I like the pommel quite a bit, and I like the size. I'm a fan of bigger swords too. But aesthetically I don't care for the rounded blade at the guard. Just my personal taste though.
Joel, I must humbly and respectfully differ from Jean's and Addison's views of the rounded waist area of the blade near the hilt. I like the fine aesthetic lines you have designed there! I would even put up with any resulting negative handling attributes, since they are probably workable. A perfectly engineered design will never guarantee your victory anyway. Kind of like "bench racing". Only at the top levels of competition does refinement of equipment become a determining factor. I have seen it personally... ability is paramount!
| Torsten F.H. Wilke wrote: |
| Joel, I must humbly and respectfully differ from Jean's and Addison's views of the rounded waist area of the blade near the hilt. I like the fine aesthetic lines you have designed there! I would even put up with any resulting negative handling attributes, since they are probably workable. A perfectly engineered design will never guarantee your victory anyway. Kind of like "bench racing". Only at the top levels of competition does refinement of equipment become a determining factor. I have seen it personally... ability is paramount! |
Joel: if you like the rounded area I don't see any problem with it: I was basically giving my first impression of it and even my previous post shows some ambivalence about it. ;) I think it's mostly a design feature I would not have thought of myself and I haven't seen or remember seeing this feature before. ( Once my eyes get used to it I can go from not liking it to liking it. )
Bottom line is that you may get a wide range of opinions for and against but the only thing that matters is getting it done as you like it. The only objections you should not dismiss would be criticisms of design features that would make it a bad sword functionally, and I don't think this is the case here.
On the plus side it gives the sword blade a distinct character it wouldn't have as a plain ordinary type XVIII.
( In other words I'm talking myself into it. ;) :lol: )
Thanks for the feedback guys. Anything aesthetic will garner varying opinions. The rounded shoulders of the blade I tend to like. I think it lends an overall flow to the blade. However, it is not everyone's taste. This was a design feature incorporated on the sword Kevin Cashen made for me and it turned out quite nicely ( I think). Kevin and I talked a bit about it and he saw no structural or performance problems asscociated with the design. Please don't think I take this personally, I asked for opinions and expect honesty from this group. :D Here is a photo of the sword Kevin made (cause I love showing it off) where you can see the rounded shoudlers of the blade. The only thing I ask you guys is not to start throwing "historical accuracy" at me. In no way is this sword an attempt to mimick any historical sword.
Joel
Attachment: 28.64 KB
Anduril made by Kevin Cashen
Joel
Attachment: 28.64 KBAnduril made by Kevin Cashen
That's a very nice weapon! What does the other end look like? Blade length? Weight?
I like the overall design of the sword, except the rounded shoulder area on the blade. It's fine structurally but for me it interrupts the line of the sword, doing exactly the opposite of what it does for you apparently. To each his own though. I think it would look better to give the shoulder of the blade an outward flare instead of an inward curve. It might look quite handsome on a sword that large.
I don't think a personal project needs to adhere too closely to historical parameters. There's plenty of room for creativity without interfering with the structural integrity of the piece.
I don't think a personal project needs to adhere too closely to historical parameters. There's plenty of room for creativity without interfering with the structural integrity of the piece.
my personal preference would be, to have the blade waist down to the hilt as aposed to rounding. like an exagerated vertion of the svante recasso. i think it would complement the simmilar curve of the pommel.
just my 2 cents ;)
just my 2 cents ;)
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
| I don't think a personal project needs to adhere too closely to historical parameters. There's plenty of room for creativity without interfering with the structural integrity of the piece. |
Joel;
The historical comments I think can be seen as very " neutral " and are irrelevant when the goal is not for a strict historical design.
I have a project of my own in mind where the starting point is the Pontirolo sword on page 81 of " Sword in hand " but may end up very different i.e. different pommel, different blade grind bevels etc. What may remain is the general outline of the profile taper that I like but into a more type XVI than a type X blade. I'm still very much into the early design process.
What I want to keep is the idea of a HUGE one hander between 4 pounds and a maximum of 5 pounds with a point of balance between 6" to 9" max: This is were a lot of discussions with the maker will be needed about distal taper, hollow grinding and maximum and minimum blade thickness: Maybe going overboard at first and then bringing things back down to NOT BOATANCHOR specifications.
In other words my project sword will be much more a personal " fantasy " design than historical but one that the objective is for an effective using sword: Will probably be one of those swords that is a tweener between 2 or 3 Oakeshotts types.
So, from the above, I guess our design process will be similar with historical designs being a guide but not barrier to creativity.
When I have something designed and Photoshopped I will probably post a topic then. Your design process and this discussion is actually helping me to narrow down what I want to keep and what I want to change to the historical design. :cool:
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
| To each his own though. I think it would look better to give the shoulder of the blade an outward flare instead of an inward curve. It might look quite handsome on a sword that large.. |
Patrick I hadn't thought about that at all! Perhaps it would look like this...
Attachment: 12.57 KB[ Download ]
Joel;
Yes. I like that a great deal and I don't have to talk myself into it. ;) :p :lol:
Oh, and you already have the rounded feature on the sword Kevin made for you so why repeat it ? I do like that sword overlall though. :D
Yes. I like that a great deal and I don't have to talk myself into it. ;) :p :lol:
Oh, and you already have the rounded feature on the sword Kevin made for you so why repeat it ? I do like that sword overlall though. :D
My only concern is that the base of the balde would be about 3 1/2" wide at the current scale and proportions. I may experiment with narrowing that and see what it looks like. A Svante-like balde configuration would like like the attached. THis one also has some interesting waiting along the length of the blade.
Joel
Attachment: 16.72 KB
[ Download ]
Joel
Attachment: 16.72 KB[ Download ]
| Joel Whitmore wrote: |
| My only concern is that the base of the balde would be about 3 1/2" wide at the current scale and proportions. I may experiment with narrowing that and see what it looks like. A Svante-like balde configuration would like like the attached. THis one also has some interesting waiting along the length of the blade.
Joel |
Also nice: This is where I go nuts when designing something flipping back and forth until I finally decide what I like best.
Sometimes good to step away from it for a little bit of time and let the subconscious deal with it: Usually the favoured designed will keep coming back to the frontal lobes more often than the alternate designs.
Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Mon 11 Sep, 2006 6:21 am; edited 1 time in total
| Torsten F.H. Wilke wrote: |
| That's a very nice weapon! What does the other end look like? Blade length? Weight? |
My version of Anduril with the pommel by Patrick Hastings and everything else by Kevin Cashen. Blade is L6. O.L. 47 1/4"
Blade Length: 36 1/4"
Handle Length: 8 1/2"
Pommel Height: 2 1/2"
Weight: 3 lbs 5oz
COB: 5 3/4" from the crossguard
COP: 22" from the cross
Attachment: 18.94 KB
| Joel Whitmore wrote: | ||
Patrick I hadn't thought about that at all! Perhaps it would look like this... |
Yes! That looks much better to me. I like the line and flow of the piece much better like that. Very bold and powerfull yet still gracefull.
| Joel Whitmore wrote: |
| My only concern is that the base of the balde would be about 3 1/2" wide at the current scale and proportions. I may experiment with narrowing that and see what it looks like. A Svante-like balde configuration would like like the attached. THis one also has some interesting waiting along the length of the blade.
Joel |
Much better (as is the one with the flared out bit above)!
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | ||||
Yes! That looks much better to me. I like the line and flow of the piece much better like that. Very bold and powerfull yet still gracefull. |
Thanks Patrick. I hate to keep doing this but I wanted the widening to be more subtle and graceful so I redid it. I think it looks great. It definitely makes the blade look more powerful. What about mass distribution on this beastie? Think it will be a problem?
Joel
Attachment: 15.96 KB[ Download ]
Joel;
Mass distribution shouldn't be affected by the flare, at least in the sense that the amount of distal taper and how it is done will matter more: Linear or varying in degree over the length of the blade, the swordmaker should be able to adjust the handling no matter how you finally decide the final profile of the blade near the guard. ( Opinion )
Hope we are helping here. ;) I do like it a lot now in the most recent version.
Mass distribution shouldn't be affected by the flare, at least in the sense that the amount of distal taper and how it is done will matter more: Linear or varying in degree over the length of the blade, the swordmaker should be able to adjust the handling no matter how you finally decide the final profile of the blade near the guard. ( Opinion )
Hope we are helping here. ;) I do like it a lot now in the most recent version.
| Joel Whitmore wrote: |
| Thanks Patrick. I hate to keep doing this but I wanted the widening to be more subtle and graceful so I redid it. I think it looks great. It definitely makes the blade look more powerful. What about mass distribution on this beastie? Think it will be a problem?
Joel |
I'm really liking that now Joel. I don't think the subtle change will do much to affect the distribution of mass. However, those are details best left to the professional making the sword. How about a slight downward curve to the ends of the guard?
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | ||
I'm really liking that now Joel. I don't think the subtle change will do much to affect the distribution of mass. However, those are details best left to the professional making the sword. How about a slight downward curve to the ends of the guard? |
Interesting Patrick.
Attachment: 5.92 KB
Original Design
Attachment: 5.93 KB
Latest Iteration
| Joel Whitmore wrote: |
|
Interesting Patrick. |
Excellent! I love the way that looks.
Page 2 of 4
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