as a replica weapon collector who's study is lined with antique cameras.
To some degree this debate is sort of like the debates among Leica M camera collectors about which lens in their collection is sharpest. If the things are sitting on a velvet lined shelf in a vault they might as well be single-element plastic lenses. One of the great photo-ironies of our time is that people pay thousands of dollars to buy the finest, toughest, most reliable cameras ever built and then lock them away in display cases. That's not unlike what replica arms and armor collectors do. Why does anybody invest thousands of dollars in a painstakingly handcrafted weapon that will never be used for its designed purpose? If you can't see or feel the difference in the various steels, and will never use the weapon in combat, what does it matter? Where's the line between "good enough to use" and "too good to use" in replica arms? Why do people cross it? At what point does desire for historical accuracy become unsatisfiable obsession. I think I've answered these questions for myself, but I wonder what others think.

[Keith Larman]

Well, I wasn't trying to make anyone look like a schmuck...

In all seriousness, there are lots of benefits to modern materials. But I must also say that something I see all the time in my little world are those who don't learn enough about the tradition before they start "improving" on it. I've got a piece right now I'm totally remounting for a customer of mine. The guys who did it left out the seppa (washers) used between parts. Because they argued that they didn't need them because they were tight to begin with. That may be the case, but their mistake was assuming that is the *only* reason for those parts. They exist for other reasons including preventing wear of the soft metal blade collar (habaki) up against what is usually a hard metal sword guard (tsuba). They also are put in on new swords because as the mounts age the wood will tend to shrink a bit. And it is trivial to take out the existing washer (seppa) and replace it with one slightly thicker. But what if there's no seppa to begin with? You put in a paper thin washer to eat up that little bit of space? Its too thin and will deteriorate quickly. And it won't function to protect the habaki anyway. So it just doesn't work. Their assumption as to the functionality of that one seemingly trivial part showed that they really didn't understand what they were doing. And didn't understand how that ommission would cause problems during use.

With that said, I'm all for modern materials. Heck, I use micarta instead of horn parts on some parts when I have the choice. Its stronger and safer. More consistent too. I use micarta pins instead of bamboo. I use alder instead of honoki.

But... You really have to understand the old in order to improve on it. And remember that the old things had history, had evolution, had usage. How many things were done that I don't understand because I'm not seeing them coming back from a long campaign? And seeing the damage done.

Guys who buy from me are usually either very serious, senior martial artists. Or collectors. Collectors tend to want traditional look, styling and parts. Experienced martial artists want performance. But the longer I've worked in both areas the more I've found that the sword that satisfies both worlds are remarkably similar in construction, methods, etc. I'm not going to argue with 1000 years of evolutionary, proven history. I might use micarta instead of horn. I might use good glue instead of rice glue. I might go with a Howard Clark 1086 blade rather than tamahagane.

And I understand that many smiths, if given the choice in Japan, would use more modern materials. And I've heard from a number of reliable sources that sometimes they do slip some modern stuff into their mix of steels. So even the traditionalists will use something better when they can. And I think if swords were still used today by professional warriors there would be a *long* line outside Howard Clark's shop for his bainite blades. Very non-traditional.

But when you get into the mounting, polishing, etc. they would be shocked at the level of crudeness of many "modern" finishes and mounting jobs. There may be faster, cheaper ways of doing some of those things, but so many methods used are really corners cut.

As one of my instructors told me, improving on something is great. But you'd better be damned sure you understand what it is you're improving before you try. And modern materials are great, modern methods can be great, but they'd better improve the end product. And you'd better understand precisely what it is you mean when you say you've improved it.

That's my philosophic bender for the month. Back to hunch over some stones for me. No, I don't use grinders. I can't get the complexity of shape, the crispness of line, nor the quality of finish on grinders. Lord knows I tried. It didn't work. I've seen guys get okay finishes. But never a finish that would fool someone with a good eye.

Improvement? Sure, if you're trying to get a sword relatively well finished for a lower price. But is it better overall? I guess it depends on what you want and how much you want to spend.

A butt for every seat. And I like Sushi...

[Keith Larman]

[Patrick Kelly]

"But... You really have to understand the old in order to improve on it. And remember that the old things had history, had evolution, had usage. How many things were done that I don't understand because I'm not seeing them coming back from a long campaign? And seeing the damage done. "

Excellent quote Keith, really well said. In fact, that was one of the best posts I've read in quite some time.

