I would think the A&A version with the hollow grind is about the closest you can come to it without going custom.
| Mike Arledge wrote: |
| I would think the A&A version with the hollow grind is about the closest you can come to it without going custom. |
It strikes me that the two replicas actually are closer to one another than they are true to the original (both are close enough, depending on your expectations). I just consider the A&A to be a more subtle approach of the same concept (one handed type XVIII, hollow gound with cast guard and pommel) which is to be expected at that price point.
The most obvious difference is the guard. The original is most probably forged and looks way thinner (almost wire thin) than any cast guards I've seen. the A&A hilt seems to be a well executed cast guard from the picts, so is the gen 2 but on the thick side (actually very thick at the ricasso). Also none of the production blade I've seen had a hollow grounded and central ridged blade as pronounced as the original (I'll be checking that myself on Westminster Abbey in a few weeks). I struggled to see any hollow ground at all on the Gen2 blade at first, but it is here also not obvious...I'm sure the A&A is much better in that aspect too...but again, we are talking about a sword that is 4 time the price of the Gen2.
Cheers,
J
Well, maybe I was little rash by saying 'many'! (In my deffence I was rushing to finnish writing my post before my lunch hour was up :D )
I'm in no way doing down the A & A version or anything like that; in terms of a quality sword I would say A & A all the way. Certainly the hollow ground A & A blade looks better, though as Julian points out none of the production versions capture the extremity of the hollow grind on the original.
The Gen 2 version looks to have a wider guard which, to me looks more like the original though the guard on the A & A looks thinner and more elagent. The pommel on the Gen 2 to me looks chunkier than the A & A and captures the look a little better IMO. I suppose different aspects capture different eyes.
I'm in no way doing down the A & A version or anything like that; in terms of a quality sword I would say A & A all the way. Certainly the hollow ground A & A blade looks better, though as Julian points out none of the production versions capture the extremity of the hollow grind on the original.
The Gen 2 version looks to have a wider guard which, to me looks more like the original though the guard on the A & A looks thinner and more elagent. The pommel on the Gen 2 to me looks chunkier than the A & A and captures the look a little better IMO. I suppose different aspects capture different eyes.
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum