[Thom R.]

well you could take the hive mind concept and run with that. that is, you could let the commmunity upload data and build the database for you like what Mark does at oldsw#rds.com. as in any community volunteer project there would be the occasional qa/qc issue, but i would think that if enough people uploaded their data on a sword the outliers or mistakes could be flagged rather easily. i dunno, something to think about. it would require some time for managing i suppose and time is hard to come by for all of us.

I am laughing a little because if you read back thru the posts above we have a classic example of the problem just as Bill and Chad stated, everybody has a different personal preference. Jean obviously loves swords at one end of the spectrum and I love swords at the other end. Jean - this ought to be good for a laugh from you - I don't own any single hand swords above 1100 grams, well I own one. All of the others are 1100 or less and I own two that are sub 900. (and I was SO conflicted recently over that new Jake Powning sword which I had an opportunity to buy because it is exactly the kind of sword I love, but I just don't have that kind of money). heck up until a month ago, I didn't even own a bastard sword above 1300 g!

but what i am really trying to point out is that for the "weightier" blades POB may matter a lot more than for the lighter ones. plus my personal definition of light and lively includes point control, which is probably related to pivot point location as much as anything else. tr

[Nathan Robinson]

[Paul Watson]

Any chance of graphing the Regent at 3 pounds 4 ounces because thats what mine weighs. This has been a very interesting exercise to follow and certainly has merit, but what Chad is saying seems to make perfect sense. The feel and use of a sword cannot be simply described statistically, but then I think no one here is making that claim.

Another factor to consider in relation to POB is the differing grip used for a sword. For example the Machiavelli handles very, very differently when the finger is looped over the guard through one of the finger rings as would any other sword with the capacity/intent to be used in this way.

Anyway nice work it is good to see this sort of information.

[Thom R.]

In fact, with such a limited data set, they often tell the exact wrong story.

hmm ok, but then doesn't that argue for better data which was the original theme of the post that started this thread.......but of course thats my take on it, not everyone will agree.

emphasize the author's impression of the sword

Nathan I understand what you are saying, and I totally respect that, you have created a wonderful thing here, and I am certainly not suggesting that the emphasis should change, i have found the reviews very useful. however I just want to point out that there is an logical inconsistency to your and Chad's argument. On one hand you suggest that a person's subjective feel for a sword is what matters most, but repeatedly what is also being said is that everyone is different and different people have different impressions of the same sword. i am simply suggesting that one might be able to resolve some of that (not all) via some objective (and repeatable) measurements. plus, it is useful for people who are working on custom designs to understand a bit of the statics and dynamics involved.

i guess i have surfed to the edge unknowingly and so will back off and head to port now. thom

[Chris Fields]

Chad, hey! I came from an American Education system, and now I am an engineer working on the new space shuttle as well as many other space and military projects. Don't mock the American Education System , it's one of the best out there as long as the students have the desire to learn.

Also, as an engineer, it really doesn't matter how you enter the stats, they are easy to convert from english to metric, or the opposite.

Nathan - You are definitely right about telling the "whole story" of the swords you review. I love the reviews on this site, they are extremely helpful. However, we do want to tell the "whole story", so why leave off stats that are easy to measure. Stats may not mean anything to a lot of people, but to people like me, and Thom, who are numerically minded, we get a lot of seeing stats. So to capture the whole story of a sword, I believe we should strive to do all of what you are currently doing, as well as take as many hard stats as we can. Some people can read the reviews, and take your opinion of what is lively and understand it, some people can't, and some need numbers to help them. I hope you see my point. Yes, we should look at all aspects of the sword, this includes the numerical stats we can pull from them.

Paul, I'll see if I can put that in tomorrow. the spread sheets are still at work!

[Nathan Robinson]

[Jared Smith]

[Nathan Robinson]

Jared, that's a wonderful point and goes to the issue of how a sword is to be used.

Sword types are used differently. They are swung differently (if at all), held differently, used in different fighting systems with different moves, etc, etc. Some are required to have fast recovery, others not. One would not use a a Viking sword in the same manner as a rapier. I suspect trying to associate a single measurement (without context of any kind) to both of these things really would not result in a particularly telling result.

[Chris Fields]

Exactly, that is why I separated the swords into basic categories and they are compared in their individual categories.

Jared, which chart were you looking at? I posted several. I am still curious what peoples thoughts are on the POB weighted charts vs the Mass weighted charts for each sword category. I am curious if you agree with either of them or not. I believe only one person with experience with multiple Albions has posted their opinions on it so far.

The "liveliness" number I renamed to "handling" factor. It doesn't necessarily say which sword is more lively than than the next, because a swords liveliness depends on it's use. It just compares like swords to one another and allows swords to fall into there basic groups just based on the two numbers. For example, for the Mass weighted charts you'll notice the gladii had a centered around a high number in the 90s i think, the viking/saxon and single hand medieval swords centered around a number in the 30s I believe, the long swords centered around a number in the 20s I believe, and great swords center around an even lower number somewhere in the teens.

