| Author |
Message |
Bruno Giordan
|
 Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 6:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
"It might be good be aware of this: the original Solingen sword is lost to us. It is the worn and rusty remains that we can see today. The only way to make a reconstruction of it is to imagine how it might have looked as new. This is a very active process. The result of it depend as much of the state of the original as the eyes and concepts of the person doing the research and reconstruction work. In some ways it is like performing a piece of ancient music that has lines and pages lost in the music score.
To do this you need to work from your experience of other swords of the same period. You need to base your work on the feel and character of these weapons as much as the data you can get from measuring and weighing. It is not an automatic and objective process. Seeing actively is as much about registering as interpreting.
Comparing the original Solingen sword as it is now, to what it was when it was new would present us with a greater difference, than is the case between individual Solingen swords in the Museum Line. "
This is true of every shining metal piece we see in museums.
They were polished many times when used, then they were abandoned for some times, in most cases: they resurfaced rusted in the last two centuries, when inexpert restorers took care of them using often rough techniques to derust and repolish them.
The original of the Brescia's spadona if seen from a short distance exhibits a good pitting, and the blade is not so symmetrical so that our thread starter would throw into garbage a blade repicating exactly such slight asymmetries.
Plus it lost some substance to rusting, not to mention resharpening in historical times.
So a reconstructor is forced to make hipothesis on the original shape even if he is handling an original that appears almost intact if seen in a net picture.
The armors of the Grazie were all repolished after having been found, only small areas retained the original texture.
Recently a document has resurfaced in the mantuan archives, showing that some were "addorate", gilt.
This addoratura, gilding, is lost forever, nonetheless so far many people have been convinced that they were seeing the armors in their original state, which is untrue.
And such armors have been the basis for most of the reconstructions of such kind of armour we see today.
When one observes the beautiful etching of most of the XVI parade armors from a brief distance, he will notice that such etchings are most often erased in the center, because of cleaning.
Hafted weapons appear shining and beautiful but when approached show pitting, so we are not seeing their original texture again.
Last edited by Bruno Giordan on Thu 09 Nov, 2006 6:22 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
 |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Peter,
I wasn't implying careless manufacture at all. Not a bit. Nor was I speaking about how examples of the same model in a line of production swords should relate to each other. My simple point was that it is possible to get straight lines and even finishes without losing character or soul. Technical perfection and character don't have to be mutually exclusive.  You can have it all.
It should go without saying, though, that it takes time to make something as technically perfect as possible, and as we know, time = money. That's why custom costs more.
You relate this to music, which I can appreciate (it's my job, after all). No one expects a musician to play something the same every time, but there is still no reason they shouldn't expect them to play it perfectly every time. You can play something perfectly (getting all the note values, pitches, and dynamics correct) and still make it different and exciting every time. There are many musical things you can do which don't affect technical perfection and vice versa. Playing something that stirs the soul and playing it correctly can, and should, go hand-in-hand. The inflections and shadings will vary, but a quarter note is still a quarter note, if that makes sense. You won't shade them the same every time, but every note needs to be the correct volume, pitch, and duration every time. As with swords, in music there are a lot of subtleties that go beyond the technical aspects.
I don't think anyone rational expects that every sword will be the exactly alike (custom or production), but they should all be made to the same standards and the important technical aspects need to be hit every time. The subtleties, etc. will change and those are what gives a weapon character in my opinion. It's the "where" and "why" of the overall variations that determine whether it's character or something else. And we all interpret that differently.
Variations of character and subtle nuances from hand-crafting are usually acceptable for most folks. Variations of the technical aspects are what people complain most about. Where's the line between a "barely botched technical aspect" and a "subtle nuance"? We each have to decide that.
Not speaking about you, of course, Peter, but there are those in this community who attribute sloppiness to hand manufacture and ask consumers to excuse it because it is "hand made." Neither of us would agree that that is correct. I don't think we're in disagreement on that. I think many people have formed the notion that technical perfection means robbing something of its character. I disagree. Technical perfection combined with character will always be more appealing than either element alone. But we don't all have the same needs or expectations or goals when it comes to balancing or defining the two elements.
To return to music analogies, some of my favorite recordings are far from perfect. They're the recordings where people really go for it, and let it all hang out, holding nothing back. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't: notes are missed, tuning is questionable, etc. But geez, they're exciting. I appreciate that they don't play conservatively and the recordings are far from boring. I love those recordings much better than many of the more technically perfect recordings on the market. But what if a group found a way to combine the energy, character & flat-out moxie of the imperfect recordings with the precision of the more technically sound recordings? Wouldn't that be even better? I submit that it's possible, but not easy. But can't we still want it all without being unreasonable?
Just my 4 pesos.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
Last edited by Chad Arnow on Thu 09 Nov, 2006 6:28 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chad,
We are in complete agreement 
Good to hear you fill in on the analogy with music, being a musician yourself.
I sing in a choir. With all the variance in between the voices of all the mebmers, we still have to aim at a harmonious whole and strive to sing in tune.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | Chad,
We are in complete agreement
Good to hear you fill in on the analogy with music, being a musician yourself.
I sing in a choir. With all the variance in between the voices of all the mebmers, we still have to aim at a harmonious whole and strive to sing in tune. |
In music or anything else, both crafter(s) and audience have to strike a mutually acceptable balance of technical needs and soul. I guess that's the bottom line.
It's fun to wax philosphical sometimes, isn't it? 
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | Chad,
We are in complete agreement
Good to hear you fill in on the analogy with music, being a musician yourself.
I sing in a choir. With all the variance in between the voices of all the members, we still have to aim at a harmonious whole and strive to sing in tune. |
I would make another analogy that if one is walking on new snow it's easy to get from here to there in a " flawless and effortless way " if one tried to do it again and again with the feet landing in the same footsteps and not changing the look of the original footsteps in any way: It will be virtually impossible to do even with the greatest of care and absolutely impossible to duplicate the ease of doing it the first time. ( One might even have trouble keeping one's balance trying to walk in one's own previous footsteps. )
Unless and until one can scan an object and replicate it to molecular or atomic scales of precision no two objects can be called identical.
It all depends how how close is defined as close enough.  At the quantum level of precision there are no identical objects that one can prove as being identical. ( Going for the most extreme example I can think of. )
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
If anybody were to ask me if the swords that I have owned have been perfectly symmetrical, even, and such, I'd not know the answer. Frankly, I have not paid attention to such things. For me, the beauty of these items are best appreciated as a whole. The overall presentation is what I value, not the finite details. We're each different.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Al Muckart
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | I think many people have formed the notion that technical perfection means robbing something of its character. I disagree. Technical perfection combined with character will always be more appealing than either element alone. But we don't all have the same needs or expectations or goals when it comes to balancing or defining the two elements. |
This is a very interesting discussion to me in the way it touches on how we perceive things.
Living in the industrialised world I think we are very used to seeing things which are perfect, or near perfect in their manufacture and which are all identical because they are made by machine. Take the body panels of a car, for example. They can be very complex shapes but they are unremarkable to us because they are slammed out by machine. We are no longer regularly exposed to the product of craftsmanship the way people of my parents' generation, or more so their parents' generation were, and this changes our perception and appreciation of material objects.
For me at least, the way I look at something changes if I know it has been made by hand. The object may still appear technically perfect, in rare cases it may even *be* technically perfect. I agree with Chad that this doesn't necessarily rob it of character, but the character of the object comes at least in part from knowing what went into creating it. Knowing that what you are looking at and, if you are lucky, holding in your hands, is the product of human skill and artistry. If you are in a position to understand even a little bit of what went into making it then that lends it a deeper character. Someone else looking at it with no appreciation for, or interest in, that kind of object or what went into creating it may see nothing remarkable about it at all. Of course, this doesn't apply only to arms and armor, it might be a lace cuff, or a shoe, or a hand-raised body panel for a car someone is restoring.
What has put me off the swords and knives I have seen pictures of which seemed too perfect was at least partly knowing that they were not that way because of the human input since they weren't nearly expensive enough for that. I also strongly suspect that the appearance wouldn't hold up when I had one in my hands, the curse of shopping for subtle and complex physical things online  \
--
Al.
http://wherearetheelves.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | If anybody were to ask me if the swords that I have owned have been perfectly symmetrical, even, and such, I'd not know the answer. Frankly, I have not paid attention to such things. For me, the beauty of these items are best appreciated as a whole. The overall presentation is what I value, not the finite details. We're each different. |
Well said Nathan, that's an excellent way to phrase it.
|
|
 |
|
Felix R.
