| Author |
Message |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
|
  |
 |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
That thread doesn't mention that at all. There is another thread on lower end swords where someone says it's nice to know there are swords in the sub $300 range that aren't crowbards, but the poster doesn't assign that term to any particular company.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, searching didn't find it since the poster called them "crow bars" not "crowbars."
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Harris
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nathan,
This is what I was referring to on page 2 of the Valiant Armory thread.
| Michael Edelson wrote: | 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 I've seen are sharpened crow bars. |
I did not mean to infer that Michael's assessment was wrong. I have every reason to believe that he probably handled Gen 2 swords that were produced 2-3 years ago or more. That impression may be accurate, though it's a quite unflattering manner of expressing it. I simply meant to state that a continuous process of improvement has been under way at Imperial Weapons. Those who may have been unimpressed with older samples they may have handled might be more favorably impressed by current production swords from the Generation 2 line.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you, Vincent.
For the record, I'd prefer posts not resort to simple name-calling but give a description of one's opinion. Saying something is a "sharpened crowbar" is not very helpful. Speaking of its dynamic properties and, specifically, its faults in that department, is a much more helpful post to the thousands of readers of this site. We can save the name-calling and modern Internet terminology for other sites.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim M.
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
"Only" 3lb 14oz? That sounds very heavy to me as far as hand and a half swords go.
|
Most likely. You've been around longer so you probably know more about the weight of swords then me . I thought I remembered reading somewhere that historical swords (even though the Ranger sword isn't historical) weighed between 2.5 and 3.5 pounds and thats why I said it that way . I think I read it on ARMA's site.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tim M. wrote: | | Most likely. You've been around longer so you probably know more about the weight of swords then me . I thought I remembered reading somewhere that historical swords (even though the Ranger sword isn't historical) weighed between 2.5 and 3.5 pounds and thats why I said it that way . I think I read it on ARMA's site. |
Well, 3 pounds 14 ounces is heavier than 3.5 pounds by 6 ounces, which can make a lot of difference.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tim M. wrote: | | Bill Grandy wrote: |
"Only" 3lb 14oz? That sounds very heavy to me as far as hand and a half swords go.
|
Most likely. You've been around longer so you probably know more about the weight of swords then me . I thought I remembered reading somewhere that historical swords (even though the Ranger sword isn't historical) weighed between 2.5 and 3.5 pounds and thats why I said it that way . I think I read it on ARMA's site. |
Actually, I have found historic sword weights from various sources listed below and above that range. Here are some from the thread about historic sword weights, for comparison to the Generation 2 Ranger sword. These all weigh close to or greater than 3.5 pounds.
From Treasures from the Tower of London: Arms and Armour by Norman and Wilson:
14. Hand and a Half Sword, Early 15 Century
blade length: 36.5 in (92.7 cm)
weight: 3 lb 6 oz (1.53 kg)
From the "Checklist of the Severance Collection" in Arms and Armor: the Cleveland Museum of Art by Stephen N. Fliegel:
159. German Hand-and-a-Half Sword early 16th century
weight: 1.68 kg (3.7 lb)
blade length: 92.3 cm (36 in)
163. Sword 15th century
weight: 1.72 kg (3.8 lb)
blade length: 87.3 cm (34 in)
200. German Hand-and-a-Half Sword c. 1540-80
weight: 1.62 kg (3.6 lb)
blade length: 94.8 cm (37.0 in)
From Sword in Hand by Ewart Oakeshott (I'm now leery about using Oakeshott since finding that some of his numbers may be off, but I'm including his figures anyway, even though some are obviously rough estimates):
Type XIa found near Pontirolo, Italy, c. 1150
weight: just under 5 lbs!
blade length: 40.5 in (102.8 cm)
(A very large and heavy one-handed sword.)
German Bastard Sword c. 1540
weight: 3 lb 11 oz
blade length: 42.5 in
German Bastard Sword c. 1540
weight: 4 lb 7 oz
blade length: 44 in
Bastard Sword by Melchior Diefstetter of Munich c. 1540
weight: 4 lb 2 oz
blade length: 43 in
From Records of the Medieval Sword by Oakeshott:
XIIIa. 8 c. 1350+
weight: nearly 4 lb
blade length: 33.5 in (85 cm)
XIIIa. 9 1200-1250
weight: about 3.75 lb
blade length: 36 in (91.4 cm)
XVII. 2 c. 1360-90
weight: nearly 4 lb
blade length: 34.25 in (87 cm)
Miscellaneous 6 (Sword-of-War, c. 1280-1310)
weight: just under 4 lbs
blade length: 35.125 in (89.2 cm)
Note some are close to, or even over, 3 lbs 14 oz. I'm not saying this is typical, but it did seem to occur. However, I can't say anything about the dynamics of these examples versus the Generation 2 Ranger sword. This could make more of a difference regarding how the sword handles than it's overall weight.
