Decisions, Decisions... -- myArmoury.com

Brian M · Posted: Mon 13 Nov, 2006 8:29 am Post subject:

I don't think you can go wrong whichever one you choose.
I own the Knight and Templar and my experiences reflect everyone else's. The Knight is the sweetest-handling sword I own. (Along with the Baron, which is a hand-and-a-half sword and thus outside this discussion.)
The Templar hasn't gottem a lot of pub, but I find it a very nice sword. The blade of the Templar has more mass further out on the blade. The pommel of the Templar is a lot deeper than a profile shot would indicate. It's almost a "faceted sphere."
The Ritter I don't have experience with, but would definitely consider buying.
The bottom line is that IMHO you should buy what is going to please you. If the Ritter is speaking to you more than the other two, then by all means go with it and you won't be disappointed.

Brian M[/i]

Edward Hitchens · Posted: Mon 13 Nov, 2006 11:29 am Post subject:

Like Patick, I was very surprised when I first handled the Ritter. Its appearance -- mostly because of its oddly-shaped pommel -- might make it seem a blade-heavy or cumbersome sword; something I don't exactly prefer. But the Ritter really surprised me! Firstly, I was surprised at how light it was. It had excellent control in downward and diagonal cuts, despite my hobbyist "technique" (or the lack thereof Razz

).

I thought the Knight was a little heavier than the Ritter but was still an excellent sword to wield. The Norman would be ideal if you want a sword that's more 11th century or so, but heavier than the Ritter. If you like something that's "post-Viking blade-heavy," go with the Templar. Not all will agree with me here; these are just my own impressions of these swords (perhaps the Knight, Templar, and Norman only seemed heavier because my arms turned into Jell-o after a few hours of handling Chad's Baron!).

By the way, Grayson, have you considered the Reeve? That one's been getting very high marks lately. Any Reeve owners care to comment?

Grayson C. · Posted: Mon 13 Nov, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject:

Well if as Patrick and Edward stated, they both handle well.... Then I'm really tempted to go with the Ritter. I feel drawn toward that design type, even if it is a bit narrow in historical placement. If it comes down to looks in this, then I'm leaning heavily toward the Ritter.

As for Edward's question about the Reeve:

Yes, I saw the Reeve and I was a bit interested. What put me off though was it was a bit too short for my taste. I tend to like longer blades.

I still have a lot of time to consider. And I'm worried that the Ritter will be discontinued by the time I have the money Cry

Scott Hanson · Posted: Mon 13 Nov, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject:

I wouldn't worry too much about the Ritter running out, unless it will take you a couple of years to save up for it. After all, the only sword from the Next Gen line to have sold out yet is the Vinland, and that was released before the Ritter. Also, as many others have commented, the Ritter is an unusual style, and not a particularly popular one. That being said, I have to admit that I'm planning to purchase one at some point, so maybe I have an ulterior motive. Wink

Patrick Kelly · Posted: Mon 13 Nov, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

Grayson C. · Posted: Mon 13 Nov, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject:

Something just occurred to me:

I know the Ritter was meant for heavy shearing cuts, as were all type XIa's. But how well do they thrust? Is it comparable with the efficiency of the cut? The point is more rounded than the standard cut-and-thrusts of 3 centuries later of course.

Patrick Kelly · Posted: Mon 13 Nov, 2006 8:37 pm Post subject:

Brian M · Posted: Mon 13 Nov, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject:

Allow me to throw another sword into the discussion -- the Gaddhjalt.
I own one, and this really is a nice sword that doesn't get enough attention. It's even longer than the Ritter, but the parabolic taper of the blade gives it a totally different look. The Norman uses the same blade shortened by a couple of inches.
I'd say the Gaddhjalt is a tiny bit more lively in the hand than the Templar.
I also find the hilt very aesthetically pleasing with the long, thin, and tapering cross and the brazil-nut pommel.
I think it's worthy of at least a look.

Brian M

Grayson C. · Posted: Tue 14 Nov, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject:

Brian, The Gaddhjalt is a very fine sword. When I get into more serious collecting I'll certainly look into it. For now, I'm looking at for the steryotypical "perfect sword" for me. on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate the gaddhjalt a 9, purely for its looks. But I'm afraid the Ritter is what I'm drawn to more, a certain 10 on the scale. Thanks for the suggestion though. As I said before, I really only have money for one sword (and even that, I don't REALLY have yet) so it will be some time before I can get into serious collecting.

Brian M · Posted: Tue 14 Nov, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject:

Based on the swords I've bought, you will not be disappointed in your decision.
I wish I could afford this sword now, but I'm still paying off a Bayeaux. When that is done, the Ritter is probably next.
I look forward to hearing what you think of it.

Brian M