Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Albion's standard of specs for Museum Line swords Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Sun 18 Mar, 2012 4:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

J.D. Crawford wrote:
TI don't think such variations are a big deal on their NG line, since these are mostly generic designs rather than replicas. However, I do think the web-site should be updated if there are any systematic changes like the story described above. This influences customer purchasing patterns.


I agree with both points expressed above.

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Paul Hansen




Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Likes: 5 pages

Posts: 845

PostPosted: Mon 19 Mar, 2012 12:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

J.D. Crawford wrote:
I don't think such variations are a big deal on their NG line, since these are mostly generic designs rather than replicas. However, I do think the web-site should be updated if there are any systematic changes like the story described above. This influences customer purchasing patterns.


I agree with the second part, but about the first part, there surely must be limits on variation?

If I read here about a sword that is 7oz (200g) lighter then published (2 lbs 13 oz (1.275 kg)), that does worry me, especially given the selling price.

The easiest solution for Albion is to just publish the tolerances. Personally I could maybe accept up to 50g or so... Perhaps a bit more from a low-end custom maker and a bit less from a high-end "manufacturer".

Especially from a maker like Albion, which basically offers (very) high-end series production, I would not expect such variations.
View user's profile Send private message
Jeremy V. Krause




Location: Buffalo, NY.
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,717

PostPosted: Mon 19 Mar, 2012 1:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Paul Hansen wrote:
J.D. Crawford wrote:
I don't think such variations are a big deal on their NG line, since these are mostly generic designs rather than replicas. However, I do think the web-site should be updated if there are any systematic changes like the story described above. This influences customer purchasing patterns.


I agree with the second part, but about the first part, there surely must be limits on variation?

If I read here about a sword that is 7oz (200g) lighter then published (2 lbs 13 oz (1.275 kg)), that does worry me, especially given the selling price.

The easiest solution for Albion is to just publish the tolerances. Personally I could maybe accept up to 50g or so... Perhaps a bit more from a low-end custom maker and a bit less from a high-end "manufacturer".

Especially from a maker like Albion, which basically offers (very) high-end series production, I would not expect such variations.


If possible, I would rather keep this thread focussed on the OP which concerns the ML swords and the specific philosophical aim of that line as it relates to variance. Bringing the NGs into the mix simply muddy's the waters here.

Perhaps a seperate thread would be appropriate to discuss the larger issue of variance in Albion swords and/or in all venders ..
View user's profile Send private message
Paul Hansen




Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Likes: 5 pages

Posts: 845

PostPosted: Mon 19 Mar, 2012 3:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Good point and sorry for going slightly off-topic.

But to the question you raise in your original post:
Quote:
Now, this question of "variance" led me to think about what levels of variance would be acceptable in a Museum Line sword versus a Next Generation model.

the best and obvious solution is for Albion to list their tolerances for the different lines. This would also help to prevent disappointment as in the other thread which I did not reply on because it deals with a specific case.

The nature of a Museum Line sword is stated on Albion's site:
Quote:
Exacting Re-creations of Significant Museum Original Swords

And also in various places on the ML web page...
View user's profile Send private message
Jeremy V. Krause




Location: Buffalo, NY.
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,717

PostPosted: Mon 19 Mar, 2012 4:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Paul Hansen wrote:
Good point and sorry for going slightly off-topic.

But to the question you raise in your original post:
Quote:
Now, this question of "variance" led me to think about what levels of variance would be acceptable in a Museum Line sword versus a Next Generation model.

the best and obvious solution is for Albion to list their tolerances for the different lines. This would also help to prevent disappointment as in the other thread which I did not reply on because it deals with a specific case.

The nature of a Museum Line sword is stated on Albion's site:
Quote:
Exacting Re-creations of Significant Museum Original Swords

And also in various places on the ML web page...


I guess "exacting re-creations" is a subjective term that may be defined differently both by Albion who uses the descriptor and by those customers who receive ML swords.

