OK, I have been hanging around on swordforum.com, and I think I have come across Albion's first bad review.

It was by Lancealot Chan, who seems to know his stuff.

http://www.rsw.com.hk/brescia-review.htm
There is some discussion here.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48951


Seems the sword handled very well, but lost a half centimeter of edge to a peice of pork. All told, it ISN'T a huge thing, but it's certainly not a good thing for a 1500 dollar sword.

There was also a negitive follow up by another fellow from hong kong, which can be found here.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51926

You can skip the bits where Ken and I argue over the topic.


So, I'm posting here asking if ANYONE out there has had any issues like this. I'm sort of hoping it's just something particular to the spadona, but some suggest that Albion's swords hard enough for this level of sharpness.

Now, I want to say I don't want to trash Albion, since I think their stuff is gorgous. I just want to be honest about the hardness.

P.S. He also posted it here, and I didn't see it until I did a search.

Lancelot's Review of the Brescia Spadona is already covered at lenght in this thread here:

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=3599&highlight=

I think the discussion should continue there...

Regards

Micha

Yes, I just found it. I'm not so much interisted in rehashing his review, as finding out if anyone else has had issues with this sort of thing with Albion swords. Call it an edge damage survey if your will. I'm simply giving background.

I think the issues have been fairly well covered, both in our previous discussion here and in the thread on SFI.

I would like to hit on a couple of points though:

from the SFI thread

George wrote:

Also, European cutting swords tended to be rather 'general purpose' blades, rather the specialized dueling weapons, unless I am mistaken. (Feel free to say I am if you have solid information.)

This is incorrect. European swords were specialized tools with different designs for different purposes. Even amongst "general purpose", or rather blades that were designed to fulfill mutiple functions, there were differences in the design of swords meant for military application and those made for civilian use.

I've handled the prototype of the Brescia as well as several production models. I've also discussed it at length with it's designer Peter Johnsson. IMHO the Brescia is a sword that is meant primarily for civilian use not armoured combat. The blade isn't rigid enough to be an excellent penitrator of armour. The edge is also of a different, and much finer, geometry than "military" longswords like the Baron and the Regent (two very different swords from different eras, but undoubtedly meant for military application), of which I own one of each. I can't compare the Brescia to other swords like the others that Lance has mentioned, nor can I debate their different edge geometries and design since I don't have them here in-hand.

If you examine Lance's photos you'll see that the edge appears to have chipped away instead of folded in upon itself. The later result is indicative of a blade that is "too soft" as is Lance's contention, the former is not. Since the sword was used against a piece of hardened dead bone (not just a chunk of meat) I'm not surprised at the result. I wouldn't have been shocked at the result if I'd have chosen to use the sword against a target like that, I simply would have resharpened the edge and moved on. Lance hasn't mention whether or not the sword's blade took a set or has remained true. If the blade was indeed too soft I would suspect that it would take a set during use.

The issue of the hardness of the fittings has alreay been covered. Many other companies also use investment cast mild steel for their hilt components. They all agree that the relative hardness of these components, in general, is similar to that of period forged iron fittings. If you're trying to recreate a sword as closely as you can with modern materials you need to use materials that are similar to the originals.

The rust issue is a serious one that needs to be dealt with. I've also received Albion swords that were rusty. However, this is a shipping issue not a design and materials issue.

In my opinion this is more a case of Lance and his friends not understanding the sword's intended purpose and the manufacturers design philosophy. The Brescia isn't a bad sword, nor are Lance and his study group totally off base in their efforts. They just need to find a sword that fits with their needs. I don't think the Brescia does that. I've dropped an Albion and had the hilt components damaged (on concrete). That's told me that I need to be more careful in my handling, not that there is a fault in the sword's materials. I've also seen Albion swords put into contact with things like a mail coif and not receive damage to the edge. Then again, that particular sword was designed to handle targets like that so maybe that had something to do with it.

George,

We can't adequately answer your question without putting our answers in the proper context. This requires further discussion of Lance's review and the sword in question.

I suppose we could have differing opinions of what is good and what is bad. I don't see Lance's review as negative in any way. I do see it as quite honest.

The damage you mention is a dulling of a 5 mm wide section of the blade when it struck a hard surface. This seems quite reasonable to me. Swords, though quite durable, aren't impervious to wear. Many period examples show signs of battle damage and/or resharpening. I've resharpened a machete, an axe, and a cleaver. Come to think of it, I've resharpened (often) a straight razor. I TRY to only cut whiskers with that.

My own experience with my Albion swords has been excellent. I have 4 at the moment - Vinland, Knight, Landgraf, Regent. I have cut dozens of pool noodles, water-filled milk jugs, and water-filled 2-liter bottles. Granted, these aren't hard targets like bone, but I did knock an edge on the wood platform I was using as a stand. It cut the wood, and I did pucker up. It scuffed the blade, but it cleaned up with a wipe-down with some oil. None of my pieces show any signs of wear.

I remember a review once on a knife forum where someone was upset beacuse he chipped his high dollar knife trying to chop trough bone. The knife was a Fallkniven Thor. I own one and it's a massive, heavy duty piece of 7 mm thick, 59 HRC VG-10 steel. If that can chip on dead bone I wouldn't be surprised if a sword did.

A company representative answered that he shouldn't be surprised that his knife chipped. He considered it abuse.

This guy who was upset at his chipped knife used to chop bone with his old knife that was much cheaper. Considering the similarity of these two cases I wonder if there is a technique issue. The new tool may not agree with being used like the old tool. :?:

Well, bone is a surprisingly tough matter. Especially dead bone, once it's hardened some. Hey, before the bronze age they made arrowheads and knives out of that stuff... and it's fairly popular as a material for knife and sword hilts up to this day.

Live bone will grip the edge of a blade that impacts it like an axe edge - perhaps dry dead bone will do the same. A blade may suffer damage while being removed from the grip of a bone target, if the user twists the blade while pulling it out. My own inference from this fact is to avoid using your sharp, thin blades to hack into bone like an axe. If you do manage to strike bone, don't be in a great rush to get the blade free of the bone unless you want to leave a piece of blade behind.

I own the sword that Patrick witnessed come into contact with a butted maille coif.

B. Stark whacked the coif of a helm on a backswing/follow-through after cutting a tatami mat.

I have not retouched the edge on that one. and a number of folks have seen it now. And yes I know I am lazy for not sharpening the blade more.

There are a couple of duller spots on the blade, but nothing that I personally would call rolling or chipping. I also tend to think this means that the Albion folks had not resharpened before they sent it to me. If I am wrong on that last bit, Albion people like Mike can chime in.

Most likely, I will be taking this sword over to Chad's later this week. It is therefore possible to get a cm by cm view of an Albion edge that has come into contact with a maille coif....if Chad and his camera are willing and able that is.

Context. It's all about context. Understanding how things are to be put into a larger picture and how they relate with other factors is the only way to grasp any of this stuff.

A few years back I took a Windlass sword (unsharpened, but not blunt, as Windlass swords are shipped that way) and cut some thick-walled carpet tubes with it. Yes, This medium is a hard and difficult to cut. It's also a medium not really similar to anything any sword was ever designed to go against. With these unsharpened swords, such as blades from Del Tin, it's quite possible to get a good cut, even though the action is likely more chopping than slicing. Now, on this particular day my Windlass sword's edge was chipped to hell because of this exercise. I had a large 1/4" chip "fall away" from the edge as well as several other areas of folding and twisting at the edge. Am I to take this result as meaning that the Windlass blade was too hard? If I did, I'd be dead wrong because I'd be surprised if this there were even at 50RC. The conclusions to be made from that day are much more involved than that.

If you do more reading on our site here, you'll realize that the subject of swords, their cutting actions, their use on targets, their modern use compared to historical use, their intended purposes throughout history, expectations of one-time survivability and performance vs. repeated uses or abuses, and all other related subjects are a much more complex subject than can be summed up with a simple conclusion.

If I wanted to butcher meat and cut dead bone in the process, I'd use a cleaver and not a sword, because this is a tool designed for that repeated purpose. If I needed to chop firewood for my camp fire, I'd use an axe and not a sword, because axes are built for that job. If I wanted to drive some philips-headed screws into a piece of wood, I'd use a screwdriver and not a sword. If I needed to clear brush in my backyard, I'd use a machete and not a sword. If I found myself in a historical battle, I'd use a sword and worry more about my own survival more than that of my sword's edge.

Consider what a sword is designed to do. Consider what a specific sword is designed to do. There are many purposes for swords. As Patrick noted, the comment that swords were not specialized is so misguided as to indicate a complete lack of research on the subject. While there are swords designed for training and bouting, and now modern-made swords designed for repeated cutting practice, most historic swords were designed for battle: to kill, to maim, to injure. This is a very specific purpose and is quite different than the notion of taking it out every weekend and bashing various test-cutting materials, other swords, and the like.

