[Addison C. de Lisle]

[Paul Hansen]

[Taylor Ellis]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Vincent C]

[P. Cha]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

How well does a sword cut a bottle? How well does it cut a tatami mat? How light is the blade? These are all modern questions that have little to do with the historical principles that go into deciding what is a "good" weapon. Most modern swords are designed to mimic historical sword designs in either form or function, including both Albions and ATrims. In the modern era, very few of us (even as hardcore enthusiasts) understand exactly why such weapons were particularly useful in their historical settings. I see users here all the time favoring 12th century blades or 15th century blades or 18th century sabers due to personal opinion, but none of us have ever had to whack someone in a 12th, 15th or 18th century battlefield during a life or death situation. Our favoritism is always incredibly biased by aesthetic motivations. We've never ripped through mail and plate with a blade, or charged in a cavalry formation or anything of the like. Our understanding of all of these weapons are limited and anachronistic.

Knowing the variety of ideals that come and go among collectors across this forum and others, I'm sure that the best answer to this question will always be an individual answer based upon experience. As twenty first century enthusiasts, we have no premise upon which to base our ideals regarding such a variety of weaponry. The functionality of a weapon which is no longer useful in combat is as likely to slip past our intellect as it would be if you handed the weapon to someone whose era it did not come from. What good would a viking do with a 17th century rapier when he had to battle through mail and round shields made of thick linden or pine? He'd scoff, while a 17th century man may well consider the viking's weapon clumsy and poor in the advanced swordplay of his time.

Check out the swords you like. Ask friends to ship them to you, buy them and return them if you must. Find out what you consider to be the most functional or pleasing in one way or another through your own experiences. Otherwise, it's all opinion - we have no modern perspective upon which to gauge the functionality of an outdated weapon. Our survival does not rely upon these weapons, and as that is their sole purpose in being created, we can never understand their true values.

-Gregory

[Taylor Ellis]

[P. Cha]

[Taylor Ellis]

[Michael Edelson]

Angus Trim makes (used to make?) swords that are light, feel good in the hands of a modern person who likes light and well balanced swords (which many, many historical swords were not) and perform very well against modern cutting media, like pool noodles and plastic water bottles.

A very good example of this was the awful Atrim XVa (forgot model number). It had a wide blade and a very fat tip, making it completely useless against mail but it did cut those pool noodles better than an Albion XVa.

There are some Atrims that are superb swords. The Phat Bastard is a phenomenal cutting sword.

The edges that come (used to come?) on Atrims are simple ground on edges and need work if you're going to use them on tatami or cloth wrapped meat.


Albion makes swords based on Peter Johnsson's research. Which means they are based on historical swords that are designed for historical performance (people, mail armor (as in pierce, not cut), etc.). Some of them also work great on pool noodles and plastic water filled bottles, but that's not what they're made for.

Albion swords look like historical swords and they feel like historical swords. If you aged one well and stuck it in a museum even a curator may have a hard time figuring out it wasn't an original without close inspection.

In terms of historical performance (defeating textile armor, piercing mail, cutting meat and bone wrapped in cloth (person in clothing)) Albion's performance, by and large, is superior. As you would expect considering that they are based on historical swords. For pool noodles and plastic bottles, Atrim performance, by and large, is superior.

The best cutting Western sword I've ever used (against tatami, multi-layer linen jacks and other realistic simulators) is an Albion. The second best is an Albion. The third best is an Atrim.

[Paul Hansen]

[Michael Edelson]

[Taylor Ellis]

[Michael Edelson]

[Taylor Ellis]

[Glen A Cleeton]

It is not so much a matter of raising up the dead of recollection but remembering what was said when, and what has changed since. Here is Michael on the Talhoffer and early cutting impressions.
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.p...ng-results

I am sure a lot of cutting threads have come along since and iirc, some feel that when having to push cutting with a specific sword goes beyond "natural" and "in the style of combat", these techniques no linger reflect WMA in the best light. However, threads can be found of debates about mail and helmet cutting that predate later experiences and arguing efficiency of blades in unrealistic circumstance. Not just these early remarks by some and the 'You got branches in my sword testing" when John Clement over-revved the early Albion Talhoffer are all still out there somewhere.

