[Craig Peters]

Here at myArmoury, we've had quite a few discussions about what sort of purchases you plan to make each time a new year comes around, what sort of arms and armour you're interested in, what sort of things are missing from your collection. So for this thread, I'm interested in exploring something a little different.

When it comes to arms and armour, what sort of things just aren't your cup of tea? What types of weapons or armour do you not forsee yourself ever being likely to want to collect or own? Are there any particular types of arms or armour that really just don't do it for you? For that matter, are there any types of arms and armour that you dislike, as opposed to merely being disinterested in?

Since the list of items that you are not interested in is quite possibly far greater than the types of items you do want to collect, I would suggest focusing your response to perhaps five to ten weapons, or cultures, or time periods and reasons why they just don't grab you.

And, if you are interested in all weapons from all cultures from all time periods (for real?) I would be interested in hearing why that is the case for you.

[Sam Gordon Campbell]

Well that's hard to answer. Hm...
Well, I'm not particularly interested in Far Eastern Weapons (though Far Eastern armour is different), nor anything post 16thC (That being said I'd like a Jacobite kit). And rapiers, smallswords, sabres (save perhaps a Sinclair), and later guns either.
I guess I'll have to admit that I wouldn't definitively not collect anything in particular. If that makes sense.

[A. Spanjer]

I can't say I care for Japanese stuff, but I think that's mainly due to constantly hearing about how "Katanas can cut through machine guns" and other stuff like that.

Other than that, I don't really like full plate that much, but I still think it's cool, same goes for sabres.

[Luka Borscak]

At the moment, rapiers and smallswords are not my cup of tee because I prefer cutting weapons, but I do appreciate their visual appeal... Also I don't think I will buy anything asian before I will be satisfied with my european collection...

[Robert Hinds]

Interesting topic.

Like the people above, I don't care for asian stuff. The main reason being that almost everyone I meet or know IRL believes that everything asian pre 1700 is better than anything european pre 1700. Something I disagree with considering my obsession with everything european 800 - 1650, hearing how the katana is "the ultimate sword" doesn't help either.

And I suppose since it's not part of my heritage is also a reason.

I don't hate rapier's but I don't like them. Mainly because (as mentioned above) they can't cut, and they are mainly not a military weapon.

hmm....that's basically it.

[R D Moore]

Asian arms and armor do not have an appeal to me. I think what I find disagreable is the stylized and practiced nature of the discipline. It seems to me that each and every thought and motion must conform to a specific and precise parameter. I'm also a bit defensive when I hear that an Asian blade is superior to a European blade. There's just too many facets involved in everything that makes one blade better than another. That said, tamhagane is a fascinating process. But so is wootz and the making of bloomery iron.

I am interested in certain Asian armor similar to this example (the last pic) of some Philippine armor in a Spanish museum.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=12569

It has an interesting similarity to this armor
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18577&start=0

Great thread. It'll be interesting to read the responses.

[Christopher Punty]

Asian and near eastern stuff does not interest me at all.

[Michael S. Rivet]

For me, "not gonna collect it" is not the same as "don't like it."

I'm not going to collect bronze age, iron age or Roman gear. Some of it is cool to look at, but those periods don't hold the fascination for me that the medieval does. Likewise once one starts brushing against the Renaissance. The focus of my collection is, at present, an attempt to home in on the sword or weapon that feels the most "me." A self-exploration of sorts. Since those periods don't grab me, they're not really part of the process. I probably won't collect much in the way of non-European ethnographic or migration era pieces either. Same reasons.

But I still think all those eras and items are fascinating. A well-made katana is a beautiful thing. So is a talwar, a khukri, or an African shield. There are few areas in which humanity has been more creative than in lacerating, puncturing or concussing one another.

The only type of sword or weapon that I generally do not like is the pure fantasy stuff or the modern fantasy "tactical" designs. The pieces that don't have a place in history except the present.

[Paul Hansen]

Good question...

Like most of the previous posters, I don't really care for Japanese swords. But I would not rule out the possibility of ever getting one, just to round off the collection. In another fifty years or so, probably...

[Jeremy V. Krause]

I don't like the look of falcatas,

The shape of the blade is not appealing to me.

That's about the only historical weapon that I see and automatically go "ick".

I don't like fantasy weapons either.

Well let's add kukris to my list of "ick" weapons.

[Nathan Gilleland]

I will start off with Morion helmets. While many other styles of armour and weapons have grown on me, the Morion has never held a place in my heart.

While I find them beautiful and intriguing, I will probably never collect any Asian armour either.

I will also not be collecting anything post 18th century (most likely) sword or armour-wise.

[T Franks]

[Sander Marechal]

I probably won't collect anything outside 9th-15th century European stuff. I like the looks of non-European stuff but not enough to start buying that too. The only thing I don't really care for at all are katanas. Too much hype.

[Jeremy V. Krause]

[Moses Jones]

I'm not that interested in Eastern weapons or armour. It's not that I don't appreciate Eastern Martial Arts, it's just not my thing.

[William F Cain III]

Plate armor.