What it does for me, is if I see a certain type sword online somewhere, and then I see the stats, I'll be able to measure the stats vs the stats of the albions, and see if it even comes near the average or even falls with in the group at all. This can tell me a few things, mainly, if the Albions are made historically accurate, and their swords are falling into type groups based on these numbers, that other historically accurate swords should fall with in type groups that they are members of. Also, for every experienced person, they can look at these charts and possibly find out what number they prefer for their swords of certain types, then again, maybe not. I'm trying to find that out and hopefully more people with experience with Albions will chime in on what they think of the different charts.

Nathan: you stated "The idea of being all things to all people (telling the "whole story") will create, in all cases, a bad end product that often ends up falling short to most people." I understand what you are saying, but for this case I have to disagree. Besides, we are not asking you to change your reviews or anything, we were just saying it would be helpful to some of us if a little more stats where added to the reviews. I don't see how that would be bad to anyone.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Some very good points in many of the most recent posts above and I don't want to clutter things up with lots of quotes, but I would say that different approaches to the subject, subjective and attempts of creating objective number based systems to evaluated handling characteristics are both valid approaches in that one need not exclude the other and that success would be an objective system that would correlated closely with subjective impressions. ( At least for the majority of swords, again there might be the odd outliers that would need much more information to understand performance that seem to contradict the numbers ).

Handling is also very much different if one uses one hand on a sword or two: My AT 1435 at 4 pounds and a POB of approximately 6" feels slow in one hand but very fast with the leverage of two hands. So, the liveliness of twohanders should be compared to other twohanders in an apple versus apple way and be a parallel and different scale.

For a sword usable with one hand or with two it might occupy two positions on a single graph of all swords.

[Nathan Robinson]

[Chris Fields]

Nathan- Hey, if people don't like your reviews, I wouldn't worry about it, they are great. If you don't want to do the extra work, I understand. Again, I don't think you should change your reviews. I also don't think you should make them all things for all people. I don't think that telling the whole story of a sword, or giving as much info about it, including stats, means you have to be all things to everyone, and thats what I was disagreeing with you on.

The only numbers I am using are weight and POB, those are pretty easy to measure and you have those numbers in most of your reviews already. So I am happy. I would be nice to see more stats, but no big deal.

Thom! - Glenn over at the sword forum was nice enough to find an old thread from 2002 in that forum that is very similar to what we were trying to do. The originator of that unfortunately has pasted away, it would have been great to talk to him. But he essentially did the same thing we did, except he combined your charts with mine, and included Weight, total length, and POB to characterize swords by a number that works for him. here is the link:

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6821

I am still hoping people with more experience with albions can chime in about which chart they feel more closely represents there experience with the swords. This will allow me narrow down which chart works for each type of sword, and then if you are interested in using a number system like I am, can just plug in your swords POB and weight to see where it lands on the charts. Thanks

[Chris Fields]

Oh, Jean, your AT1435 came in at 10.4 on the mass weighted chart, which is lower than all of the Albion two handers by just alittle, meaning it's a little less "handy". On the POB weighted chart it came in at 6.9, which also lower than the all the Albion two handers, and more significantly so. Do you have experience with either the Albion Chieftain, Duke, or Baron swords to see if this comparison is correct? Both these comparisons are saying the AT 1435 is a bit less "handy" than the albions. Also, make sure the weight and POB you gave me are correct. Thanks and hope this helped.

[Chris Fields]

Wow, I wish I could of spoke with Don. We are doing exactly the same thing. His equation is almost what mine is, but i notice a direct comparrison of weight vs POB didn't quite make sense to me, so I decided to weight the two variables two different ways, as he almost decided to do. One make the weight more important, the other make the POB more important. The wieght one seems to make more sense to me, but I am still wondering what others think that have experience with the Albions. I did not use total length in the equation, though that may help.

I am really curious if different types of swords may depend on different variables. ei.. single handers depend more on weight, and longswords depend more in POB. etc.. should be interesting!

I also inverted the numbers so the trend goes the other way. In Don's chart, the more "handy" a sword was, the lower number it had. My charts and their equations do the opposite, the more "handy" a sword is, the higher number it will have.

[Chad Arnow]

I'd like to see the Del Tin 2150 graphed. I had one and it was very handy/lively. It was short, and had a very close POB (2 inches). Its weight was on the high side for a single-hander (3 lbs, 3 ounces), but it was actually lighter than the historical sword it was based on (3 pounds 6 ounces). In the hand it felt great; it floated. It felt super-easy to manuever.

