So, medieval people looking at a modern machine made reproduction would think: "Its too perfect, therefore it must have been made by a wizard"! "Look at that pommel - It's witches work, my liege!" A monk bring the sword inside a monastery - "It's the sword of Gabriel!" *instant new relic*
Honestly, if you traveled back and had a perfectly made sword, claiming it's a God's gift would be the best way to avoid being burnt alive. just think of a modern steel sword, perfectly heat treated and perfectly sharpened. Everyone would go pretty mad about it, so you just claim it was made by an archangel and gifted to you so you can protect christians. Boom, you're a national hero.
@@Verbose_Mode The thing is that even the bronze we make is better then what they had during that age, a good bronze sword of that era would be like us using one made from 9160 high carbon steel, this is a six month old comment I know, but whatever.
I like your style of doing things. Of course you can cnc mill a sword with as good as no tolerance ... but it will never have the "warm" look of something handmade.
Ghostselkie like I said in a separate comment. I’m torn. Handmade things will ALWAYS have flaws. But I just really can’t wrap my head around the “good enough” attitude of the time. Handmade things can be close to perfect but it’s about finding a balance that fits both aesthetics and economics. Unfortunately I think I’ve been spoiled by modern abilities for far too long. I just don’t know if that’s a bad thing or not...
@@EliotChildress Got to remember that they didn't have all the same tools we have today, so even though you feel like it wouldn't be much work to get something done "properly", it might entail a lot more time and effort than was worth the cost.
@@EliotChildress Historically they didnt have measuring equipment like we have today. Sure they can mark things on a piece of wood or metal to use to measure stuff, but most of them probably used fingers or thumbs, which leads to the inaccuracies. Also I would imagine the materials were much more expensive, so if you messed something up, you had to just go with it.
@@Shadowofromefanatic exactly! Laying a thumb or pressing your thumb makes the fleshy part different widths, several mm even. Back then tolerances were in millimeters, not thousandths of mm like today's machining!
Thanks for the info ,we were made to believe that the old swords were that perfect we couldn’t reproduce a sword that perfect ,what a shock .We have a TV program called Forged in Fire and they are expected to reproduce a perfect knife in 6 hours with handle made out of wood elks horn etc . Thanks for the info sir I will pass the info on to other people .
I got a reproduction USMC 1942 machette. I think it looks better with a few scratches then it was when I got it. If I had the money to buy a handmade sword. I want it to show that it´s handmade and I kind of like the battlefield pickup look.
Thanks for the video. I learned something new today. I've always thought that the craftmanship of the past were better than present. What are your thoughts on Asian (sword) craftsmanship of the past as compared to the present day craftmanship?
Isn't the reason for swordblade's disproportion that it was re-grinded from notches multiple times? I know you would not expect notches that deep and so much more from one side, but also given the slightly concave line of the edge, it seems to me as an explanation... Feel invited to correct me.
knightshousegames the man is telling you his style, that is the beautiful thing about craftsmen. If you want a perfect machine cut piece, they are out there. If you want an authentic piece (which you will find most reenactors and living history participants do indeed want!) It’s out there. And with Tod you’re getting a nicely done piece that doesn’t break the bank, and it is likely of superior quality to your perfectly machine cut piece.
Oh for real. I do historical musical performance, and honestly, a big part of it is understanding that our standards for performance and perfection is so much higher now. Usually musicians were given manuscripts not too long before the performance and that was just what you did. So our idea of note perfection is a modern thing, comes from highly edited recordings, and actually frequently doesn't capture the essence of collaborative and spontaneous performance. Often if something goes really squirrelly someone will say "well that was just extra authentic performance" (I am NOT saying that we try to do a bad job. We do our best. But sometimes things just go wrong in the moment, no matter how much you prepare!)
Yeah, I just look and think that they genuinely did not care about what we consider aesthetic. Symmetry and flawlessness are not things that existed anywhere in their life, scars, wobbly teeth, this stuff was not just normal, it is how the world worked in their mind.
@@tods_workshop Certain fields require perfection, symmetry, and complete control. Art is not one of them and I consider what you do art. If you insert a bit of you in every piece you make, it makes the piece that much special and unique.
@@AzureBeatPony People value what's hard to do. People in the past would have paid far more for super symmetrical items, because it would have been much harder to produce. Now such symmetry means easier mass production. It's like how mashed potatoes with lumps means it's not from cheap flakes while in the past getting super smoothness was the goal.
They did it without glasses, that alone takes away much precision from many good artisans. And without power tools, here again many blade smiths do now everything with a grinder where they most likely did most with a hammer
@@patrickmccurry1563 But asymmetry and flaws show up in high status items. There's a sword that I think is supposed to have belonged to a king of England where the crossguard is highly off center. The weapon is gilded and heavily decorated but is not at all symmetrical. If we were talking millimeters that would make sense, but this is something like a 3 cm difference in length. Hell, the bishop's sword Tod just showed belonged to a high status man, and it isn't bothered with being bilaterally symmetrical. We value what our culture values. Today, symmetry or is the default starting point of attractiveness. Asymmetery is a designed disruption of that. I can't think that they thought that way given what we see of the artifacts they left.
I am not a master craftsman by any stretch of the imagination. But, I would say, it would be a shame to expect a craftsman to make something worse than what their skill allows. We don't currently produce swords for the same purpose that they were made historically. We aren't trying to arm garrisons or armies. The speed of manufacture vs. functionality vs. look balance is completely different. It would be a shame to ask a modern craftsman to lower his/her quality to copy something that I'm sure the medieval craftsman would have wished they could have had the time and energy to achieve and still make a living.
@@tods_workshop Oh, I agree...I might have not been completely clear. I didn't mean perfect...I meant more along the lines of not being an exact copy for some of the obvious issues like asymetrical curves or blades. I think there is a big difference between machine made or sterile produced products and hand crafted with less refinement. And, as you said, some things you cannot make and sell even if the originals had that. You do beautiful work, Tod. Wish I could afford some of your work. I believe there is a big difference between leaving the finish a little rough with maybe some pitting here or there or not totally cleaning up file work to keep authenticity and intentionally making things asymetric or imperfect to try and copy the original.
I completely agree, yet I would go even one step further & suggest that the manufacturing process included a great deal more involvement by apprentices than is seen now due to the required amounts of weapons needed. This could logically account for much of the reduced quality. I would also assume that a common attitude may have been "function over form", bearing in mind that weapons are (were) in fact tools to be used. Now I've never used a sword in my life, but I am a carpenter. I'll pound nails with a wrench if I have to, but in such a situation on payday I'm going to buy a hammer. I want that sweet Estwing framing hammer, but I'm not making much & have other bills, so I'll settle for a basic Craftsman claw hammer in the meantime. It'll do for now. I propose a good deal (if not a majority) of weapon sales back in the day fit this market, which would explain the numbers of "less than perfect" examples found today. But I merely speculate.
Still though I think if they did work with our standards they crafts would have improved as well. Ofcourse still not on par with what we can today because of technological differences.
You're sort of correct, but also not. Mass production now is essentially no different from mass production then: Make the product just "good enough" using the least amount of work and effort required. I know many craftsmen that make products for sale and really cut corners to get any profit at all out of it. Very few are willing to pay $1,000 just to cover the labor cost for a pair of hand knitted gloves...
Aim for perfection yet allow for imperfections... happy accidents and tolerable mistakes... making it more for the individual. If the owner uses it they know how to handle it from experience. Like a gun with a sight being off or the weight is not like another. ...?
@John Saf Even in modern forged firearms, not each piece is perfectly identical. The only way you're going to get "perfect" is to have a nearly ideal toolpath and tooling and CNC mill and cut it out of billet... but it's not going to be as strong as a forged part.
Daniel Schroedinger if you want the ultimate clickbait title it has to be something like “Todd absolutely DESTROYS medieval sword makers!!!!” or something along those lines. :)
That's... that's exactly how they did it back then, with a minor detail that I'd add: (bashing) _while following a general concept_ (until it looked right). But yes, you nailed it David. Cheers sir, may you have a great day.
Andrew Lockwood I’d guess most swords never hurt anyone so it was probably actually more important that it looked good- like modern sports cars I suppose. (Good quote though)
@@joemacleod-iredale2888 Cohan The Barbarian, from the Discworld, not to be confused with that other fella with a similar name, would say that a sword needs to be very good at killing - with a band of 6 other 70+year old men, he took over an empire, and then took on the gods, rolling a 7 on a 6-sided die, and he bought an apple. Vimes, also from Discworld, used a very plain and ordinarily-looking sword, which he borrowed from a rookie guard named Carrot, and used it to cut the very fancy sword his enemy used. Carrot got it back.
‘Hmm?’ Colon had momentarily been lost in a little world of speculation. Real kings had shiny swords, obviously. Except, except, except maybe your real king of, like, days of yore, he would have a sword that didn’t sparkle one bit but was bloody efficient at cutting things. Just a thought.
I work with research on military uniforms and equipment from roughly 1918 until 1945. It's surprising how POORLY a lot of these modern, factory made items were made for military purposes as well. We also do some reproductions for collectors, reenactors, role players, theaters, films and museums etc. Museums, theaters and films are very tolerant on us making "proper" reproductions, with mistakes, "mistakes" and features. The regular customers, such as collectors and reenactors especially tend to complain a lot if you're actually making an exact reproduction. Hence we have somewhat different production limits for your average Joe and the actual reproductions. It's all quite interesting.