Just don't see what all the hype about it is. I understand its role, I understand the history of it, but I have no interest whatsoever in assembling any of it for myself. Blossfechten all the way.

[Bennison N]

I truly do like all armour and weapons. Even modern ones. I originally had an obvious preference for Chinese stuff, because of the many years I trained in Chinese Martial Arts, but I can honestly say that I love to make comparisons between regions and times and the things they used to fight.

I don't consider true one-of-a-kind Fantasy swords to be weapons, unless they are proven effective. If we look back, we might realise that every new sword design was a "Fantasy" design at first though. My thought on "weapon or not?" go the same for minimalist ":tactical" designs. Just because it looks mean doesn't mean that it is. I've also very little doubt that anything we can come up with today has been thought of before. I do however support "tactical" construction if it is a true historical sword type, and made to the correct basic design. I don't see why a practice weapon has to be stunningly beautiful. How can you practise properly if you're worried about scratching your beautiful sword?

For Armour... I didn't used to like full plate armour, although I always though it looked cool, because I thought it restricted movement far too much for my liking and must've weighed a ton. My mind has changed somewhat in recent years, partly due to the many things I have learnt here on myArmoury, but it still isn't anywhere near my favourite. Having said that, I still like it, and respect it as an inevitable step in the evolution of war and fighting. My real favourite is the Chinese "Mountain Pattern Scale", although I do wish there was an existing example I could visit somewhere, other than paintings and statues.

Kopises/ Falcatas... After throwing around a Falcata, and "throwing around" is a pretty accurate description of how to wield one of these heavy chopping beasts, I have a strong respect for them. You quite simply do not want to get in the way of a Falcata's edge when the Falcata is being swung, period. It's a real shame that we only have figures on pots and theoretical imagination for the technique to properly use one.

And a good Katana is truly an awesome thing. Putting all the crazy machine gun chopping and shooting bullets at the edge aside, a Katana is an amazing sword if you can use one well. The same goes for pretty much any weapon invented by mankind's ingenious and sadistic minds... The better ones just stay around longer, and the Katana really hasn't changed much over the centuries. They're not my favourite, but I'd certainly choose one to take into battle over many other types of sword.

Back to tacticals and fantasies... I'm sure many know that I have this habit of ending up with swords that can really only be placed in these categories and it seems I'm the only one who appreciates the value of a good historical type made in this way. I feel I have to defend my decision to use G10 handle slabs, and oh-so-simplistic decoration on my practice weapons by saying that I take this weapon, and I beat the living bejesus out of it until it either dies or passes into legend. I do the exact same thing with my body during training, and I was always taught to make the weapon an extension of your body. It's very likely that I take this adage far too seriously, but I feel the results speak for themselves. I will add that I think there is just some types of technique that go so far against my natural movement patterns that I dislike them immeasurably. I break swords sometimes during contact against my infamous radiata pine "log pells". I get cracks and huge bows in my handles (G10 is really hard to crack from strain, by the way) and blades from repetitive thrusting against targets. After becoming as intimate with the cans and can'ts of the type of sword as I possibly can, I decide if I like that type of weapon. If I do, I commission a historical replica, based on a famous piece of the type, and sometimes even from the awesome makers and smiths that frequent this very forum. I certainly take advice from the forumites here on choosing makers to approach with ideas.

It is always the historical ones that inspire me to try a new type or technique in the first place. I get the "tactical" version for practice, because there's no way I'm going to smash up a beautiful piece of art. And I get the historically correct version when I feel I have attained some level of proficiency and I'm worthy of having a proper one in my house. The truth is, I even get a bit protective of my historical replicas when people try to touch the blade with their fingers! There's no way that I'd use one to fight in any other situation than to protect myself or my family from armed enemies. So for that reason I feel "tactical" versions are great for training.

My two favourite types are the Schiavona and the Yanmaodao. These two types can do it all. True all-rounders. They came onto the scene at roughly the same sort of time (roughly). And yet they're so very different. As I mentioned at the beginning of this ever-longer post, this is exactly the type of comparison I like to make.

My least favourite are viking swords. I love the patternwelding and beautiful aesthetic value of them, but the smaller grips seem uncomfortable looking to me. I know all about the handshake grip, and I can imagine it to be very effective. But my lack of experience with this type of sword and the associated techniques is perhaps what makes the grip look to me like it just needs to be a little bit longer. Again I do respect them and see them as an important phase in European sword evolution. And I welcome anyone who would like to eduacte me on them.

[Joe Fults]

Generally I find myself with little interest in anything Ninja or Samurai (largely because their media coverage drowns everything else out), although I can appeciate the art that goes into some of it. Generally pre-Columbian items hold less interest for me as well.

[JG Elmslie]

Scottish weapons.

despite my growing up quite literally able to look out the window to Cullodden Battlefield, the universally "scottish" stuff (ie, tartan tat, baskethilts, targes, and midget italian princes) interests me about as much as a good kneecapping.

I honestly cant see the appeal. its a dismal, midge-bitten backwater that was culturally a century behind civilisation, which produced some miserably uninspiring equipment...

[Jean Thibodeau]