Unfortunately, it didn't cut very well and sent a lot of vibrations to the hand. So it wasn't all that great a sword at the end of the day, despite how good it felt in dry handling.

But it was lively.

[Chris Fields]

Chad, the DT 2150 comes in at 49.2 in the Mass weighted chart, which is very "handy" compared to the Albion single handers, it's actually several points above the highest Albion single hand medieval sword (the Poitiers at 42.9), so it's more "handy" than all the single hand Albions. On the POB weight scale, it gets a score of 78.4, super high, even higher than the Gladii, putting up into the numbers of what I think a pure trusting blade, like a rapier, would be at or around, though I haven't looked at the deltin 2150 to see what type of sword it is, I am guessing it is more of a arming sword dedicated to trusting based on your post about having a short blade. So which stat do you think describes it better? The POB weighted or the Mass weighted? Or a combination of both charts maybe?

It's interesting to hear about the vibrations it sent back to your hand. Another stat I was thinking about trying to chart, was blade stiffness based on cross section and distal taper. Maybe this stiffness stat, along with the stats I already created, may help describe and categorize blades even more. I know, I am a dork when it comes to numbers... I am an engineer, hehe.

[Chad Arnow]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Chris Fields]

Chad, you mention "For me, it doesn't matter which of your charts describes the handiness better, because neither tells if a sword is a good sword. Looking at the chart for the DT2150 might indicate it's a great sword because it is so "handy" or "lively". Looking at my review says something else. Worst case scenario, someone looking at the review and chart together might say "Well, if the DT2150 isn't properly balanced, swords near it on the chart may not be either." That doesn't help as it could condemn good swords because they are as lively as a less-than-ideal sword."

This is something that Don mentioned as well in his studies. Yes, it is impossible for a chart like what I am trying to make, to tell the whole story. No, the numbers it provides does not tell you if a sword is a "good" sword or not. It simply gives another stat which describes and "handiness" of the blade. Just because the chart says it is so "handy" doesn't mean it is a great sword. That alone can not tell you if a sword is good or not, and that should be understood. The charts are not meant to condemn or praise swords, it's just another stat that describes the how the sword handles in the hand.

However, if we charted and compared more swords that are similar to the DT2150 and are suppose to do the same job, ei. mostly dedicated to trusting, little cutting, and then found that the DT2150 ending up being an outlier compared to other swords in it's category, then maybe that may tell you that something is odd about that model. Make sense?

For the cross section, yes, stiffness would be a difficult calc. There are set equations which tell you the engineering number of "stiffness" by cross section and such, even tapering cross sections. Those aren't too bad to find. Changing cross sections are more difficult and an average would probably have to be taken to make sense. I am curious if sword types would separate out into sword types by charted stiffness as they have in the charts i already created. If so, that may be a number we can use to further classify swords.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts, I hope we are both gaining something from them.

[Chad Arnow]

I understand a graph shouldn't be taken as definitive word on a sword's handling. But not everyone understands that and graphs and charts are powerful visuals that, in this case, give out incomplete info.

I've been around this community (not just this website) long enough to see that some things (like stats) get over-emphasized. I've had to correct many people because they have formed a seemingly complete impression of a sword based on an incomplete set of stats and without the context that gives the stats relevance.

You can put disclaimers and text with your graphs; that will help some. But I've also learned that too many people simply don't read what you give them. As an example, we have to chastise new members who are makers regularly for posting unwanted advertisements. All this is despite the fact that they received a private message when they signed up detailing our rules, and that a link to our rules is posted clearly in the Historical Arms Talk forum and in the Marketplace forum, and that our complete rules are available by clicking "Info" on any page on this site. We've made it easy to find our rules and people don't read them.

So I don't hold out hope that disclaimers with a graph will reach everyone. Visuals like a graph (and stats in general) are very powerful and so easy to take out of context. If I hadn't seen stuff like this happen so often, I wouldn't worry about it so much.

What I want to know is why is handiness so important. Great cleavers of Types XIII, XIIIa, XIIa, and some of the others (like many Viking swords) aren't meant to be handy; they're meant to have some mass on the business end of the sword to aid in devastating, sweeping cuts. They fall at the lower end of your handiness scale by design.

But yes, I'd imagine swords of the same Oakeshott Type on today's market will spec out with definable trends. So a system that uses that (as I've mentioned before in more than one post in this thread) will show if an example is an outlier for its type. It would have more value, though it still would only be part of the story. Plenty of historical swords would be outliers when compared to swords reproduced today. Doesn't mean they're good or bad if they're an outlier; it simply means they're an outlier.

You mention Don Nelson's system, which went through a number of refinements in his last years. I've seen people discuss swords using the DN scale as if it is a great indicator of the totality of how a sword handles. That's the problem with these systems and graphs. They encourage jumps to conclusion based on stats that simply don't tell the whole story, even if that wasn't the system's intent.