Here's a link to the original thread regarding sword weights:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...ght=weight
I hope this helped!
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clyde Hollis
Industry Professional
Location: Tennessee Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Belair wrote: | | Tim M. wrote: | In regards to the Type XV of the Hank Reinhardt colection, I'd make the assumption that considering that the sword is under the guidance and permission of Mr. Reinhardt, the swords will be high quality and well made.  |
this is not questioning wheather or not the sword is well made.
i will never buy that sword. it looks only vaguely like the design despite being an "exact replica". also the drawing suposedly okeshotte's have "by hank reinhardt" writen on it. |
Please explain how so. From the drawing that Ewart did and he drew the sword (per Hank) as he was examining the sword. I have no reason to dispute Hank on this.
I look at the drawing and I look at the sword. Very close. Unless I am missing something.
In answer to an earlier question, the next sword is a Viking sword from the book "Swords of the Viking Age".
Once they are in so I can take pictures I will post it.
Clyde
Generation 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Harris
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't mean to come off as a cheerleader for the Generation 2 swords, though I do like several of their swords. But I looked at the drawing on the Imperial Arms website at http://www.imperialweapons.com/shared/H007.jpg and compared it to the pictures of the finished sword. I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but they look very close to me. But I admit up front, I have never seen or held one of these swords.
Regarding the Ranger sword from Generation 2, the weight would be pretty high if this were a hand-and-a-half sword. I specifically measured this and I can fit three full hands on the grip, without holding the pommel. My first impression was "This is a monster of a sword." That impression was mostly due to the fact that the gripping surface is 10 1/8 inches long, plus the pommel.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike Harris wrote: | | I don't mean to come off as a cheerleader for the Generation 2 swords, though I do like several of their swords. But I looked at the drawing on the Imperial Arms website at http://www.imperialweapons.com/shared/H007.jpg and compared it to the pictures of the finished sword. I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but they look very close to me. But I admit up front, I have never seen or held one of these swords. |
You're comparing a two-dimensional drawing to a three-dimensional object. Does a 2-D look at the real sword look like the drawing? I suppose so. But we live in a 3-D world and that requires looking at it with different criteria. Since we don't have a detailed 3-D drawing of the sword, we must look at surviving antiques that are similar and determine if the modern-made sword has a similar character to these extant samples. For me, they do not. The modern sword doesn't look like antique swords and lacks many, many characteristic details that are present on the types of swords on which it is supposed to be based. The similarities are only found when looking at them in the broadest of ways.
Having said that, it must be noted that it's a very inexpensive modern sword. What can we expect from such a price point? The modern sword gives a very broad representation of the sword type. Is it a replica of anything that may have existed in history? No, it is not. Really, though, how could we expect it to be at that price point?
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say that given the drawing, the sword appears to be reasonable to intent. It looks like what it appears to have been intended to look like, as far as the drawing goes. I've never seent the original, so I don't know about that aspect of the thing, and at the price point I'm not sure how much that should matter.
Overall I think its hard to tell that much about the Gen 2 sword in question from the photos over at Imperial. The photos do not do many of the swords they are trying to sell any favors, and the site is cumbersome (in my opinion). Perhaps its my browser settings, perhaps not. Regardless many of the tumbnails display especially poorly for a retail site, and navigation is not particularly intuitive. I'm sure I'll piss everyone off by saying this, but a sloppy store does nothing to build trust and credibility.
I also found it interesting that the print on the site says the XV is suitable for steel-to-steel, but that it ships sharp. Sharp and steel-to-steel are not be the best of things to put together in my opinion, although I must admit I could not find what steel-to-steel means (the phrase appears to be copyrighted by Imperial).
One interesting thing I did notice that Imperial makes a training sword now.
http://www.imperialweapons.com/swords/Gen2/IP-110.html
The site does not seem to specify if its blunt or not. Neither is edge width listed which is most useful when considering a training sword. Its heavy compared to other things on the market, but darn cheap compared to them as well.
*A final note about the website*
I put the training sword link in and went on surfing the Imperial Weapons site. Later, curious, I decided I wanted to look at it some more, but I could not find my way back to it. Several pages dead ended me. Some had no obvious way to get to a home page. I felt like I was struggling to find any "home" links on the site. Navigation should be much easier than this...a shopper should not have to work when going through a store. Eventually I gave up and cmae back here to us the URL from my post to get back to the training sword. Most casual visitors will not bother going through that much effort.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Grisetti
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Fay wrote: | | ...Actually, I have found historic sword weights from various sources listed below and above that range. Here are some from the thread about historic sword weights, for comparison to the Generation 2 Ranger sword. These all weigh close to or greater than 3.5 pounds.... |
I think it is worth pointing out that some of the heavier swords in your examples (e.g., the German Bastard Swords data from Sword in Hand) had blade lengths over 40 inches, where the Gen2 Ranger has only a 34 inch blade (but, admittedly, a long 13 inch grip).
"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim M.
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I managed to find ARMA'S article on the historical weigh of swords. Here is the excerpt on weight of swords I mentioned:
"As leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott unequivocally stated: "Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy nor all alike - the average weight of any one of normal size is between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs. Even the big hand-and-a-half 'war' swords rarely weigh more than 4.5 lbs."
For those interested in reading more of the article, here's a link to it:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm
Last edited by Tim M. on Fri 26 Jan, 2007 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to admit that Imperial is not normally my thing, but that trainer is so darn cheap I'm sorely tempted to give it a go. 
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve Grisetti wrote: | | I think it is worth pointing out that some of the heavier swords in your examples (e.g., the German Bastard Swords data from Sword in Hand) had blade lengths over 40 inches, where the Gen2 Ranger has only a 34 inch blade (but, admittedly, a long 13 inch grip). |
Steve,
True, that's a good point. I'm not advocating or endorsing the Generation 2 sword, I just wanted to show that some historical swords were heavier than the oft commonly accepted range (although the range may have been the norm, and heavier ones were probably outside the norm).
Being a fantasy sword, I'm not sure if the Generation 2 Ranger Sword would be more similar to a later medieval hand-and-a-half, bastard, or longsword, or an earlier medieval great-sword. There are some great swords just under 4 lbs with blade lengths of 33.5 to 36 inches on the list I posted previously.
Keep in mind that there are also a few large one-handed swords of weights greater than the usually quoted range for medieval swords, such as the large sword of circa 1150 found near Pontirolo, Italy. Oakeshott may have just estimated the weight, but he stated it was just under 5 lbs. There is also the 15th century sword in the collection of the Cleveland Museum of Art that weighs 3.8 lbs and has a blade length of 34 inches.
To make comparisons of the weight of this fantasy sword to historical swords, I think you must include all examples. Yes, some had longer blade lengths in proportion to weight, but not all.
What does the blade profile of the Generation 2 Ranger look like? I know there used to be pictures on the web site, but I can't find them now. Does it have a fairly strongly tapered, or even gradually tapered blade, or are the edges fairly parallel? Which historical sword is the best to compare the Ranger to?
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
Last edited by Richard Fay on Fri 26 Jan, 2007 7:28 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Grisetti
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | | I have to admit that Imperial is not normally my thing, but that trainer is so darn cheap I'm sorely tempted to give it a go. |
I'm sure that you'll make Clyde happy, Joe! And I guess this bring backs the subject of the price point of the Gen2 swords - the pricing means that they can still be attractive, even if they aren't perfect representatives of their historic counterparts.
"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As an FYI, I wasn't disputing the fact that many historical swords weighed well over 3 1/2 pounds (one of my favorite swords is the A&A German Bastard sword, for instance). I was sort of pointing out that a hand and a half sword at almost four pounds would be considered on the heavy end of the scale.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The final product looks similar to the drawing. The biggest difference is in the elegance and shaping of the guard. The original sword and the drawing look much for refined than the replica.
One of the Castilion find swords:
The drawing (click the link):
http://www.imperialweapons.com/shared/H007.jpg
The proportions of the pommel look different, too.
Are some of these compromises due to cost concerns? Perhaps. I have no idea.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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