[Joe Fults]

This post and many of its responses were originally contained within A Topic discussing the Crecy Grete Swerde. I felt that they were off-topic to that post and significantly interesting on their own merits to warrant them being split into their own topic discussing the definition of "performance" as it pertains to modern-made swords. -- Nathan Robinson


I'm torn over this post, especially since I'm going off topic, but I've seen something mentioned now a couple times in this thread that just bugs me as a collector and annoys me as a novice practitioner. Sometimes you just get full for whatever reason, and full am I. So...

...RANT ON:

Some people seem think that a particular brand pushes the performance envelope more than any others. I keep seeing it again and again, on this forum and others, and frankly I think its bunk. First of all, performance in what? Cutting rice mats? Bottles? Pool noodles? Milk jugs? Produce?

Sure some swords will work better than others at a given application, but individual technique and the intent of a specific design play a much bigger factor than brand. Want to cut great? IMO try the Duke. Its designed to cut and is the best cutting sword that I HAVE USED SO FAR. Want to compare it with the "performance" brand. Well IMO it outcuts everything from the other vendor that I HAVE EVER USED.

Sounds like a really impressive and unilateral declaration but it really doesn't mean a whole lot.

Why you ask?

Because, the only sword I've cut with from the other brand is the Redeemer. What seperates it and the Duke in performance is the intent of the DESIGN NOT THE BRAND. One is a two handed 13th century pure cutter. The other a fantasy cut and thrust designed to achieve a specific appearance while minimizing the sacrifice of performance. One is pure longsword/warsword which works with my training. The other; not quite a single, not quite a double, not quite a bastard. Grip is too long for single hand, blade is too short for two hand. What does this prove regarding brand A and brand B? NOTHING except that I haven't cut with much from one maker and I've practiced more with longswords.

Swords were designed to cut flesh and bone. While the rest of this cutting stuff is fun, unilateral statements about performance are at best subjective opinion (often based on experience with a small sample or conjecture) and at worst pure hype. Until we find a way to test these things against human targets, declaring a performance king is IMO a futile and pointless exercise. Besides the idea that modern man is somehow expanding and improving the performance of something our ancestors DID field test with lives on the line seems patently absurd to me.

RANT off!

I really hope I don't regret this post tomorrow or even later today. Unfortunately my annoyance overcame my discression.

[Nathan Robinson]

You're right, Joe. Your post was off-topic to this topic, but.. it's an important point and I thank you for posting it. I've found less unilateral opinions expressed out of context on this site than other sites and I'm glad of it.This entire topic, the off-topic part, would make for a great new topic. (Now that's an interesting sentence!) The bottom line for me is this: People need to couch their opinions in the proper context, often including a disclaimer describing the conditions for their statement. It's absurd--no, it's virtually meaningless--when this is forgotten.

I'd sort of like to see this de-railed part of the topic go into another topic describing the proper way to define "performance swords", explaining modern martial arts, modern hobby cutting practice, historical warfare, historical sport and tournament, historical martials arts, use- and target-specific sword designs, etc. etc.

[Patrick Kelly]

I couldn't agree more Joe, and that's a point that we've been trying to get across for some time. It's all about context and application. When you forget about agendas and product sales (which is what most of this issue really is) and really study the sword from a standpoint of design and *intended* use, you find there really isn't a winner that stands out above everything else. Brand X may cut into Target A better than Brand Y, but what does that really tell us? Nothing really except that Brand X works better within that narrow set of parameters. It tells us even less when many of these supposed proof tests have no bearing on any kind of real-world application.

One very large factor that we tend to forget is emotion. There is so much emotion wrapped up into this hobby with makers and buyers both. This really becomes clear when you deal with the hobby on a professional basis, even in the limited way that we do in running this website. People tend to let their emotions and egos take the lead over logic and reason. A sword just isn't a sword, it's *my* sword. Consequently it's important for me on an emotional level to have people acknowledge that *my* sword is the *best*. You notice I said "to have people acknowledge", that's an important point because it deals with our inner desire for recognition. That's a very large part of the human psyche. The same thing applies with sword makers as well. They're driven by ego and that desire for recognition just like the rest of us. I've done reviews that were over-all very positive but with maybe one negative comment. The feedback I'll receive will focus on that one negative point as if the gist of the review never existed. This is because the ego has been bruised and logic has left the building.

Sword buyers also have a fanatical loyalty to their maker of choice. Maker X is the best because he's "my guy". we see this all the way from the mid-range production maker all the way up to the master craftsman of the custom world. We invest a lot of emotional attachment in these sharp and pointy things. Buying a sword often becomes more of a personal experience rather than a simple business transaction.

Almost none of this issue depends upon hard facts and logic. Almost all of it revolves around emotion and ego.