I tend to be a bit of an historical purist, although that doesn't stop me from admiring, and buying, high quality production stuff. I appreciate the skill that goes into both endeavors at their highest levels. That being said, I'll take the historically accurate stuff over the rest anytime.

My new sword from Peter Johnsson is a prime example of that. When I told a couple of other collectors, and makers, what I was paying for that sword their reaction was one of shock. Statements like "And it's not even pattern welded?" were pretty much S.O.P. On the other hand when I asked for an opinion from someone who had seen the sword before me I was told "You're buying a medieval sword", and that's the best description I can make. The medieval process was replicated by Peter, right down to the stitching at the scabbards throat and it's steel chape. These are the kinds of little details that really get my juices flowing. I could point them out to another collector and their reaction would be "So what?" and that's fine, it's not for everyone.

I've never looked for the ultimate edge holding unbreakable sword. All I've ever asked from my swords in terms of function is that they function at least as good as their historic counterparts. This is the only way that I can really gain a true understanding of the medieval sword, its development and its capabilities.

[Keith Larman]

Thanks, Patrick.

It's kinda funny really. I get people asking me all the time about Howard Clark's L6 bainite blades. Hyper-performance blades and truly amazing IMHO. But I will often tell people that they might want to consider a folded blade, or drop the cost a bit and go with the 1086 blade if I think they're going to the L6 for the wrong reasons. One bloody good reason to get one is that they're just flat out cool and beautiful when well polished. And totally unique. And to me a great example of what the world would want if they needed the things today. So on that level I understand them completely. And have one coming for myself. Well, actually I"m going to polish it and give it to my daughter when she's old enough. Because I think they will continue to become even more valuable in their own right. And I want her to have work by my good friend. And I want her to have some of my work when I move on from this world.

But that said I wonder why some get them. Frankly the old swords were more than good enough in most cases. The point of swordsmanship is to learn to use the sword you had and use it effectively. To that end I am a total traditionalist. The pursuit of performance at all costs *for me* misses the point of why I study and use a sword. I want to learn to use it the way they did. And if that means having to refine my technique because the blade isn't bulletproof, bendproof, and idiot proof, so be it. Increasingly we're seeing blades made to cut grass mats. The get thinner and thinner, wider, and more like machete's all the time. Heck, I wonder sometimes why these guys don't just buy a machete. Or to those who want a high performance sword to cut harder targets. One day I was a little too tired and I suggested to one very enthusiastic guy he look at a chainsaw instead. He didn't get back to me... I guess he got the point... Or went to someone else.

There are as many reasons for collecting these things as there are collectors buying them. The trick is knowing who to go to in order to get what you want. I refer people on all the time to buying production katana. What they want would be suited quite well for that. I refer others on and make suggestions about finding antiques too. Sometimes I have something to offer they want. It's all good. There is no "right" way, no "correct" approach. It is more important to figure out your own reasons for collecting and to pursue those sincerely.

But IMHO the biggest problem faced by those in the craft end is hubris. Thinking we've got it all figured out. And ignoring the past completely. Why would anyone ignore such a rich and vibrant history and all the lessons it can teach? Once you start getting a grasp of that history you start to be better able to go in your own direction. Standing on the shoulders of giants as they say.

[Peter Johnsson]

Keith,
It has been good to read your posts. Seeing something of the same from the european perspective, I recognize your standpoint. As a maker of swords that are forged and made after historical examples, the questions of authenticity, performance and historical correctness are pondered upon dayly.
In my work I try my very best to emulate the swords of the european tradition. There are reasons why swords looked the way they did through the ages. I agree with you on that we need to understand these reasons before we start to improve on designs. That is why the study of traditional designs is rewarding: you get feed back from the masters of old. They are good teachers. Comparing contemporary work to the work by bygone master bladesmiths and cutlers is also a lesson in humility. It puts ones work in perspective, so to say.

I´m sometimes approached by customers who want authenticity in every detail and aspect. Here is where a little knowledge causes more problems than no knowledge at all. What do this individual customer mean with authenticity? Sometimes customers seeking "authenticity" are really more interested in a romantic dream of ancient times. Wanting a totally authentic historical steel is one of these impossible dreams. We can howewer get the shape and balance right and reach a functional quality by using contemporary steels that share some of the critical characteristics of ancient steels. If there was recognition that authenticity in a sword can mean more than the process of its making or the nature of materials used we could begin to have a more rewarding discusion on these matters.
I focus my studies in the shapes and dimensions of historical swords and how this impacts on their function. By doing this it is only natural that some ideas of how they were made are also illuminated, but that is not the main theme for me. For me using a completely authentic steel is less interesting than to getting the shape right. Using a contemporary low alloy steel is close enough for me (at least for now). The fact that I forge my blades is more because it lets me controll the shape of the blade blank, less a question of authenticity. It is also fun to forge. The important thing to note is that regradless of what method is used for the making of the blade, it will never be close to a "real" or "authentic" sword if it does not share the necessary functional properties of a historical sword. The singular most important aspect in the function of a sword is its shape. It may be made from bronze, carbon steel or space age alloys: if it does not balance properly or have a good cross sectional geometry, it can never be wielded like a sword, nor cut like a sword.
Shaping the steel and work it through a benefical heat treat are the first steps on the way of its completion. If we are interested in authenticity, we also need to interest ourselves in function. If we can feel the precense of a "soul" in a weapon like the sword I am pretty sure it is the experience of agility and responsiveness you feel when handling a well made and well proportioned sword. The craft and the use of materials can be aspects of great beauty or mere necessity. Here is where the craft can turn into an art.
That is my personal view of this.

We can experiment with steel making today, producing something that looks and behaves closely to historical steel, but it will never be quite the same. Making steel in a fully authentic way (= using the same proceses that were used in, say, the 13th century) is another business completely. By making our on steel, be it in a propane furnace or a pit in the ground with charcoal, will produce a material that at least in theory will share *some* properties with historical steel, but it will not be the same as was used in the 13th century. The attraction for contemporary smiths in making our own steel, I guess, is less an urge to produce "authentic" materials as it is the learning of the process itself and thereby gaining a greater understanding of steel. A steel you made yourself will also have greater meaning to you and can have properties that allowes richer expresion.
Steel making is very interesting. It gives the smith a rich and rewarding material to work with. Making your own steel will reward you with insights about the chracter of your material that is impossible to get otherwise. But strictly speaking, it is "authentic" only in a rather broad meanig of the word.

We need to be clear about what we are trying to emulate, especially when using words like "authentic" or "historically accurate". It is more common to describe the quality of the sword by the strength of the steel and the superlative qualities of its heat treat. The skill of the smith is also high on the list of what to praise in a good sword.
In the world of the Japanese sword, the polisher has a clear and well known position: the work of the polisher is regarded as something that adds to the quality of the whole.
By some reason, the work of the blade grinder is not so well recognized in the european tradition, despite the fact that he had a great impact on the final quality and visual expression of the work. In many cases the grinding is even frowned upon today: "-Ha, but this is forged to shape, not ground!" A statement like that is a bit absurd. The task of forging is to produce a blade that is semi finished, allowing for heat treat and final grinding. Even if the amount of material removed after heat treat is small, that aspect of the work is absolutely critical and should be recognized for what it is.
Another craftsman that is often forgotten is the cutler who mounted finished blades with hilts and made the scabbards.
I guess we can blame the romance of swordmaking for these omissions. It is much easier to visualize a sweaty and swarthy smith in a lonely hut somewhere in the ancient germanic forest forging away on a sword of legendary powers, than to see a guild member of high esteem well inegrated in his society, cooperating with local grinders and working with his team of journeymen and apprentices to fulfill a contract to the powerful sword cutler.
Forging the blade is the traditional way, but it is and has always been only part of the work. A sword is the sum of many crafts. Ther skill of the smith is as much knowing his material and mastering his craft as it is having a clear idea of what the final shape should be. This is often overlooked: It does not matter if you can patternweld stainless steel with titanium or make traditional steel from your grandmothers underwear, if you do not know what shape a sword should have to function properly the result will never be close to its full potential, nor "authentic" for that matter.

What is then an authentic sword? I guess it depends on what aspect of the historical sword you see as most important. If the ancient methods of steel making and blade forging seems most interesting, well, then the chioce is obvious. Only remember that those things alone will not make a good sword.
Is the attraction of the sword its keeness of edge and its awesome cutting power? As Keith said so well previously: then a machete (or an axe) might do the trick for you.

