[Nick Garza]

Hi everyone, this is my first post after lurking for a good while soaking up as much information as possible ( this a fantastic source of knowledge ). I am still quite ignorant, as my question will prove. I have only handled a couple of swords, and own one ( a Hanwei Saxon given as a gift ) so my experience is almost nonexistent.

Two swords have caught my eye, the Albion Dane and the Arms & Armor Danish Two Hander, and while having similar statistics, I get the impression from what I have read that they handle differently ( it seems that the Albion is a surprisingly agile blade where the Arms & Armor is a good deal slower/sluggish ). I know that they are two different blade types with different cross sections and was wondering if this was the reason for the differences.

[Jeffrey Faulk]

I should bring two swords-- three possibly, to your attention, actually.

While they're not Danish per se, there are a number of reproductions of the sword of Svante Nilsson Sture, which is one of the more notable Scandinavian weapons, and as such they're related somewhat to Danish swords.

To be exact, the best known one is probably Albion's-- it's more or less the exact same as the original Svante sword, with a hollow-ground blade and quite prominent ridge. This blade can be quite difficult to cut with if you don't have technique, though, and of course, it does cost almost $4,000 USD...

Then Del Tin makes a replica which is less exact. It doesn't have the hollow grinding or thick ridge, however it's easier for more people to cut with. It's number DT 5161, I believe.

Finally, Darksword Armoury up in Canada just came out with their own version of the sword, which you can see on the Sword Buyer's Guide website... heck, I'll just link you: http://forum.sword-buyers-guide.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5915

I understand the Albion Dane is a light-handling sword mainly because it's got the balance well distributed between a quite thin blade and a long grip with large pommel and metal rings. That's about the extent of my knowledge on that one... sorry!

[Nathan Robinson]

The Albion Dane is a production sword. You can buy one right now and it will be almost identical to the ones that other owners own.

The Arms & Armor Danish Two-Hander that you mention is a custom one-of-a-kind sword. You would have to commission your own custom sword from Arms & Armor and, as such, you could have it made any way you want. You could change the dynamics, replicate a different original, have it created with different visual characteristics, etc.

The two are very different swords in terms of their properties/dynamics/characteristics. They're also different because of the nature of being a production sword vs. a fully-custom sword made-to-order by a particular buyer.

I wrote a topic discussing my own Dane when I received it. I encourage you to check it out. It has some photos of my sword and some basic thoughts on it. You can also view it in my Collection Gallery.

[Roger Hooper]

[Paul B.G]

[Steven Janus]

http://forum.sword-buyers-guide.com/viewtopic...mp;start=0

DSA Danish two-hander



DSA also makes a Danish two hander as reviewed at SBG above.

[Nathan Robinson]

Truthfully, the DSA offerings aren't really anything at all similar to the historical swords that supposedly inspired them. They're also not like the other modern offerings mentioned in this topic. My own personal opinion is that they're extraordinarily unattractive, too. That crazy metal rain-guard-turned-quillon-block thing is hideous as is the washed-out lack of detail in any of its parts. The proportions on both swords are also lacking any elegance or similarity to what history has left us. Again, this is just my own opinion on the matter so take it with as much salt as you need.

The Del Tin 5161 is a nice sword for the money. I've liked the two samples I've handled in the past. It was always a model that I had wanted to own at some point.

I'm lucky to have purchased the Albion Dane sword for myself. It's expensive: on the high-end of production swords available. You get what you pay for. It's well researched and captures the details of the originals to an amazing degree, but what is more impressive is the subtle qualitative elements that it also captures. Such nuances are often missed by those not accustomed to the study of a large sample of antiques. Once they're pointed out, particularly in person with side-by-side comparisons, they are glaring and stand out clear as day.

Many people talk about being interested in historical swords. But even so, not everybody needs or is able to get the really well-researched pieces available. For those that are not able to get one, I'd try to steer them clear of the offerings that are not at all like something from history. A compromise like the Del Tin is something more reasonable to suggest, in my opinion..

[Jean-François Picard]

[Nathan Robinson]

Jean-François Picard-

Regarding the "Danish Two-hander" from DSA that you designed:

It is difficult to know by your single low-resolution two-dimensional illustration what you had in mind exactly. I would have to see larger, more detailed and three-dimensional views of an object to assess what it is. Without that, it's only guessing and assuming based on other known data. As such, I can only assume you intended your design to follow the shapes, volumes, and proportions of historical swords that share a similar visual character as your drawing.

If that is the case, then I must say that the actual sword does not represent those historical properties at all.

The biggest knock against it is for me is the proportion of the parts: hilt to blade ratio, ricasso to blade ratio, hilt to guard ratio, pommel to grip ratio, etc. etc. etc. They're all off and are very off-putting when accustomed to looking at historical swords. The pommel on the sword is an odd shape and looks more like something from a hardware store than a sword pommel. The grip, as you mentioned yourself, is circular and oddly shaped. The guard is of a shape that is frankly just wrong. There aren't historical swords of this type with that spiked flaring out down-sloping shape with a strong ecussion and the odd cross-section. The combination of features is ill-chosen. It's just weird and demonstrates a lack of exposure to the types of swords that supposedly inspired this. Then there is the blade: the proportions of it with the oddly-shaped ricasso look more inspired from fantasy movies than from the "Danish" inspiration that the namesake would indicate.

These issues are by and large not related to a price point. I'd understand a lack of details over a strange choice of oddly-combined features. I'd expect inexpensive material selection and poor finish to the various parts, but not poorly proportioned and oddly shaped parts. I'd expect a simplified version of the inspiring piece that makes choices to save money, not a complete reinterpretation of the shapes, features, proportions, sizes, etc.

Without hands-on inspection, I can only take a guess but I feel strong that the guess is a correct one: I would guess that the sword is dynamically dissimilar to a drastic degree to the historical counterparts that are supposedly its inspiration.

The above is only my opinion and it's based on judging it from a historical perspective, particularly related to the historical swords that I'm assuming are intended to inspire it. There are many other ways to judge it. That's just my vantage point. I am not a consultant to sword manufacturers. If I was, I'd have a price tag associated with such work.

PS: The name is not a pet-peeve of mine. I don't have a pet peeve about the sword. Were I to have one, the name would be low on the list after all the above issues.

[Glen A Cleeton]

The Sture sword has been topical to discussions back to the last century I don't know if the old Peter bios are out there and the development at Albion to offer a production sword. Russ, Bjorn and others paid tribute to the sword. Russ having a couple made for him while waiting for th\e Albion offering. The old pre Wisconsin pages for Albion are probably long gone but there were some great reading pages on several makers.

Gus Trim has done an XVIIIc or few. He also has had some others of this vein.

The old SFI article by Bjorn is here
http://swordforum.com/swords/historical/vasteras.html

More stuff on Bjorn's pages
http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/swords.htm

Facsimiles of swords will always disappoint in the end, one way or another. In some recent events and one saying they did what they could without the actual specifications, it shows an effort more for profit from some perceived wow factor that enables opinions of "not bad for the money". Even if cheaply made, there are some options from makers that would enable them to do a better job.

Cheers

GC