[James A. Vargscarr]

Hi Joe,

I'm thinking my comments might have been something of a catalyst for your post. That, or the issue you discuss is the cause of ignorance on my part. I certainly wasn't trying to post another 'Albion vs ATrim' diatribe, and I apologise if it came across as that. Rather, I was attempting to discuss differences between the two brands as I understood them; pertaining to the design philosophy of each.

Yes, I have seen AT swords hyped as 'performance' weapons. I try not to pay too much attention to hype. But I have often read Gus's posts in which he talks about 'increasing the performance of model X', 'improving the handling of blade Y' etc, and that philosophy seems unique in the European production sword market. As you said, whether this translates to a sword which 'performs better' than another of similar type in the hands of a given user; and what that even means, is another matter.

[Joe Fults]

James,

Don't overworry the matter.

Like I said, sometimes one gets full and sometimes it has little to do with the matter or discussion at hand.

My moment on the peachbox was really directed at the legion of brand-o-philes out there who are constantly spouting X is better than Y analysis based on dubious or irrelevant criteria. I've been seeing it for several years and I guess I'm finally reaching the point where I believe we can all collectively do better in our discussions. We need to remember that it is very easy to speak with authority and experience we don't really have in this medium unless we clarify our claims. It is something I've been trying to be very careful of myself recently.

[Nathan Robinson]

[Sam Barris]

The last few posts bring up a rather interesting philosophical question. What exactly is the role of the modern bladesmith? Is their purpose to try to surpass the weapons of the past by using innovative designs, more sophisticated tools and a deeper understanding of metallurgy, or is it to faithfully recreate the weapons that our ancestors actually used and depended on in battle?

Personally, I tend towards the history side of the fence. Obviously our ancestors would have improved their own designs whenever possible, and they probably would have killed to use some of the metals we have at our disposal, but since swords have long since ceased to be battlefield weapons, and many of the new styles of blades are never tested on anything more dangerous than rolls of tatami, how can we ever know that what we invent is truly an improvement? Perhaps in the artificial environment that we train in, we are actually drifting farther away from the reality of those who fought with these weapons for life and honor, much as modern sport fencing has drifted away from the tools and techniques of the rapier duel.

I might be a bit of a hypocrite here. I'm planning on buying a katana from Bugei made from Swedish powdered steel as soon as I'm settled in the U.S. again, but there are still very clear limits as to how much I'm willing to depart from a historical design. In the end, I think that our ancestors knew far better than we realistically can about what weapons and tactics worked on the battlefield and what didn't. Sometimes our innovation actually validates what they knew from experience.

Thoughts?

[Nathan Robinson]

I think both roles are equally valid as long as the products are marketed appropriately and the consumer is versed in what he/she is purchasing. There's a market for everything and each consumer's needs are different, which is why we each have the responsibility to discuss these types of things while couching our conversations within the proper context.

[Patrick Kelly]

You raise a very valid point Sam.

I tend to be more in the historical camp. While our knowledge of metallurgy is more advanced, I don't think we could tell the ancients squat about design development and application. Swords were used as a main battlefield weapon for over two thousand years. Any design kinks were undoubtedly worked out within that time span. IMHO makers who claim to be creating improved designs are simply re-inventing the wheel by the process of reverse engineering. The only difference is that their mistakes aren't readily apparent since swords are no longer used in earnest.

That being said, I'm all for experimentation and interpretation for it's own sake. It increases everyone's knowledge in the long term. As long as the product is correctly represented and placed within the appropriate context I think it's all good.

[James A. Vargscarr]

[Sam Barris]

James,

Wow. Very well put. I have a new appreciation for my dress saber.

[Angus Trim]

I've been following this thread with some interest, since it got hijacked and things like "performance" became the topic....

I think there's a bit of a danger here in putting two good companies in "boxes" if you will, that neither rightly fits in. Very simply, both Albion and myself make the best damn swords we can, with the tools we have, the specs we have, varying somewhat in interpretation......

I don't have nearly as large a library of specs and sketches as Peter J does, nor as detailed on average, but I do have one. I also have been studying harmonics {or nodes} and dynamic balance nearly as long as Michael Tinker Pearce, and as long as Peter Johnson. Matter of fact, I'm the individual that first pointed out to both of them the multinodes in the hilt region, and mentioned a bit of what I feel on the importance of them.......

At one point we shared information.....

Today we've gone in somewhat different directions, but we both follow historically accurate principles in swordmaking, in such details as edge geometry, profile taper, distal taper, node placement, handling, and cutting performance.

The danger I mentioned earlier, in its extreme, is that Albion is making historically correct swords that don't cut that well, and AT is making swords that cut well and perform better than the orgininals.... I say hogwash to both.......