A sword is the sum of many things. As we study this we´ll learn more about it.

[Allan Senefelder]

Between Peter and Kieth I think theres more brian power here than our whole shop could get together . Peter's point
about many as many craftsmen being involved in the making of European swords as Japanese and the different
way thier percieved is a good one . With the Japanese sword the mythos is the making of the weapon in that zenish/shinto
light that has everyone involved bieng seen as a distinct craftsman in they're own right , whereas with the European
sword the mythos is more on the user ,"the knight " . The European sword is his tool to accomplish his exploits and
so how he got hold of it is much less the focus than what he's going to do with it . This translates to this day . Kieth
polishes Japanese swords in the traditional way and has wonderful reputation as a craftsman . Peters building
what in my humble opinion are the best European swords ,period ,hilt to polish , If Peter were just making blades
the perception would be differnent I think because of thier european nature . Japanese blade makers today here
in the states are highly sought after for just thier blades .

[Keith Larman]

Hey, Peter, I've got to meet you someday. Howard speaks quite highly of you and I've got *lots* of questions.

One thing I've always wondered about like you say is why the other craftsmen in the sword crafts don't get as much attention on the western side. I have to think that most smiths didn't do everything. But it's not my area...

Anyway, just another thing. I agree with you completely about traditional. It is at best a fuzzy concept. In part because the smiths of old *were* just as concerned about performance as we are today and I'm sure they'd be out there using better materials and process as they came along. But I think that often people have a rather, well, I don't want to say self-serving reasons because that has negative connotations I don't want to use, but that's the best I can come up with. Sure, grinders are used in all sorts of areas including the Japanese side. Take a look at some of the books on modern swordsmiths and if you look carefully in the photos of their shops you'll see an occasional grinder and power hammer. Now they're technically not supposed to be doing that (as swordcraft in Japan is highly regulated in part due to weapons laws enacted by the US during WWII). But they still use it. As a friend of mine likes to say, he'd piss on a sparkplug if he thought it would help. But you'll also notice that each and every one of them use those tools only to the extent that they can either improve the final result or at least cut time while not hindering quality. The problem I see today is that the advent of powertools that some loss of quality and precision is accepted as a necessary compromise in order to speed up the process. In my world a power grinder is great when Howard leaves me with a 2 mm edge on fully hardened 1086. No way am I going to spend 2 days cutting in an edge on a stone. But... If I cut in that edge on my grinder I will have to spend time on the stone just getting that surface back to true and aligned the way I need it to be aligned. A lot of time. Most can not see wobbles from grinders. But those who spend the time learning to do it on the stones and doing it well can almost immediately pick out a blade done on a grinder. The way the surface washboards a bit and how it correlates to the hamon shape. It's all pretty obvious. Trying to then polish a surface like that traditionally is almost impossible because the surface wobbles screw up the running of the blade on the very soft high grit stones. So you get uneven pressure and horrible results. Anyway, the point being there's no way to get to that end without really understanding and working towards that end in what are more traditional ways.

So for me traditional is in part about the process used. But also in the final product. You can do a horrible sword fully traditionally. Lord knows I see a lot of those. And some do some pretty nice work non-traditionally. But it goes full circle back to what someone wants from the sword.

I sometimes tell people its like fine wine. No one who starts to learn about good wine goes back to drinking stuff out bottles with screwcaps. The more you learn the more it ruins what you may have used to like.

But with all that said, the sword world is more complex than that. There are guys doing non-traditional work but shooting at pure performance. And compromises there aren't so much compromises as a different path to a different end.

In other words, its all good. And while other people do things I'm not a fan of, as long as they're not misrepresenting the work or spewing techno-babble-BS I see no problem with any of it. There's room for everyone. And there's lots of good, simple, functional, non-traditionally made swords out there that perform admirably and are a great value. And isn't that cool!

And to sign off, as my good friend and instructor Ted Tenold is always telling me, don't worry so much about what other people say or think or do. Let your work speak for itself. You polish and do the work to satisfy your own standards and your own reasons for doing it. And everyone does the same. So just let the work speak for itself and move on to the next project.

So off I go to finish the foundation on a truly amazing san mai blade from Howard. I spent 3 days on the first stone alone on that blade. It will be nice to get the foundation finished. And now to say that I don't think I charge enough... I should be making more than a fry chef at McDonalds...