[Jean Thibodeau]

[Sonny Suttles]

Good points Jean & Michael,
I think with changes made there does need to be a sort of version 2.0... Just kidding.
But really something should mark the difference between the old and the new.
Mind you it will take time to make the changes and swords already in stock will still go out the same. I cannot afford to eat the whole back stock.
Sonny
VA

[Sean Belair]

here is some insperation. notice how thin the cross and blade are, and the subtle curves.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

While we're at it, I'd like to see a good Renaissance broadsword in the $200 range--mostly for practice purposes so I won't have to bust the more expensive blades I'm also planning to acquire a bit later on. Something simple like these two swords (from the Features section, of course):

http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_engswords24.jpg

Cut out the engraved decoration--just use a simpler version of the shells and knucklebows and voila! You'd have a sword that many 17th-century reenactors will drool over, especially if you can make the specifications fit with George Silver's style of swordsmanship.

I know this is speaking of my personal pipe dreams rather than the recommendations Sonny may need, but there. The entry-level market does need more good complex-hilts.

[Joe Fults]

Will an entry level consumer look for, appreciate, and value detail? Perhaps more precisely, which details would an entry level consumer value, and which details would not be valued (I think there are some things noted in the thread, but still might be useful to put in context)?

[Richard Fay]

[Patrick Kelly]

I do agree that assuming these swords would only be purchased by entry level people is, well, an assumption, but one I may very well have made myself based on my own perspective. However....................

Looks like some of the sports fans might be taking this a bit too personally. How about we all get into a group hug and squeeze....................................okay, everyone feel better? Now how about we discuss things a bit more dispassionately?

Value is relative and quantitative to the cost of the product. Quality is also relative and quantitative to cost. I've already seen aspects of sword construction mentioned in this thread that would move Sonnys product beyond the price nitch he seems to be going for. You simply can't get something for nothing. The manufacturers in the philippines would have to be trained and educated to perform these more elaborate tasks and then supervised to ensure they do. As someone who has actually spent time in the PI watching these things being made, I can assure you this would take time and time as they say is money. It's one thing to tell a manufacturer, "See this subtle proportion on this blade? Make them all like that." It's another reality to train them to do it consistently. Who has the knowledge to train the employees in these tasks? How much will it cost us to either perform significant R&D to get up to speed, or to higher people who already have the required knowledge? These and many more factors would have to be considered and none of them would be accomplished for free.

Sonny,
At this point you may be better served by communicating with your manufacturers to see if significant upgrades are even feasible.

[Michael Edelson]

Reasonable historical accuracy in a budget sword is not, well, unreasonable. Compare Windlass to Generation 2. Both are in the same price range.
EDIT: To be more clear, a good number of Windlass swords do very well in the accuracy department, whereas all Gen 2s have been overly heavy (extremely so, in fact), poorly balanced and their fittings had a modern feel, as though stamped or machined. Both Windlass and Gen 2 are in the same price range.

[Joe Fults]

Richard,

If you're bothered by the term entry level, what do you want us to use instead? You've given some very good feedback regarding what you value. You have been careful to validate yourself as a potential consumer which helps the vendor. At the same time you've expressed frustration several times in this thread with the way posters have framed discussion.

Is cheap better than entry level?

Starter?

Basic?

Value oriented?

The intent is not to suggest that entry level or whatever must be poorly made. However, to ask for good handling, historical accuracy, better construction, more attention to details, robustness, consistent quality, durability, improved materials, and cheap (er?) is asking for quite a bit. No vendor (to my knowledge) has accomplished all of this so far without currency, tax, labor, or regulatory arbitrage giving semi-durable market advantages other vendors are temporarily unable to duplicate. Unless Arms of Valor can achieve a strategic advantage over all of its competitors that is enduring, prioritizing investment options is going to be a necessary exercise for them.

Somewhere in this game there needs to be a stack ranking (at least).

[Richard Fay]

[Torsten F.H. Wilke]

In the end, fancy clothes and expensive swords the winner do not make... (ancient germanic saying, lol)

[Richard Fay]

[Torsten F.H. Wilke]

I may be mistaken, as usual, but it does seem that Richard makes some very good points in support of those less fortunate. Interestingly enough, in some religions, those souls downtrodden are not just by the very nature of their circumstances turned away from salvation...

I would love to see some cheaper swords and other arms, which have some semblency of historical realism. I know of one other that would actually start buying those wares, for he is buying the "junk" as we speak. He makes around ten dollars an hour, and is an avid enthusiast, just not a learned one. He may have about fifteen swords in his collection, none more expensive than two hundred and fifty dollars maximum. How do you think he feels, when he realizes that none are anything more than "wallhangers"? Six hundred dollars can be a small fortune for some... Fifteen hundred outright unobtainable! Is the yearning for something better tendered thereof? Could a cost efficient compromise be reached with today's manufacturing methods? Just maybe...

[Joe Fults]

[Jeremy V. Krause]

Hello Richard,

I must confess that I do not understand your A&A price-point conflict. As a social worker, I am also on a very limited budget so I just save up for a longer period in order to buy better weapons. This seems to be the must logical avenue to take for someone who is not independently wealthy. Just save for a longer period of time and choose quality over quantity. I feel that I can make this statement to you because of the obvious knowledge of A&A which you possess based on your posts. You can recognize quality so why accept items with significant compromizes in quality. Just don't buy as many swrods.

Jeremy

[Chad Arnow]

Everyone,
Let's pull the personal stuff out of this. Now. These terms ("lower end" or "entry level") merely describe the product, not the purchaser. No one here has said that products in this price range have no value and those who purchase them are unlearned.

There have been many suggestions on how to improve the products being discussed. Some will likely drive up prices. Some might not. Let's discuss the products. If you want to discuss perceptions of collectors or price points or terminology, post that in a different forum.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

I can certainly sympathize with Richard. Even though I personally prefer to save for a longer period so that I can fill most of my collection with higher-end products (albeit still mostly of the production-line models), I'd also like to have some lower-end swords that I won't feel reluctant to subject to more (ab)use than usual. Of course I won't expect a $200 sword to have geometrical details as fine as a $800 A&A or Albion sword, but it should still be well within the parameters of practical usability. We know many examples of historical originals--mostly munitions-grade weapons like the cheaper models of hangers and falchions--whose weight and balance are not as perfect or as fine-tuned as their higher-end cousins, but they are still quite usable in that they don't feel "dead" in the hand and they perform well enough in the tasks for which they were designed, whether it be cutting or thrusting. Modern lower-end swordmakers can still achieve much by emulating these munitions-grade swords instead of more expensive examples made for nobles or elites.

And I believe some of the simpler steps would not be out of Valiant Armoury's reach--things like making sure that the suppliers provide them with grips that have rectangular holes to fit the tang rather than round ones that would make it rattle. And not everyone would mind having a sword with a threaded pommel nut as long as it's secure enough (and easy to re-tighten if it ever gets loose).

[Jonathan Blair]

Design your maker's mark such that it doesn't look overtly modern. Also, avoid stamping the sword with such common phrases as "Made in ______" or copywrite information, modern dates, etc. I am a member of a living history troupe and details like that immediately disqualify lower end swords. It's a simple fix, but might make some more business, especially considering how expensive the Albion/A&A swords are.

You should also do your marketing homework. What I mean is that if you design and make a sword patterned off of a 15th century single hand sword, don't call it a "Crusader Longsword." Call it what it is. Try to offer something that few others offer, while also offering the old tried-and-trues. That way you get buyers from those who want the archetypical knightly sword as well as the ones who want Mortuary swords or schiavonas.

[Angus Trim]

Hi Sonny

From a swordmaker's perspective..... Patrick had an excellent suggestion, remember where you're current customer base is......

For instance, if its stage combat, sparring, etc, these swords won't necessarily attract the historically accurate, or the backyard cutter.......Thick heavy blades, and good cutting don't go together.........

You already have mentioned a price point, thus everything you do to improve must fit into that...... from experience, I can tell you how difficult that is.........

One thing to bear in mind, is this market is evolving and cycling constantly. Its definitely not static, and what was the hot item a year ago might be dead today........So, being versatile and able to adapt is a good thing........

Managing customer expectations is a big one too......... For instance, if a company at a similar price point that you mentioned were to brag about great historical accuracy, performance and handling, as good as any in the market, then said company's products will be compared on line with Albion and A&A on the one hand, and AT on the other, no matter the price point difference........

Reviews and threads on these forums can help or hinder what you're trying to do. Consequently, over marketing can hurt...... However, I suspect from this thread that you already have that in mind.....

Welcome and good luck...........

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

Let's assume for a moment, since Sonny asked the question on a forum dedicated to historic arms and armour collectors, that his audience is, well, historic arms and armour collectors. Then historical details and at least ball-park historical handling are important to what his goals are. I think it's not unreasonable to expect that some improvements along these lines can be made - other makers (Museum Replicas and Generations 2) have or are currently making such improvements, perhaps with varying success.

Is it impossible to produce a sword with the roughly historical look of the nicer MRL's, but the apparent durability of Generation 2s? Of course, some of the grosser durability will be lost with a thinner, lighter blade, but I'm talking more along the lines of tang and hilt durability. Generation 2 swords have a reputation, perhaps dubious, for being durable but not always aesthetically pleasing. Some MRL's are fairly good in looks, but not always as durable in tang and hilt as they should be. Is it beyond possibility that a maker who wishes to make improvements to his product could combine the two aspects without undue increase in cost? MRL can do fairly nice looking swords at times, and Generation 2 can make some durable swords, so I think a maker in their league (and that's part of the point here, I believe) could reasonably combine these two aspects in their product.

On another note; I have thought of a few ways that certain MRL swords I own fall short, and how they could be improved with little extra cost. I say that these improvements could be made fairly inexpensively because I've seen each attribute in different MRL swords, just rarely all together. I speak from personal experience; I own several, and have taken apart my share of MRL hilts to shim the grip cores and the like.

I'll start with my observations about the MRL Towton; a nice-looking sword, but a bit light. This one was arguably one of the best-looking MRL's so far. The pommel and cross are fairly well done, and the blade is finished fairly nicely. However, it suffers from the standard MRL loose grip; the threaded part of the tang goes through a circular hole drilled in the cross and grip, and the grip isn't as tight as it could be. This could be solved in one of several ways. The maker could make the grip core fit tighter, but this may up the cost. Alternately, the grip can be shimmed. I did this to my Towton; a few slivers of wood help keep the grip core tight. This might sound like sloppy workmanship, but this was done historically. Take a look at the study Oakeshott made of what he called his "Morgarten" sword in "Appendix C" of Records of the Medieval Sword. The close-up shot of the split-open grip core clearly shows how a shim was inserted to keep the grip core tight. Another method that could be used, and is used by some "lower-end" makers, is using epoxy to secure the grip core. This may not be historical (was mastic ever used in the grip core of medieval swords? - I'm not sure on that point), but it can work. Some MRL owners use this method.

The Towton also suffers from the typical flaw amongst MRL swords; the juncture of the tang and the shoulders of the blade lack a real radius. This juncture should have at least a slight curve. Now, some may feel that MRL swords always lack this, but this is not the case. I also own the MRL Patay, which did have a small radius at this important juncture. It might not have been as great a radius as seen on some higher-end maker's swords, but it was there. If they could do this on at least one of their sword models, then why not others? It may boil down to laziness or sloppiness. The point is, a lower-end maker was able to make a radius at the tang-shoulders juncture on at least one of their swords. If they could have done it on the Patay, then I suspect that they could have done it on the Towton.

Another flaw that the Towton suffers from, and one that's shared by many MRL thrusting or cut-and-thrust swords, is that the blade is too flexible. A stiffer blade would have been better for this type of sword, and may have led to a more durable blade. This could have been at least partially remedied by shortening the fuller, and having a larger ridged section near the point. This probably would have altered the balance of the sword a bit, but this one feels almost "too-light" in the hand. I can use it in one as easily as some of my one-handed swords, even though the Towton is supposed to be a type of bastard sword. A slightly thicker blade near the tip (a reinforced point) may also have helped this sword be truer to historic forms. This may be the costliest improvement to make.

The positive attributes of the Towton are it's looks and overall fit. The cross slot at the shoulder of the blade may still be a bit wide, but it's a closer fit than some older MRL swords. Both cross and pommel are nicely done; maybe not a "lordly" weapon, but not an inelegant weapon either.

Now on to the Patay. I already mentioned that this did exhibit a radius at the tang-shoulder juncture, but this had a screw-on pommel, and both pommel and cross were made of brass. The cross slot was a bit overly large as well. In terms of looks this sword is rather appealing, but it falls short in the construction department. I had to epoxy the grip core and pommel to keep things from rotating. Again, some of these things could have been solved if MRL followed the same procedure it did with other swords. The cross slot could have been a bit tighter; they've done this with the Towton to a degree, and especially with the Arbedo and Schwert. Brass may not have been the best choice for this one, but they were trying to replicate a sword with a gilded bronze pommel and cross. They could have been made out of steel; MRL uses steel on many of their hilts. However, the pommel is very nicely cast, proving that they can make nicely-shaped pommels. The cross isn't as elegant, but it's okay, other than the overly-wide slot for the shoulders of the blade. Since MRL has done swords with either peened on pommels or threaded tangs ends with a nut, they could have done that with this sword. It would have improved this particular sword if the tang end had been peened over the pommel, instead of the pommel being screwed on. The blade is again maybe a bit too light and flexible for a true cut-and-thrust sword, but it handles fairly well for such a long blade. A bit more of a spine would have helped.

I already mentioned the Arbedo and the Schwert in regards to cross-slot fit. These two have the tang ends peened over the pommels. Both have tangs that are rectangular in cross section right up to where the tang is peened (or just about to where the tang is peened), meaning that the grip and pommels have less of a tendency to twist. The Schwert could be a little better in terms of blade geometry - the point probably should have been of elliptical cross-section instead of a flattened diamond - but it handles fairly well for a sword of it's type and price range. I don't have any higher-end swords to compare the Schwert's handling to, but I can say that is handles much better than some of my earlier MRL/Windlass swords such as the Norman Sword. The Norman sword feels very heavy and dead in the hand, while the Schwert feels livelier.

The Arbedo isn't an exact copy of the sword it is supposed to represent, the Oakeshott Type XVIIIa in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but it's not completely without possible historical precedents. The sword in the Met has a reinforced point with more of a tapered profile than the Arbedo. However, other historical examples of Type XVIIIa's have points with less of a ridge. It's obviously hard to tell from photos, but just a comparison of the Arbedo to a photo of a Type XVIIIa found at Schloss Erbach, the two both seem to have broad blades without a real reinforced point. The Edward III sword is another example of this general type lacking a reinforced point. Here's what Oakeshott said about the point of the Edward III sword (in comparison to that of the Henry V sword) in Records of the Medieval Sword (the emphasis is my own):