| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Sun 30 Aug, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Maurizio D'Angelo wrote: | Again it is written: <<Collector Chad Arnow was impressed with the Brescia's blade and commented, "The blade is cleanly finished, especially given its complexity. Fullered The visible portion of the blade has secondary bevels like the original, Which gives that part of the blade hexagonal cross-section. As the fuller terminates at midrib appears, giving the rest of the blade eight distinct planes or faces. All the lines delineating these features are crisp without looking artificial or modern.>> I think that the "hexagonal" is only a copying error.
|
Maurizio,
According to my recollection, the blade is more or less hexagonal at one point (the fullered section). Later, it is more or less octagonal. No copying error is there at all. I meant what I wrote.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I meant what I put in there.
Secondary bevel is not the best term for the Brescia sword's features and is not what is being discussed here.
The secondary bevel has gotten a bad rap simply because many of the production swords that feature it were not designed to be proper sharps. The secondary bevel makes a blunt sword sharp, but is not as good as a sword that is designed properly to be sharp.
So a secondary bevel is not necessarily bad or ahistoric in certain cases. In others, it's bad.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
Maurizio D'Angelo
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Aug, 2009 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Chad,
thanks for your reply.
I do not say to you, Chad, but I want to make clear to others, my thoughts.
I never said that a secondary bevel (meant in both meanings) is bad or unhistorical.
If, from what I wrote, it was realized this, it is wrong.
What I say here and in my other post, is different.
Ciao
Maurizio
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Aug, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maurizio;
From your previous post(s) I think you are wondering about how to define a secondary bevel. The way Chad clarified that some secondary bevels are just blunt swords that have been sharpened or at least been designed with much thicker blades near the secondary bevel than would a period sword with a secondary bevel have been made.
At the extreme one could say that any blade with a blended edge or apple seed edge that is given a final sharpening pass may have a secondary bevel if looked at with a 8X magnifying glass if it hasn't been rounded at the corner between the primary bevel and the secondary bevel.
A modern or period sword with a secondary bevel that is designed to have this secondary bevel may have this bevel at 1 or 2mm wide and be very visible but one could round it and then get back to almost the same as an apple seed edge.
But maybe " almost " is the right term as a sword with only a single bevel would have only a very subtle curve near the edge ?
A true flat single bevel with no rounding at all might have a too easily damaged edge ?
Basically what I mean as the distinctions between edge types can be very subtle and a sword starting out as one type can be re-sharpened into the other to a degree but in general a sword designed from the beginning to be one or the other will work better if sharpened or re-sharpened as originally intended.
( Note" Mostly just my opinion what I hope is logical reasoning ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Mon 31 Aug, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | The two swords shown in this thread are not good examples of secondary bevels in the meaning of the question of the topic. These are swords with clear examples of hexagonal and octagonal cross section: intended and dedicated design features.
What you see as the defined edge is just that: the edge, not a shape resulting from re sharpening.
. |
I don't even dream of challenging your assertion there. I am interested in seeing a crude hand sketch of how the actual cross sections basically really are on the initially posted two examples of swords that appear to have compound angles leading to the edge. From looking at the features section diagram of a double fullered lenticular cross section (seems to be the case for one of the blades), is that a cross section that can just naturally have an appearance of a big secondary bevel. The feature section example has an "apple seed" or Moran grind style edge appearance to it. If it had been ground with two flat tapers at the edges, it could indeed look octagonal. I played with trying to sketch an example, but the angles are very subtle and tricky to draw. Regardless, it can have this appearance where light and shadows come into play.
It would not surprise me if some "field sharpening" jobs modified original flat edge angles into secondary bevels as wide as 3 mm to quickly mask damage from nicks. This is basically the fastest way. It does not fully restore cutting performance, but, would probably be preferred over leaving a blade jagged if someone had little time before a second successive day of possible battle with many other swords also waiting for edge dressing.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic