Albion, does it live up to the hype? -- myArmoury.com

Jeff Larsen · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject:

I'll pitch my 2 cents in....

Rather than comment on Albion living up to the hype (who's hype anyway?), I would rather say, do they live up to their reputation, and the answer is yes.

Excellent Product!
Excellent Customer Service! (They go out of their way to make sure you are not only happy, but satisfied with their product.)
Cost...for the product, well worth it. I have owned several models of their line and handled many more of the at gatherings. Fit and finish...excellent. Handling...excellent.

Personally, I have no problems in recommending them.

Jeff Happy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hype (greatly exaggerated publicity intended to excite public interest in something such as a movie or theatrical production)

Reputation (the generally accepted estimation of somebody or something as having particular qualities or attributes)

Jeff Larsen · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject:

Also a question, maybe for another thread, which steel is better, those made back in the day or modern steels?

Michael Edelson · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject:

Jean Henri Chandler,

You have not explained, concretely, exactly why you think the original Brescia Spadona is better than the Albion reproduction. You didn't, becasue you can't. You've pointed out all sorts of things that lead up that conclusion, but nothing in support of the conclusion itself.

Since the shape is matched pretty much 100%, the only difference can be steel quality and heat treat. For the most part, as much as they knew what they were doing, they were technological primitives who's heat treating and steel quality were, in your words, a quantum leap behind ours. In practical terms, that makes little difference, but what difference there is will be for Albion's benefit, not the antique's.

We can't invent swords the way they did because there is no feedback loop and our use of them is limited, but we don't need to....we have theirs.

Would I rather own the antique? Are you kidding? I'd kill for it. Happy

But the Albion is the better sword.

Vincent Le Chevalier · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject:

Justin King · Industry Professional

Just a brief addition to the stock removal vs. forged discussion-it was noted that most modern swords are ground to final finish regardless of how the blank is made, I did not see it mentioned that modern mill-run steel is "forged" by rolling mills during it's production so it could be argued that any blade made from modern steel has been forged at some point.

The deformation caused by hand-forging a blank is rather minute compared to the rolling process and if not done evenly and at the correct heat it is more likely to cause defects in the steel than improve it. The practical fact of the matter is that unless the smith is both skilled and careful during forging, the stock removal guy probably has the all-out performance advantage.

Decarburization is also a factor in forging that can affect the final outcome, unless the forged surface is ground off it is likely to have reduced carbon content and possibly higher impurity levels, depending on atmospheric conditions of the forge.

Mill-run steel or properly forged steel does have a linear wood-grain like structure which is cut across during stock removal, causing a situation that in a piece of wood is called grain run-out and can reduce strength but in fairly simple cross section such as a sword blade this is generally of nominal difference.

To stay on-topic, I have 2 Albions and hope to own more one day. They are expensive but they don't disappoint. From the perspective of a hobbyist smith (and a picky customer), the work that goes into them justifies the price, the only question is whether one wants it bad enough to lay out the dough.

Taylor Ellis · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject:

This is probably the most interesting topic on this subject i've read in a very long time.

One the one hand you cant really argue with this:

Jean Henri Chandler · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject:

Paul Watson · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject:

Jean Henri Chandler · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject:

One other thing.

We know modern steels are better... for certain things. They are better for I-beams. For car doors. For rebar. We do not know for sure that they are better for making weapons or armor. (In fact someone posted here not all that long ago that the steel from medieval armor was studied by Defense Department contractors.)

Modern steel is definitely more homogeneous and more consistently of high quality. Anything produced in 740 AD or 1470 AD has more chances of being flawed than something produced in 2008, and we know that some antiques had flaws in them.

However, we also do know that they had their own manufacturing processes, as has been mentioned in this thread. Not just for making swords but for smelting iron and making steel itself. The city of Milan alone was capable of outfitting thousands of soldiers with weapons and armor in a matter of weeks. I do not believe a large percentage of this kit was flawed. There was a fierce competition for quality military equipment, and very smart and resourceful people were making it in an extremely competitive environment, for very very high stakes.

There have been studies showing flaws or low hardness in some medieval weapons, and extremely "good" qualities in others. There have also been some studies of the molecular structure of certain types of swords which show possibly very advanced properties. The jury is in fact still out on how advanced the metalurgy really was. Something else to keep in mind.

J

Jean Henri Chandler · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject:

Michael Edelson · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject:

Jean Henri Chandler · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject:

Well, there is the stock removal, which some people think is irrelevant but i do not. The heat treat. And yes, the steel.

And I'm sorry, but I think there probably are some other intangibles. I admit I have no proof for that.

Michael Edelson · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject:

Michael Edelson · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject:

Jean Henri Chandler · Posted: Sun 13 Jan, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject:

Fabrice Cognot · Industry Professional

...and then again, it would be good to define "better", when speaking of steel.

For among the professional smiths (not just bladesmiths, but blacksmiths and metallurgists) I know, opinions do vary a great deal.

Modern alloys allow a huge advantage : regularity. Confidence. Repeatability of operations. Consitency of results. Which is something you cannot always get with bloomery steel (though it is highly possible that, historically, several iron/steel production centers managed to make semi-products that possessed more or less the same qualities - but that's a totally different topic). This consistency is necessary when mass-producing items if you want to give them the same properties - and basically, that's what Albion sells.

However, there are people who just swear by home-made iron/steel - and claim they get better results using their own bloomery steel. They claim it oxydises less, they claim it holds a better edge, they claim it moves better under the hammer, grinds off better under the belt, welds better. I have no reason not to trust them - but then again, it's just a matter of trust. Which does not, by no means, diminishes the qualities of modern steels. It alll depends on what you're looking for.

For some, stainless steel is better because, well, it's stainless, and that's precisely what they're looking for. To others, stainless is crap because of the very specific HTs it needs.

Same goes with hand-forging vs. stock removal.

Jean Henri is right in that we don't necessarily expect from modern swords what medieval people expected from theirs.

Albion swords are great in that they're well-designed and (or so I believe) thoroughly thought and pondered, and as you mentionned, Jean Henri, it is a huge improvement compared to what was available on the market 8 years ago for instance. Peter does a fantastic job, and so does the Albion team.

About medieval swords being sometimes crap : yes, and no. Depends on the period. Quality Control existed in the later middle ages, and we still keep ordinances from several cities stating that no sword should be sold, that did not pass the quality tests - or whose maker did not prove he made QCed producst, guaranteed by his mark (the mark being officially recorded and acknowledged by the city experts after thorough checking). Not respecting these quality requirements led to severe fines, and possible ban from the profession and the city. Nothing to be taken too lightly.
Or, in the case of a wandering swords dealer, the latter could not sell his products on the public market/fair unless they were QCed beforehand by the city experts - both to guarantee quality products to the customer, and to protect local makers. Which proves, therefor, that there was crap, and also that there was quality. But that's totally OT.

My 2 cents (again).