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hmm, interesting. Not being "perfectly symmetrical" is not a very precise term. That was what I asked are there ranges of tolerance?! I assume no, as there is no ISO on this, no problem, but there is the question where "not perfectly symmetrical" ends and the thing is just out of range.
|
|
|
|
|
Bryce Felperin
Location: San Jose, CA Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 552
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix R. wrote: | | Hmm, interesting. Not being "perfectly symmetrical" is not a very precise term. That was what I asked are there ranges of tolerance?! I assume no, as there is no ISO on this, no problem, but there is the question where "not perfectly symmetrical" ends and the thing is just out of range. |
In my opinion it's entirely a "Your Mileage May Vary" type of issue. If you think that your sword is outside the range of tolerance for your happiness with it, then send it back. If not, then enjoy the sword. In the end it is all up to your preferences and perceptions, not any applied wisdom from others on this forum. Only you can really say whether or not you are happy with your sword.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Al Muckart
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Nov, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Felix,
| Felix R. wrote: | | Hmm, interesting. Not being "perfectly symmetrical" is not a very precise term. That was what I asked are there ranges of tolerance?! I assume no, as there is no ISO on this, no problem, but there is the question where "not perfectly symmetrical" ends and the thing is just out of range. |
The thread has wandered slightly away from your initial specific question, but I think what it is showing is that there are tolerances but that the ranges vary greatly from person to person and from object to object and that it ultimately comes down to whether or not you are happy with the object you have in your hand. This carries even to the point where some people will notice some things that won't even register with other observers of the same object.
As far as manufacturers go I think it is pretty safe to assume that they all have their own quality control standards, but the overriding impression I have gotten from reading posts by manufactuers on this forum is that whatever their different approaches to what they build, the ultimate quality control is whether or not their customers are happy so I will echo Peter's words and encourage you to talk to Mike at Albion about your specific case.
--
Al.
http://wherearetheelves.net
|
|
|
|
|
Felix R.
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hello, of course I contacted the seller at the same time I started this thread, so it was parallel. Yesterday I sent the sword back. And now Soren already offered me a good alternative. He is really taking care of his customers confidence. That is something not to happen that often nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
John Cooksey
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix R. wrote: | | Hello, of course I contacted the seller at the same time I started this thread, so it was parallel. Yesterday I sent the sword back. And now Soren already offered me a good alternative. He is really taking care of his customers confidence. That is something not to happen that often nowadays. |
Good show, then, if everyone ends up happy.
I guess I will still add my two drachmas worth about symmetry, tolerances, and "quality control".
I have a custom leaf-blade by a well-known smith.
This leaf-blade is not perfectly symmetrical in any of its fine details. The edges don't have the exact same curvature, and the blade edge wanders a bit, in and out of the plane. Not much, maybe a millimeter back and forth. The hilt parts are the same. They are a series of compound curves carved into hard and unforgiving materials, and they are not perfect in the symmetry when viewed from any angle. And for this sword, that is just the way I like it. The sword, taken in its whole, and not as its parts, exhibits to me a perfect symmettry of line and form, one that catches the eye, catches the breath, and begs to be held and wielded. In hand, it is utter perfection for its intended job.
Not for this sword card-board tubes or water filled plastic jugs . . . Nay, it is a shield-splitter, a helmet-cleaver, a limb-reaper, and a life-reaver.
I could not be happier with the weapon.
Everyone who sees this sword wants to hold it, and those swordsmen who hold it tend to get dreamy-eyed visions of sundry gods watching over their deeds on ancient battlefields lost to the mists of time. I have two good friends who are now Kali guros, and all that one can say about it is, "Crom!!! . . . . "
If I had to go into battle with a sword, this is the one I would choose.
I also happen to have an Albion first-Gen Mainz gladius. It is a lovely sword, and very nearly "perfect" in line and form. I like this sword very much, and it is very good at its job. A pointier, sharper, more vicious little beast I have never encountered. But it never makes anyone misty-eyed. Of course, perhaps that has more to do with the pragmatic essence of the Roman sword, in general, than with the lines of the sword itself.
I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender.
|
|
|
|
|
John Oliver
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Nov, 2006 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi all,
I've found this to be a *really* interesting discussion so far - and it gets me thinking about my first acquisition from Albion - my Solingen...
