[Vincent C]

I realize this topic has been covered before, but I'd like to clarify some things in my question.

I'm looking for a comparison of Albion and Angus Trim swords from Tried and true armory, don't post your replies yet.

Previous posts for comparisons have a lot people saying something like: "albion is great and that you should go with albion". If you want to say this, and have nothing to say about A Trim swords, please don't say it. It's not constructive in any way for a comparison. I know Albion is nice, I know Angus Trim is nice, but how do they compare?

Historical accuracy is not something I'm interested in for this question, I know it isn't big on the A Trim's. I'm interested in performance, toughness, feel. Generally, of the one's you've handled, which gives you the best or favorite impression in handling and use? In dry handling, cutting exercises, and (safe) solo drills, which would you prefer?

I'm interested specifically in the two-handers or hand-and-a-halfs (cutting, thrusting, doesn't matter; I like both).

I own an Albion Ringeck already, and have handled exactly one, very old, Angus trim sword. I would like more input, as what I know and can find is somewhat limited to make a reasonable comparison.

I have an eye on tried and true's A Trim XIIa.1, so If anyone knows anything about it, I'd love to hear it.

[P. Cha]

Okay so I am gonna assume your interested in a comparison of the gus XIIa. 1 vs a XIIa of the albion line up? Because lets be honest here, we can't give a breakdown of how every atrim feels different from every albion as that post will be a book about 600 pages long. Generally speaking, albions have better fittings, although Tom from tried and true is making some great strides with the gus swords. The albions have in general a more neutral feel bias in their blades vs the gus blades...but each specific models may vary from that. The XIIa. 1 vs say the albion baron for example is the exact opposite of that general trend I mentioned. So pick a couple that your really interested in and maybe we can give you some better details of how the swords handle.

[Jeremy V. Krause]

[JE Sarge]

I own both, and I love both. In my opinion, both are fine swords. I've not had much of a problem out of either.

I would say handle as many ATrims and Albions as possible, then purchase what you like best.

[Glen A Cleeton]

My own eposure to both sources are limited (by some standards) but one pair I revisit every year with a friend is my ATrim1319 8" grip vs an Albion Baron with a slightly shorter grip. Stylistically and visually, their similarity is apparent but they both have handling characteristics that differ and may favor one or the other. The Atrim is a lighter sword but the point a bit stiffer than the Baron. The Baron is a little more nose heavy but tips the cutting scale just a smidge. Having had the publlc handling both, the comment on the Baron is "Wow, that's really nice" and when they pick up the ATrim in the same manner, it is "oh my god that's unreal". Now, these are just two XIIas that are basically the same length but quite different static and flourishing dynamics.

Despite the multitudes of offerings from Albion, they are a bit shy of many varieties of XIIa swords, vs all the models of XIIa Gus has come up with. At the same time, I could really enjoy (given the opportunity) playing with the entire Albion line but more particularly their stable of XVa models. See, there is where I would have to answer neither if I were to regard which swords I like for drill and general handling. I have an A&A Black Prince and a Del Tin 5157 that I really do like for solo drills and handling (not a great deal of that in recent years.

I think you have probably answered your own question in raising the difference in price between the two, unless you are looking at a tricked out ATrim. I will say that Gus himself liked my 1319, it was a shop sword being used as a test bed for 8" grips. The standard grip fo that model in 2003 was a nine inch grip but later on Gus mentioned that if he was going to revive the 1319 model, he would do an eight inch grip.

Some have felt the overall Albion line of longer swords is a little lacking in the grip length for some of the models and that the grips tend to be a bit skinny. To me, any sword I pick up becomes more a matter of dealing with a tool the best I am able to. I may prefer one ratchet handle to another, a different tape measure than a Stanley. A Bosch screw gun vs a Milwaukee. On and on.

Gus has had something like a dozen popular XIIa models over the years and as long as he still has the programs, they could be made.

A shot of my 1319 below next to an older Gus XIIIa and the Del Tin 5157 Another with the finish difference 1999/2000 and 2003. From what I have seen of Gus' stuff. The grinds can still vary by the amount of finish time put into them.

Cheers

GC

[Matthew P. Adams]

I hope this isn't a derail but if anyone has experience comparing the handling of Gus's 1403 to a Fiore/ Ringneck/ Agincourt I would like to hear that. Actually photos of the tips would be appreciated also.

[Glen A Cleeton]

The 1403 (XVA) has always looked awesome to me. Wasn't the 1403 thick stock?

Cheers

GC

[Neil Langley]

Vincent, I have an ATrim XIIa.2 (via Christian Fletcher, it has an 8" grip) which is a great looking sword, very fast and responsive to handle and a very fine cutter indeed (arguably it lacks a little blade presence for a XIIa, I have no problem with it, but the XII.a.1 should address this anyway as it is quite a bit heavier). The part of the XIIa.2 beyond the end of the fuller is slightly hexagonal in section and this makes it quite stiff towards the tip despite a substantial distal taper and, looking at the photos, I think the XIIa.1 is similar in this respect - which bodes well.

All of Gus's swords I own are well built (if not totally cosmetically perfect) and reliable as well as great performers - if you want real value for money in a sword you can handle and cut with all day long, I would say you can't go wrong with an ATrim.

Neil.

[Luka Borscak]

ATrims are probably best performing swords on the market and while historically there were original swords as good as them, they were rare. So if one would handle only ATrim swords out of all modern made swords, and then surviving originals, one might be disappointed with the handling of most of the originals. Albions are maybe closer to what typical sword would be back than. This is just my guess and conclusion from what I have read about both Albions and ATrims and may not be true since I have not handled any of them.

[Addison C. de Lisle]

This may be slightly off-topic, but it's been in the back of my mind for a while. Whenever people compare Albion and Angus Trim swords, statements like "AT swords are about performance while Albion swords are about historical accuracy" usually come up. But I have to wonder if this is really a fair statement; to me it sort of sounds like "AT swords work and Albion's look good".

To me this statement seems incomplete or inaccurate. If Albion is renowned for historical accuracy, how can they *not* be about performance? On the other hand, how can an Angus Trim sword be about performance if it they aren't about historical accuracy? I don't ask this to be offensive; it just doesn't make sense to me. The sword is a historical weapon, and every design has a historical context. Today swords are obsolete, and therefore have no context as weapons and therefore no context by which to be based on "performance" other than how well they cut. On the other hand, Albion swords are designed from historical swords, and by extension designed while swords were still used.

With this in mind maybe a more accurate way of putting it would be "Albion swords are desiged with historical performance in mind, while Angus Trim swords are designed with cutting performance in mind".

Again, this is not to be offensive, it's just been bugging me. I'm sure Angus Trim swords are great and someday I'd like to own one.

[Chad Arnow]

Addison hits the nail on the head. Looks and performance don't need to be separated out as mutually exclusive goals. The shapes used in hilt fittings and blades, the proportions overall, and the blade's tapers/cross-section(s)/etc. all play into handling. If you're hitting historical looks in three dimensions, historical handling should follow. If you're not hitting all three dimensions with enough precision, things change.

Think about pommels. Many wheel pommels (especially during the era of mail) and many brazil nuts are thicker at their base (more weight on the grip end). Some of that may be due to compression/deformation when drifting/piercing the pommel for the tang, but at least some of it seems to be by design. Combine that with other factors and it should serve to help push the POB where it needs to be on a cut-oriented sword.

Ever wonder why you usually don't find scent stoppers and fishtails on heavy cutting swords? Those forms have more weight on the end that's away from the grip, which should (along with other factors) help pull the POB back a bit and/or distribute the mass properly for swords more designed for the thrust. So those shapes help put mass where it needs to be. Nail those shapes and proportions and you'll be on your way toward appropriate handling. That's just a more obvious example, but all the subtle shapes play parts that often go beyond the visual.

Looks and handling go together much more than people often assume.

[Nathan Robinson]

Addison, I agree with you and believe your post is an extremely reasonable interpretation of the situation.

Thank you.

[Bryan W.]

I'm still waiting for the day when someone puts up some sort of "sword obstacle course" that would include someone running around, chopping targets, blocking (probably blunt) attacks for five minutes to actually "measure performance". Now that would be an interesting thing to actually compare function, see how the edges hold up, how tough it is to maneuver over time and how well does it cut/pierce and not break rather than destruction tests like hitting oil drums and tree branches.

If only we could get buy-in from the major names in the business willing to each put up a similar type of sword and see how it goes so someone can get "Winner of the myArmoury 2013 Overall Performance Test", "Best Under X Price Point", "Best Cutting Ability", "Best Armor Piercing" etc etc.....

(EDIT: Of course I wouldn't want to be the insurance guy having to listen to why someone is running around with a sharp sword....didn't we learn not to run with scissors?)

[Glen A Cleeton]

[D. S. Smith]

[Luka Borscak]

[Paul Hansen]

[Vincent C]

Your responses so far have been quite interesting.

I would like to say that my asking for a comparison wasn't asking if one was better than the other, I wanted to get a better picture of both companies and their respective swords to help influence my next purchase decision.

I agree that each maker makes their swords extremely well for their intended purpose, and in that purpose they are absolutely brilliant.

I agree with what Adison said, but with a slight tweek. They both are designed with historic handling in mind (is it a sword?) but the methods they do so may be different.

The Oakeshott classification is a good way to categorize sword blades, but if you look at historical swords as a whole, you'll find that very many exist as not fully part of one type. Albion from what I can tell picks swords that exist within one of the classifications as an exemplar of it, finds it's subtleties and recreates them with the same precision their previous smiths used to create these wonders. Angus Trim from what I see, looks at something he wants the sword to do, sees a few historical examples of swords with similar function, tinkers with the design, and eventually comes out with something that works beautifully to his specification.

One looks at the works of old smiths and recreates them precisely, one looks at the works old smiths and tinkers with them intently. Either way, you get the same end result, with different subtlety in how they feel as they go about their function.

My intent when starting this post was to find what people thought of these subtle differences, not to poke at peoples preferences and say they look funny. I'm sorry if it came across as a "which is better" post, because that wasn't my intent.

These are my thoughts after reading the posts, and from previous sources of information. I ordered the XIIa.1 simply because I'm now gleefully curious about what its handling capabilities are, and I know it's going to feel amazing doing so. (I'm not stress testing it, just technique and cutting/thrusting mediums)

These are my thoughts on subject now. Your responses have been great, thank you.

[Taylor Ellis]

I've owned several Atrim and Albion longswords. I recognise that each meets certain consumer needs and both a perfectly valid choices etc etc. Personally I prefer Albions, simply because I feel that Peter Johnsson is the best designer of medieval European styled swords in the world, bar none. No one else captures the medieval aesthetic like Peter. Albion obtaining his services is the equivalent of Bugei bringing in Yoshindo Yoshihara to design their swords.
I like my Atrims, but they, in my opinion, aren't in the same league. My 1323 cuts bottles like a demon, but in a life or death situation I'd prefer my Talhoffer (which doesn't cut bottles that well at all).

[Vincent C]