I should say that I am very, very happy with every Albion sword I own, including my ML Solingen, and have appreciated every model I have handled. I do not post to "stir the pot" as that is not my style, but neither am I one to consider hurt feelings or worry about how my posts may be received as they are made in good faith. I simply seek information and discussion and such is the purpose of MyAmoury so.. I simply don't bring high emotionality to my A&A hobby- it's one of the few facets of my life which is fairly devoid of stress. I leave my "spicy" posts for other internet discussion forums. Happy

But, to me IF, and this is only and "if" a Museum Line sword happens to be off a complete cm. or off 6oz.+ it has ceased to be an "exacting re-creation," of an historic specimen. This is my opinion

Listing tolerances is an interesting idea. Would it work? I don't know.
View user's profile Send private message
Paul Hansen




Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Likes: 5 pages

Posts: 845

PostPosted: Mon 19 Mar, 2012 5:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jeremy V. Krause wrote:
I guess "exacting re-creations" is a subjective term that may be defined differently both by Albion who uses the descriptor and by those customers who receive ML swords.


It is somewhat subjective, but given Albion's and Peter Johnson's well known and widely appreciated focus on historical accuracy and high quality, I would expect such a sword to come pretty close to the original. Also the text on the ML page stresses accurate manufacturing:
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/swords-museum.htm

Quote:
Each museum piece is recreated in an exacting fashion, down to every last conceivable detail


Quote:
In both cases the final quality is a direct result of the awareness of shape and dimensions as well as the control of the process. To use the potential of the CNC machine in blade production means that the skill and insights of the smith are translated to the program guiding the milling process. If the milled blank is incorporating the important details and proportions that are shaped during the forging, a high degree of consistency is possible while keeping the final swords very close to the characteristics of a forged blade (and the originals that are being reproduced).


Etc.

Secondly, if we are talking about hard specifications, such as length, weight, POB and COG, then these can be accurately measured. If they can be measured, then one can establish clear tolerances which are easy to understand for all involved. Other aspects of quality, such as waviness of fullers, edge sharpness etc. are perhaps more subjective and difficult to describe, although that is also not impossible.

Wording such as on the ML page indicates to me that these swords are (should be) made to very close tolerances, at least as far as measurable.

I have to say that I would really appreciate the thoughts of Albion themselves on this matter. Some of the responses in this thread and the other do worry me a bit.
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Tue 20 Mar, 2012 9:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Albion will still be the best source for what variability they consider acceptable.

Here are some examples of discrepancies (or not) from spec:

Solingen: our review has slightly different specs than Albion's website. The balance point is different by a 1/4 inch and some other specs vary a slight bit. Pretty close, though. Russ's review on Tritonworks.com has some slightly different stats, including POB, COP, and weight (3 lbs 8 oz = Albion, 3.8 pounds = Russ; one wonders whether he typed something wrong).

Brescia: our review lists the OL as 1 inch shorter than Albion's site. Whether one is a typo, I don't know. The Tritonworks review has slightly different blade and overall lengths; it also lists it as slightly heavier (3.25 pounds on Albion's site, 3.4 on Russ's).

Turin St. Maurice: Their specs match our review pretty closely, within what I consider acceptable tolerances given rounding/ measurement conversions, etc.

Tritonia: Our review lists the weight as 3 ounces more than Albion lists. The COP is an inch different between the two. Russ's review has some differences in its stats, too.

Svante: A forum member named Patrick J. once exchanged his Svante because the POB did not match spec. I don't remember how far off it was, as it's been years since it happened. Marc Ridgeway's recent Svante review has the POB and COP different from Albion's (3.4 vs. 2.125 and 21" vs. 18" respectively). The review on Tritonworks.com has the POB at 3.25. That review's weight is .3 pounds higher than any of the rest of them.

It's possible some of these discrepancies are differences in scale accuracy, where someone measures something, issues converting measurements, and/or plain old typos.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Albion's standard of specs for Museum Line swords
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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