[John Linker]

I'm not sure exactly how to put this into words, but does anyone find that antique swords have certain qualities which modern reproductions still havent managed to quite capture?
I've spent the past few weeks doing a tour of just about every museum I've ever heard of (in this country) and have been lucky enough to spend time with some truly awe-inspiring antiques (I will upload some of the better photos soon) but, besides the handling characteristics, there is still a certain "je ne sais quoi" which sets the antiques I've handled apart from any of the modern reproductions I've seen or held.

I have been thinking a lot about this and have decided that if it is not anything to do with how these swords handle (as I think that many of the better reproductions nowadays do try very hard to represent accurate handling qualities) then it has to be something to do with the way that the antiques look.

As anyone who has laboured this far into this post can probably tell, I'm having a hard time putting my finger on exactly what it is, but I think it is something to do with the intent of the person making them. Antique swords were designed to be well...swords, whereas modern reproductions are designed not only to behave like swords but also to look a little like that image of a sword that we have in our minds. With regards to swords that fit into the Oakeshott typology; the swords Ive seen made to fit within a certain category tend to be almost caricatures of that type; all of the defining elements seem just a little exaggerated and make up a whole which is not so much a sword as it is an iconic representation of a sword.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

(This is also not meant to be a slight on the works of any of those in the business of making swords nowadays; God knows I've spent enough time drooling over at Albion and who among us would not want to own their own Patrick Barta sword?)

Apologies for the rambling nature of this post.
John Linker

[Scott Byler]

Don't know, but I will wager that when most of us look at antique swords we somehow internalize the idea a bit that those are 'right' or 'real'.... More so than anything, in general, that we see in the modern times. Some of it is just plain romanticism, too.... I can't escape it and expect that most every one falls prey to that too.

Ofcourse, taste and preference and prejudice.... personal visions and expectations.... All those are in there too.

I do find myself wondering a bit, sometimes, why any swordmakers care to even make swords anymore. It sometimes seems that we labor (and I'm new to the swordmaking no doubt) a lot to try to step into some (perhaps) impossible shoes to fill.

Just a few thoughts this early morn... Not enough sleep to be very clear, probably.... (been up all night working on a sword project...) lol

[John Linker]

I would agree with the first part of your post, I suppose that I do tend to view antique and modern swords from different starting points, however I didn't mean to say that antiques are inherently better at their intended function than reproductions just that there is something different aesthetically that I just can't seem to put my finger on.

[Thomas McDonald]

Hi John

I agree that most reproductions do not come close, aesthetically, with the subtleties that exist within most period pieces !
Alot of this can probably be attributed to the time & care that was put into them, as well as a good working knowledge of how these things should be built, and the techniques used !

On the other hand there are makers today like Vince Evans, E.B. Erickson, and Peter Johnsson, that have extensively studied these amazing pieces of history, and have mastered the skills to recreate them to the point that it would be hard to tell an original from one of theirs if you artificially aged them, or gave 'em a couple of hundred years of wear & tear !
Sometimes the only way one can tell the difference is in the little welding details, ie: period lap welding compared to modern methods, etc!

It's these kinds of subtleties, of form & function, that inspire the best smiths working today to duplicate, and improve on !

Mac

[Craig Johnson]

Hello John

I know the feeling you describe. The way when one hefts an original sword in the hand and its purpose is obvious, its design is of an organic quality that is difficult to replicate today. Why? It is often the pure fact that most originals are not done with a modern sense of quality, symmetry, or finish. It incorporates all the things described by others above and has the passage of generations to patina the whole in a way that is not only physical but has the efforts of its maintenance and use incorporated into its being.

I would not call this a product of manufacture, for as Mac has said one can do a piece today that can pass for old. But it is the aspect of a well worn tool of any kind. When I pick up the wood axe my great grand father used or when you are at a flee market and come across hand made carpenters tools or if you are into golf and find an old club with a hickory shaft and wood head or possibly that old fishing pole that has been in the family a few generations. All these items can engender that feeling a soft roughness in a way. The combination of hand and eye in manufacture and the use and abuse of its life as a tool.

These pieces were often made in a way that todays customer would not be interested in purchasing. In any given group of originals one could almost certainly find guards that are longer on one side of the center line than the other, center lines of blades that are closer to one side than another sometimes due to sharpening but others clearly that way from manufacture, the asymmetry of most historical pommels and in conjunction with this the asymmetry of the grips to match and many other details. Does one need to incorporate these "flaws" into todays swords to make them more realistic? Or in fact are they not "flaws" but shall we say the truth of the pieces. That they were made by hand in a time when our modern sensitivity to symmetry and certain aspects of finish were not catered to.

As for the swords done today in the style of or as representative of those of the past. That is the very design structure the originals came form they did not create exact assembly line copies even if they were making several identical swords instead they made each by hand as close to a decided upon goal wether it was to be exacting or the order was 30 swords on such and such a length. So I think if the maker demonstrates a good commitment to this form of work then the swords that may not be specific copies of any surviving example are just as valid as the surviving examples. It is crucial here to state that the level of knowledge needed to do this is quite extensive and there are no short cuts it takes a great deal of research and experience with originals.

Hope this is helpful to some degree. I am afraid I may have rambled as well

Best
Craig

[Aaron Schnatterly]

I think Craig has captured the spirit of this thread quite well. It's just simply the "history and mystery" that happens with age. These period pieces just seem "wise" somehow.

I'm in awe of some of these modern pieces, but reverent in the presence of the period ones. I don't know how else to put it...

-A

[Alexi Goranov]