I'm not at all surprised by the results seen in Lance's review. I'm not surprised by the results seen in the ATrim "helmet on a stick" test discussed a year or more ago. I'm not surprised by the performance of my Windlass sword discussed above. I think all of these swords performed exactly how I'd expect them to in these situations. In terms of the Windlass one discussed here, I was impressed with its performance given the situation, but I'm considering the whole thing in a much larger, and proper, context.

I also don't see Lance's review as a bad review. Albion has bad worse things said about them. We've been critical of various elements from time to time. This is true for all the sword makers. But I hope we put this stuff in the right context when we do it. We try to, anyway.

But since I'm not in the mood to beat a dead horse anymore than I already have, that's enough from me. (and if I were, I'd likely not use a sword, since swords weren't designed for beating dead horses)

It's all about how you judge damage and usage isn't it ? Returning to the original thread rather than the 'bone' offshoot, I agree with Micha above that this has been discussed sufficiently elsewhere. But yet we all continue...(regarding Albion or anyone else)

It seems to be an ongoing issue about not just what swords can do, but what they are supposed to do and how any of us judge the damage to their swords and why. First an article comment by Kenji Mishina, expert Japanese sword polisher and appraiser :

'When the sword is used in fighting, it could be damaged considerably and then the life of the sword could be finished after several occasions of use in the battle field. In actual fact, old swords in sound condition seem to have rarely been used in fighting.'

London University December 6th 1996

i.e. Swords get damaged in combat or contact. That should be a given. Therefore all hard object tests will result in damage I would think.

My comments below, as on the previous thread on this topic, are based on a fencing background, as that is what I know.

When it comes to a value of a sword as a historical replica there appear to be 3 options to me :

Firstly rate it as an entirely aesthetic replica following outlines but not performance, as a wall-hanging

Secondly those who desire a functional sword but who's aim with it is to judge it by its ability to cut through inanimate (meat, dead-bone etc) structures that don't fight back and expect it to be pristine afterwards.

Thirdly is to consider it a tool for fencing, and a 'tool with a finite life' per Patrick (which I agree with completely). Most importantly a tool to fence an opponent who is not an inanimate joint of meat but a moving, intelligent and skilled opponent.

Historically, the sword's damage after contact with other weapons or hard objects was, I think, never the point. When fencing, the only thing on your mind is the target , the only value in the sword is the weight, balance, point control etc which allows you to essentially get your opponent before they get you, whether it be points in a fencing match or your life in a battle. As a beginner fencer I always used to pick up the same dented, rusty old club epee for matches because although it was in poor shape, it was well balanced and it worked : the cosmetics didn't matter. The same applies, I would think ,to the originals and modern replicas: if the balance and temper is good, it's a good sword, because it allows you to win. So the superficial damage repairable at the forge was fine provided the sword served your purpose to win. It's about the interaction of balance of weapon and your fencing ability , not how it looks after the strike. You have to connect with your opponent before that even comes into point.

So essentially I think Lance's review is missing the point of what the sword was for. Whatever the company producing the sword, the essential issue , if you are looking for a 'performing sword' ,is does it replicate the originals in performance, not just decoration, and the definition of performance would be ' Would it assist you in balance and all other respects to defeat your opponent based on your fencing skills and its performance ?' Rather than looking at the edge after a cut, ask yourself, would this tool have helped me to overcome an opponent. That's the judge of good fencing weapons. Nobody ever made a sword to cut pork.

Daniel

I wouldn't call it a "bad" or negative review. We have to consider the matter of perspective. From Lance's (or any other modern sword collector's) perspective, it was a matter of, "Oh, son of a $%^*&! I just dinged up the blade on my beautiful new sword!" On the other hand, I believe that a Medieval soldier would have been more inclined to just, much like Patick pointed out, repair the edge as best he could in the field and moved on. To us, swords are pretty to look at and interesting as collector's items, to the people in the past who used them for real, they were the tools of battle. I'm sure that period swords were sometimes horribly damaged in combat, coming into contact with armour and other weapons as they did. I don't know what the service life of a Medieval military sword was, but I wouldn't be surprised if they often only survived a few good battles. In short, I would not view Lance's review as an indication that Albion's swords are somehow not up to par, but rather a good example of the fact that even an expensive and superbly-well-designed sword can be damaged when subjected to situations for which it was not designed. :)

Lance's tales of damage don't even come close to what some of these shipping carriers can do !

Seems the medieval battlefield of today is in some warehouse, or the back of some delivery truck, as far as I can tell !

;-) Mac