As to edges, there are a few of those threads out there as well and some will point out that the very tight grinds of Gus' swords with secondary bevels which will blend/polish to being invisible are really not that far a stretch from A&A or Albion edges. Even my very old XIIIa from Gus which was bevel sharpened by Jason Dingledine was a good bit more obtuse, as having originally sent to shops blunt by Gus (Lee Reeves, Albion, et al). I have not been cutting the past few years but I was pulling off stunt cuts surpassing a katana.

How realistic is it that period swords were sharpened to the best of the best? There are varying opinions on that as well and I do know there are cutting and sharpening threads here with Gus and Peter writing their thoughts about this with actually little contention.

Of my own observation over time; I have seen point issues surface on more issues than just Albion and adjustments made to make for tougher points on such as the Talhoffer (see, read John Clements evaluations at ARMA). One could add to the comparison bucket that Albion swords are the premium standard of history as new and that superficial secondary bevels might better relate worn swords. My A&A BP will scrape air off my arm, so I know it is pretty sharp but I also know it is a sword I only cut mats with in a "told you so" manner and after practicing. On other elements though, I mentioned earlier in this thread (iirc) that the wellington stuffed with a 2-litre of .50 lead balls was cause for me to almost immediately adjust technique when comparing my Gus XIIIa vs the A&A BP. I gues I should drag it out of the corner and show pictures but after adjust my own cast in cutting, near as much physical cut and depth was reached with the BP. Yes, The XIIIa required less thought (familiarity?) but that blow was not a great deal deeper into the mass.

At any rate, Peter and Albion adjusted the points of the XVAs a bit due to JC bending a point. The needly points may still be an issue but it is no different than a crisp new knife point.

If I still have the gist of the original post in this thread, there may not have been a true apples to apples comparison asked but rather what to expect from both camps. I don't think there is any question amongst the tenured that Albion is a step above on many levels but that Gus had filled a void for quite a few years as manufacturing on the production level for "neat swords" at obtainable prices for many. Gus never set out to compete with Albion or A&A, so it is always amusing to me to read the dozens/hundreds of "are they worth it" threads. Since I have moved primarily to period swords of the past centuries, my feelings are perhaps a bit ambiguous but the real partisan stands by many I see over the years have been partly the cause of those thoughts. Spend what you can on stuff you like. That, is as simply objective as I can be on boards these days because so many have changed a lot of opinion over the years. Some doing so in the same short amount of time I went down a different road.

Our thoughts and experience (by and large) are still out there.

Oh btw, I'd love a belt grinder and a paper flap wheel for fine tuning edges (and a shop and a steel jockey). It would make sharpening up antiques a bit more fun at the stand. Polish out those minimal secondary bevels with a few strokes going in the right direction and it'll look just like an Albion or A&A edge. In the field though, I'll run what I brung or find a convenient rock.

Cheers

GC

[Michael Edelson]

Glen,

That thread speaks to the wonderful effects of formal training in martial arts a lot more than it does about the cutting qualities of swords. Five years ago I thought the point of cutting tatami was to sever a mat. So when I severed a mat relatively cleanly I was happy. When I started really learning what cutting training was about, I learned that severing a mat perfectly so that you don't percieve more than the tiniest amount of resistance was something that had to be taken for granted before you learned anything useful.

If you swing like a bad parody of Conan the Barbarian (me in 2007), the Talhoffer will do just fine against tatami. It's just not a very good sword for learning anything useful from cutting practice.

One interesting tidbit that I had forgotten but read in that old post was that I thought the Earl felt like it offered more resistance. I had no idea why back then, but of course I do now. By my current standards, the Earl was dull. Back in those days I trusted that the factory edges were wonderful magical things that were just right for the sword they were on. I didn't know how to sharpen a sword back then. Now factory edges often make me roll my eyes a bit.

In short, learning good! Perpetuating your own ignorance bad! Always learn.

[Edward Rees]

Along the lines of gaining knowledge from other than personal folly...

Does anyone have any experience with the the type XIX ATrim offered by Tried and True Armory?

[Zach Luna]