Overall, she is a magnificent weapon - wonderful heft/balance/feel - and a weapon capable of doing horrendous damage to an enemy.
I believe the weapon really is a credit to the research/prototyping/etc. done by Peter in the first instance and an amazing technical achievement too.
When I first got the sword and took it out of the box I was BLOWN AWAY by what an impressive weapon she is - the sheer *presence* of this sword - but after the first few days/week of close study/scrutiny I identified a few small problems (a bend from true in the foible of about 1 mm for the last 10 cm or so, some scratching to the pommel that hadn't been polished out, a couple of heavier scratches on the edge that hadn't been polished out and the crossguard not being evenly lined up from end to end when viewed from one end - through the blade (edge to edge) - through to the other end...)
None of these flaws on their own (or even combined) detracts at all from the functionality of the weapon - or its overall 'at a distance' aesthetic appeal - UNLESS one knows already they are there and holds the sword in front of his face and really focuses on them...
On the one hand I started thinking to myself that this is a US$ 1200 sword and surely I should expect it to come out of the factory 'perfect' and without any flaws whatsoever - but NOW I am starting to wonder if that *really* is such a realistic expectation - ESPECIALLY after reading some of the posts in this thread...
Maybe some of these flaws are what give the weapon its individuality? Maybe they are all flaws that could/should have been avoided? Maybe they are a mixture of the two? Maybe the level of perfection I think I am after can ONLY be achieved in the situation where a master swordsmith is commissioned to make a SINGLE SWORD totally by hand from beginning to end?
I guess what I'm asking here is whether my expectations at this level of 'semi custom' or 'high quality production' are correct?
John.
PS A similar/related question might be: WHAT sort of finish would the original customer of the original Solingen have expected/got/been happy with/been unhappy with? (Since none of us were alive back then its hard to tell I guess...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Nov, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Oliver wrote: |
On the one hand I started thinking to myself that this is a US$ 1200 sword and surely I should expect it to come out of the factory 'perfect' and without any flaws whatsoever - but NOW I am starting to wonder if that *really* is such a realistic expectation - ESPECIALLY after reading some of the posts in this thread...
|
Mr Oliver
I'm not sure anymore if it realistic to expect a complete absence of flaws. All of my Albions (not many, don't want to sound too grand or anything) have had minor flaws of one sort or another (pits, damaged edges, skewed pommels etc.). I've mentioned a couple of things to Mr Sigman at Albion as customer feedback on quality control points, but I've not considered sending any of them back and I like them all, a lot. All of that said, if I'd got a Museum line piece and it was bent, as yours was, after you made a very clear point of asking them to check it very carefully because of the transportation issues, I think I'd be annoyed. I know it has made me have second thoughts about getting a Solingen (I had considered it briefly when Albion Europe opened). Silly as I was, I'd thought the Museum line swords would be perfect. I realise now that that expectation is unrealistic. I also realise that, after I've paid for a couple that other people are making at the moment, I'll have enough. The quest for the perfect sword will end. It is as unrealistic as the grail.
regards
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Pringle
Industry Professional
Location: Oakland, CA Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Nov, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Swords were once functional tools, and I think it’s safe to say they were firstly judged on function, and then on aesthetics. Since swords were superseded as military technology, we’ve had an industrial revolution (or two) which has altered our perception of what ‘perfection’ is. The smiths of old were not working against a backdrop of mass-produced parts & machined uniformity, and didn’t use digital micrometers or graph paper to ensure symmetry, and I think a close reading of the artifacts shows this, even through the rust. Not sanding out all the file marks is a flaw that would translate back in time, but I bet most sword consumers back in the day were not so concerned about that sort of thing, if the sword cut well – contemporary custom swords have an over-worked feel to them, in my opinion, compared to the originals.
So when you commission that custom sword that must be perfect, ask the smith to do it all by eye, freehand – if you want it to be like the historic swords
If a sword’s price back in the day was equal to the price of a horse (or more? I can’t find my historic sword price guide), and yesterday’s horse equals today’s car, then the hypothetical Solingen buyer got his sword at under ten cents on the dollar and was probably overjoyed with his good fortune!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Nov, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Jeff for your comments,
I really respect the work you do- especially that iron inlay on the viking piece you recently posted. Could you say more about this "overworked" quality you describe in the modern commission?
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
John Oliver
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Nov, 2006 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for that Geoff and Jeff:-)
As always, you chaps have given me something to think about...
In one sense its actually easier when you're collecting antique pieces I think - because the criteria are so clear cut (at least for me I feel they are anyway) - the quality of the piece definitely comes into it but the main thing is authenticity - that the piece is an original sword of the period - and that the parts are all original to each other (i.e. its not a 'parts sword') and hopefully its a weapon that hasn't been disassembled by anyone since the day it was made (in an ideal world anyway:-)
The small issues I've found with my Solingen wouldn't even be issues if the sword was an original antique - they only become issues at all for me because it is a modern reproduction - and I guess my expectations differ accordingly...
Anyway - those few small problems will be sorted out in the next month or two (as soon as I can handle parting with my baby after Christmas and new year) - and it will be interesting to see how much closer to 'perfect' she will be.
I can't help thinking that to get a sword like this as close to perfect as possible it really *must* be a one off custom job - and like you're saying Jeff, to get the smith to do it all by hand (even if it does cost a lot more...) Anyway - just thinking aloud there really...:-)
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Pringle
Industry Professional
Location: Oakland, CA Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Nov, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Could you say more about this "overworked" quality you describe in the modern commission? |
I do not mean to encourage nor condone sloppy work by any of the statements that follow, and they may not be applicable across the wide swath of history or modern culture 
Coming from a modern knifemaker’s perspective (as do most (all?) American swordsmiths), I’m coming from a culture that values exquisite, detailed hand work as perhaps the fundamental reason for the object’s existence – not a knife, it’s a showcase of the maker’s skill at manipulating materials which happens to have a shaving edge. It is also a culture based in the machine age with a heavy dependence on power tools. (There is a whole movement of knifemakers (the NeoTribal Metalsmiths) set up in opposition to this, so there are no absolutes here ).
Most swords throughout history were probably cranked out without much care for ‘fit and finish’ to supply an army, but they had to work, and even the high-end swords were made to be swords first, and given the extra polish as a secondary consideration. They were made with a different aesthetic perspective and a different set of tools, which influences the ‘feel’ of the finished item, for instance, a few random examples off the top of my head –
- Leaf through “Swords of the Viking Age” and look only at the crossguards – many project farther on one side of the blade than the other – there was a different concept of the value of symmetry going on (yes, some of them probably shifted in the last thousand years of burial, but not all).
- Visit the Oseberg ship outside of Oslo and look at the carvings on the wood, they are directly chiseled and that’s it, no fussing around afterwards with scrapers or sandpaper - It has a very direct, gestural feel in person (not a sword, a high-end art project, but if it was built for the funeral perhaps a bad example)
- I have a carved iron Tsuba from the 17th century where you can see the surface was finished off with a file before the patina, where it wasn’t carved or textured – even in Japan, where the metal work is of phenomenal care and detail, they are combining shaping and finishing in one process, instead of shaping it and then layering finish processes on top.
- Check out the slotted 17th C. tulwars in Figiel’s “On Damascus Steel” and note the terminal drill holes that haven’t been trued up with the side of the slot – function over finish.
Having worked at a violin bow shop (a craft still firmly in the renaissance era, if not medieval) I know the eye can detect variances down to about a tenth of a millimeter, so you can do really clean and tight work by eye, freehand – looking at swords in museums and at auctions, I’m sure the swordsmiths of old didn’t feel the need to get down that close on most of the work they did. And I love the contrast between the relatively loose forged work with some of the tight embellishment work that goes over it, gold and silver lending itself to more precise ‘eye-crometers’ in the smiths.
Different tools, different processes, different aesthetic - the last is the hardest to figure out from a modern perspective, but I'm trying to understand it , and welcome any ideas and opinions out there
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Nov, 2006 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff Pringle wrote: |
- Leaf through “Swords of the Viking Age” and look only at the crossguards – many project farther on one side of the blade than the other – there was a different concept of the value of symmetry going on (yes, some of them probably shifted in the last thousand years of burial, but not all).
|
Mr Pringle
Interesting post. On the viking hilts, I've noticed a similar point with the pommels on a number of museum exhibits. One thought that did occur was whether the users had a preferred edge, which would account for the asymmetry in some cases. that was after looking at swords that were definitely single edged, and with pommels that were symmetrical, but offset on the tang.
regards
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic