| Author |
Message |
|
Howard Waddell
Industry Professional
|
 Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 3:13 pm Post subject: Introducing... The Sword of Saint Maurice of Turin |
 |
|
This is as BEAST of a sword -- far more massive than anyone could imagine from photographs. Clearly a horseman's sword and I find that the only way to control it is to wrap my forefinger over the guard.
The grip is wound three times with a sheet of linen, and then wrapped with thin leather treated with beeswax -- Peter postulates that possible design from what remains of the original grip.
More photos and description here:
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/...aurice.htm
I've been waiting for this one myself for a long time (since I first saw the photo of a copy of it in Oakeshott's "Archaeology of Weapons."
You'll either love it or hate it, but it is one of the most recognizable historic originals.
Best,
Howy
Albion Swords Ltd
http://albion-swords.com
http://filmswords.com
|
|
   |
 |
Derek Wassom
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Beautiful. Good work, guys.
Regards,
Derek Wassom
Luegisland Scholar
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Hooper
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since I don't have a horse, it's probably not the sword for me, but it sure is mighty nice looking - great, clean lines.
It might be interesting to compare it to DT2130, or would that just be unfair?
Last edited by Roger Hooper on Fri 30 Dec, 2005 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Schnatterly
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: Re: Introducing... The Sword of Saint Maurice of Turin |
|
|
| Howy wrote: | | This is as BEAST of a sword -- far more massive than anyone could imagine from photographs. |
I'll second that... saw the bare blade, as well as the original waxes when Harlan made the molds from them. What it might seem in the pics, make it 1.5 or 2 times the size. It's big. The cross is like 7.5 or 8 inches wide, if I remember correctly.
| Howy wrote: | | The grip is wound three times with a sheet of linen, and then wrapped with thin leather treated with beeswax -- Peter postulates that possible design from what remains of the original grip. |
I was privy to the discussion around this specific element. I'm glad to see this is the outcome - nice effect, and very plausible. The original retains some of the wrapped linen, and it is sticky to the touch, like you get from hide glue or cutler's resin... This makes for a nasty grip, but a logical basis for an overwrap. I've been anxious to see how this turned out - dig it.
| Howy wrote: | | You'll either love it or hate it, but it is one of the most recognizable historic originals. |
I'll postpone judgement until I get to handle it myself. There are other pieces I find more interesting, but the final product grabbed my attention more than the components did. It looked funny, I guess, with blue wax hilt fittings and no grip. 
I'm also interested in seeing how the piece looks en suite with it's scabbard. 
Well done, guys!
|
|
|
|
|
Joachim Nilsson
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh... my... God! 
That thing has a blade like my Duke! I love it!
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Grisetti
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: Introducing... The Sword of Saint Maurice of Turin |
|
|
Looks like another beauty from Albion.
| Howard Waddell wrote: | | This is as BEAST of a sword -- far more massive than anyone could imagine from photographs.... |
Maybe it doesn't look so huge in the photos, but I guess the numbers do tell a story here. The blade of the St. Maurice is 36 inches long and 2.12 inches at the base, which compares with the following two handers:
Svante - 33.5 x 2
Brescia Spadona - 35.25 x 2.25
Duke - 36 x 2.19
So, it seems that this is basically a two-hander blade on a single-hand sword.
"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lets not forget the Gaddhjalt:
Blade length 35.875 "
Blade width at guard 1.93
Weight 2 lbs 7.4 oz
Also a two-hander blade with a one hander grip: Something I've mentioned a few time before. 
The St-Maurice is 2.93 lbs lets say 8 oz more!
So on paper these two seem rather close, but a little bit more over what is an already a one hander at the limit of comfortable one hand use can feel like a lot.
Howard: if this is fair comparison? How would you quantify the handling difference between the Gaddhjalt and the
St-Maurice?
Comparisons aside this is a seriously attractive sword. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Maly
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DROOL! I cannot wait for mine to arrive!
Will the scabbard be in the same brown leather as the grip? I'm unsure as to if the original is in good enough shape to tell definitively.
GREAT JOB GUYS!
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." ~A. Maslow
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Hitchens
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great job as always, Albion!  I didn't know it was going to have a brown grip (at least that's how it looks in the pic). I wasn't too fond of that hilt design at first, but now I'm quite taken with it. Nice work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian M
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
YES!!! Come to Daddy!
I'd hoped to get it in time for my birthday a little more than a month from now, but sooner will do nicely! I can't wait to compare it to the Tritonia and my other big single-handers.
Congratulations to you guys for seeing an important project through to completion.
Brian M
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Lison
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Dec, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Wow! Holy #@&*! Must have one........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang Armbruster
|
| Posted: Sat 31 Dec, 2005 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Awesome piece, just love it 
That's definitely a sword I would take into battle if I were a horseman
Could that be the biggest historical single-hander on this planet?
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Zamoida
|
| Posted: Sat 31 Dec, 2005 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow!
All I have to say is...Mike, I'll call you next week.
Rob Zamoida
"When your life is on the line, you want to make use of all your tools. No warrior should be willing to die with his swords at his sides, without having made use of his tools."
-Miyamoto Mushashi, Gorin no Sho
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Jan, 2006 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfgang Armbruster wrote: |
Could that be the biggest historical single-hander on this planet? |
Doubt it. Patrick Barta used to have a similar era sword on his site that had a blade about three or four inches longer (Dresden museum IIRC), and I imagine lots of rapiers were longer and heavier. I agree, it does look impressive though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang Armbruster
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Jan, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoff Wood wrote: | | Wolfgang Armbruster wrote: |
Could that be the biggest historical single-hander on this planet? |
Doubt it. Patrick Barta used to have a similar era sword on his site that had a blade about three or four inches longer (Dresden museum IIRC), and I imagine lots of rapiers were longer and heavier. I agree, it does look impressive though. |
Thx for the info. But wouldn't a Rapier be usually lighter than earlier swords? Or is it just that most of the mass is concentrated in the hilt on a Rapier?
IIRC at some point people stopped making oversized rapier-blades and shortened them ( I could be wrong on thisof course).
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Nower
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Jan, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Impresive....most impresive 
May God have mercy on my enemies, for I shall have none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Jan, 2006 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfgang Armbruster wrote: |
Thx for the info. But wouldn't a Rapier be usually lighter than earlier swords? Or is it just that most of the mass is concentrated in the hilt on a Rapier?
|
You may be right, although I'm almost certain I've heard of rapier weights over three pounds. I expect an expert will be able to answer with more authority.
Regards
geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian M
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Jan, 2006 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
IIRC, Peter said that the historical inspiration for the "Ritter" had a blade that was about 37". (The Ritter was made with a 4" shorter blade.) That would put the original sword in the realm of the SoSMT, size-wise.
Brian M
|
|
|
|
|
Joachim Nilsson
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Jan, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian M wrote: | IIRC, Peter said that the historical inspiration for the "Ritter" had a blade that was about 37". (The Ritter was made with a 4" shorter blade.) That would put the original sword in the realm of the SoSMT, size-wise.
Brian M |
At least length-wise. The St Maurice is wider, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Schnatterly
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Jan, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joachim Nilsson wrote: | | At least length-wise. The St Maurice is wider, right? |
Per Albion's website specs:
Ritter: 1.89 inches / 4.8 cm wide
SoSMT: 2.12 inches / 5.38 cm wide
... so not tremendously, no, but it is wider - about 12%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic