Standards for swords -- myArmoury.com

Jamie Fellrath · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 7:42 am Post subject: Standards for swords

Hi everyone,

I peruse these forums occasionally, as I'm not much of a collector but much more of a martial artist. I'm looking for swords for use - training with steel blades, test cutting, etc. I own no swords other than a wooden waster right now.

I see a lot of you talking about "entry-level swords" and using other such terms. My question is: What exactly does that mean? From what point of view is a sword considered "entry-level"? Are you talking about from a standpoint of using the sword as I've described or for other uses?

Thanks in advance.

Björn Hellqvist · myArmoury Alumni

My definition of an entry-level sword is "a sword that won't break from normal use, while having decent handling characteristics, and not costing more than what an ordinary Joe can afford".

Jamie Fellrath · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 10:35 am Post subject:

Shane Smith · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 1:27 pm Post subject:

Jamie Fellrath · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 1:34 pm Post subject:

Sean Flynt · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 1:53 pm Post subject:

Hey, Jamie! What I'd like to know is-- what's the EXIT level? Prices for fine replicas of certain varieties of weapon are nudging up into the price range for which originals of other varieties can be had. A collector could easily spend as much on a fine custom-made replica of a medieval sword as he'd spend on a fine, ORIGINAL 17th c. weapon. Well, back to the topic...It seems to me that entry level varies from weapon type to weapon type, but the criteria I've outlined below inform my own attempts at categorization of replicas.

As an ARMA member, I got the MRL Scottish Backsword for exactly the kind of training you describe. John Clements indicated that this weapon was serving well in Houston so I got two of them, one at the standard price of around $225 and another on sale for around $120. This weapon is what I think of when I hear the term "entry level". It's historically feasible in dimensions, design, weight and balance if not an exact replica, takes a good edge for cutting practice, is cheap enough on sale to have one sharp and one blunt, adequately represents what it purports to represent--i.e., a plain infantry sword of indifferent quality of the late 16th-mid 17th c.--and is (was) available for under $250. I sold the more expensive of my two when I decided to focus on spathology rather than application, but most of what makes this a good entry-level weapon for training makes it a good entry-level weapon for collecting. I now look for all these qualities in the entry-level replicas I buy, but the term itself can be problematic. I mean, how can we talk about entry-level for a modern replica of a mass-produced, military issue infantry hanger of the 18th c.? Is MRL's $100 version no good just because it's cheap? Would an $80 version necessarily be of lower quality than the original on which it's based? Would a $1,000 replica of the same weapon necessarily be more historically accurate? Would it make any sense to buy that high-end replica when the original on which it's based can be had for $750? Moreover, there aren't many off-the-shelf 18th c. military hangers out there and they're all about the same price. Again, I'm not sure why anyone would commission a custom replica of one of these mil-spec secondary weapons, so in this case entry-level is pretty much the only leveI, which makes the term irrelevant. On the other hand there are hundreds of medieval replicas with prices ranging from $50 to thousands, so the term makes more sense in that category. Also, with replica standards rocketing upwards thanks to the likes of PJ and other custom makers, the entry-level for accurate medieval replicas may be on the rise. I think it's significant that these higher standards are now slipping into the non-custom marketplace (via the collaboration between PJ and Albion, for example). It's not clear to me whether or not a $250 MRL medieval sword will still be considered an entry-level replica in a few years. We may look back and think of them as toys.

Jamie Fellrath · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 2:05 pm Post subject:

Shane Smith · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 2:27 pm Post subject:

One word of caution here; A poor quality replica makes for poor technical application and false understanding and is not worth owning at any price. There is a line in the sand so to speak in my estimation. Cheaper is not always best. Likewise,more expensive isn't either.Do your homework and be an informed consumer.Get the proper tool for the job. You shouldn't use a screwdriver as a chisel and expect a satisfactory result. Further,you should not try to use an ahistorical and poorly made replica to build your competence and martial skill. A Swordsman is only as effective as his replica will allow in my opinion.

Jamie Fellrath · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 2:30 pm Post subject:

Joe Fults · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 6:03 pm Post subject:

The "entry" question seems well answered, so I'm going to speak a we bit off the thread and address "use".

Reluctance to use weapons not normally considered "entry" is typically an issue of individual preference. All smiths I've talke dand dealt with make products anticipating they will be used. Thus damage and failure are unlikely. Granted wear is a possiblity, but so is theft, fire, and natual disaster.

As long as use does not become abuse, as a hobbiest collector I see no reason to avoid using quality weapons.

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team