My guess is that if Albion and I were to offer up each a similar sword for comparison cutting, handling, and durability, that the results would be remarkably similar...... This is an apples to apples comparison. But there are not many apples to apples comparisons. The models made by Albion and AT do not "match up" very well as a lot of what I offer Albion does not, and what Albion offers, I do not. Ohh yeah, maybe models of similar Oakeshott classification at times, but you'll find that they mass differently, or were designed for different period requirements. Thus, not really apples and apples......

In my view the biggest differences are price points, the way the hilts are constructed {somewhat driven by price point in my case}, and the differing views that PJ and I have as sword designers. You'll find however, that both PJ and I have more similarities in sword design when function is considered, than differences.... if you go back several years, and come forward to the present, you'll see that we have written similar things when it comes to node philosophy, and dynamic balance, but we've written them in somewhat differing language, the kind of language difference you'll see in a highly educated European who is quite versed in English, and a Northwestern country guy known for cutting corners in language......

Another difference we have today, is our marketing. Albion may stress historical accuracy more, and I may stress performance more, but that doesn't mean that Albion {Peter Johnson, sword designer} doesn't understand "high performance" issues in sword design, nor does it mean that the dumb Irish country guy in the NW is ignorant of historical principals in sword design......

Yes, I use the term "high performance" sword. But that is in comparison to swords that were available on the market 5 years ago, not in relation to what you can get from Arms and Armor today, or Albion today. Frankly, I consider what they make, "high performance swords" too. The principles I make my swords to are familiar to both Craig Johnson, and Peter Johnsson, the main difference between us is I'm the better looking individual....*g* {and I'm the only one not named Johnson}

On a side note, go back two years at WMAW at Racine, and the swords that Tinker brought, the swords Craig Johnson brought, the three prototypes that PJ brought, and the stuff I brought all sported very similar edge geometries. It was remarked upon at the time, by more than one practitioner who viewed and handled pieces from all of the above....

Are there differences in edge geometries today? Yep, actually discussed this with Craig today to a minor degree. It has to do with the individual sword, and the sword's "period mission", more than the manufacturer though. A 3.5lb warsword for instance, is likely to have a more robust edge geometry, than a 2lb riding sword, no matter which of the three of us make it...........

In closing, I'd like to mention that its not always the sword's fault when a sword won't cut a given target. I have seen folks here {at the shop} fail to cut 2 liter bottles for instance, and when the sword was in another person's hands, the sword did just fine, cutting pickle chips easily. Quite often the problem is the sword operator, sometimes something as simple as the sword and operator just haven't "bonded" well enough for the operator to keep the edge alignment, or get the sword up to optimum velocity.........

Auld Dawg

PS

I don't know where this stuff comes from that I'm trying to better the designs of the medieval swordsmiths. What I'm trying to do is replicate the performance and handling they accomplished to the best of my ability, not better...... I can't see how one can better some of the masterful things they accomplished back then.......

[Nathan Robinson]

[Patrick Kelly]

Gus,

First; I think you're getting a bit defensive with some of your remarks when there's no need. While this did seem to be an Atrim v. Albion thread initially I think it's moved way beyond that. As for this remark: "I don't know where this stuff comes from that I'm trying to better the designs of the medieval swordsmiths." If this is rebutal to my comment of: "IMHO makers who claim to be creating improved designs are simply re-inventing the wheel by the process of reverse engineering." this wasn't directed at you. I think we can both think of a few makers who've made such claims. I've never said that you were one of them. This is certainly not a Atrim v. Albion thread, if it was it wouldn't be here.

Second; I think the gist of your post is right on the money. It's exactly what we've been talking about, putting products and philosophies in their proper context. Putting any product or maker of same into a rigid "box" is a bit of a slippery slope to be sure. I also completely agree with you on the perceived cutting performance issue. I strongly feel that 99% of the time unsatisfactory cutting performance is an operator error issue not one of design. You've mentioned three specific makers in your post. IMHO if you can't cut successfully using a sword made by any of them then you simply need more practice.

Still waiting on that review sword

[Patrick Kelly]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Scott Byler]

I think James pretty well covered my view of this 'sword hobby'. I think there is a lot of room for all sorts as long as it is honestly represented. As an artist and newbie smith myself, I have both historical and fantastical leanings, and probably a wide range in between there. Whatever the interest, though, no one will ever hear me claim to outdo the ancient smiths in the art. But, I can hope to achieve something like what they did, if I work at it. Perhaps a high goal, but not impossible, I think... If nothing else, a high goal to reach theoretically would drive me to perform better in the craft.....

[Patrick Kelly]

[Joe Fults]

The thread certainly ended up being interesting.

And to think it all started with me blowing a gasket.

Along the way I hope that people catch the point that I'm not qualified to speak authoritatively on brand performance (or even general performance) and most of the folks out there spouting off about brand vs. brand performance are not qualified to speak to it either. I'm trying to be different by making sure to explain context and set expectations when I spout. However, I'm also engaging in a little recreational belly-aching along the way.

[Bill Grandy]