Hell even post war stuff can have quite a bit of asymmetry, I have a Bulgarian great coat, I think it airforce but idk the exact branch, probably made in the 50s-60s and I bought my friend one and it was almost completely different, the fabric was of a different texture and thickness the color was slightly different, the collar was slightly off in a different direction to mine, the liner was slightly different, but it was still similar enough to say hey that’s a Bulgarian great coat.
Hi Tod. On the long sword why did you make the grip twist in the opposite direction to the original? Was it to make it a more comfortable grip for the right hand? I'm a stonemason and it's the same with masonry of the time. They were really rough. I cringe anytime I walk though a church or cathedral. Most apprentices could do better work.
It's really nothing out of the ordinary there. Production methods and skill of those involved have progressed massively over the centuries and even the last few decades. Automation, precision and data science have done wonders (or heresy, depending on your point of view) for quality. I can only wonder how BigData will shape everything when it's become really widespread.
The interesting thing I saw it in the forte of the longsword is the slight inward curve. It eases the sharp corners somewhat and gives it a nice look. Sometimes things like the asymmetries in the sword blade actually come out being attractive. I'm reminded of go boards, which don't actually have a square grid. The grid is slightly longer along the players' line of sight to partially offset the foreshortening from perspective. The other thing to remember is that historically these were functional items. Cosmetic defects were really irrelevant. Even in the modern era, cosmetic defects in functional items are typically overlooked.for example, look inside a computer case. You'll see places were plating is rubbed off when parts rub together, etc. Does anyone care? Not really. Semi trailers and shipping containers are another fine example. You typically see them dinged up, dirty, etc. No one really cares as long as they are structurally sound. Someone buying a sword today is not interested in it as a functional item. When was the last time that there was a serious sword battle? They're interested in it as a beautiful museum piece, and as such, flaws that are cosmetically offensive are much more important than they would be had the sword been a functional item.
Many people appreciate the beauty of 'imperfect' functional items. The Japanese call it 'wabi sabi'. Perfection really depends on your point of view like the difference between randomness and chaos.
I'm a fan of reproductions that aim not to correct "flaws" in the design, but only material flaws and damage due to degradation. Keep it faithful to the original, use modern technology, but keep it looking historical, so long as it's still functional. Fixing symmetry in the design is one of the only exceptions to the rule.
This brings up a question: Are we sure the asymmetry of a blade was an original feature or is it the result of a lifetime of repairs? These were weapons that people used, no matter how ornate, and not always in combat. Maybe a lord accidentally chipped his sword after getting drunk and smashing it on a table. Maybe someone bent an edge or two hitting armor during training. Maybe the castle blacksmith who had to fix the sword simply didn't have the tools or skills to fix them straight? In that case should the replica emulate the final look of the blade or the appearance when it was first presented to the owner?
@@andrewsuryali8540 With many swords it is hard to tell if they're had a lot of cumulative resharpening or edge resharping, for example due to damage. It can be hard to tell what they looked like, fresh to the consumer
Excellent points, and I very much agree with the mindset. Yeah modern times have really cranked up the expectations of attention to detail, and while striving for perfection something is just... lost.
Hey Tod would you like to make some videos on Eastern culture weapons? As a Taiwanese I will be thrilled if I can see my own culture through the eyes of a master craftsman.
Every other episode of 'Grand Designs' - "The build's hit a problem; the frame of the wall is 5mil out, & it's holding-up putting the roof on". >frowns
Id love a medieval version of that programme. "The cathedral is nearly ready, except for one side having subsided about 3ft. Never mind, here's some buttresses- don't they look lovely?"
Thank you! This subject is something I have had to struggle with my entire artisan life - finding 'good enough' - or even finding when too perfect lacks character and too much character makes something look cheap. From the level of understanding of my craft, where I'm at currently, having sought to master my skill to a level where I can trust my inner vision to become manifested into a product representation that give that 'kick' / surge 'sense of acheivement' - has become a formula that balance the ratios of all things involved into 'making' by deeply comprehending the 'purpose' of a product. I think you bring these aspects up in a beautiful way - I think your message is a help for anyone striving to find 'perfection' in their own way. You sound like someone who have a level of mastery in understanding of your artistry that give you freedom to contemplate the perhaps dark arts of producing an implement :) Nice video, thanks! PS. I'm a CG/3D-artist - and while I love to dive into the details that tell me how an object was made - the hardest part has been to add the right balance of imperfection to my inner dream of what a perfect sword, in this case, should look like. I tend to imagine a too perfect object how it would look in its own time - same as I cherish the clean innocent beauty of an old rusted and distorted form, when it was new. I guess I'm a romantic after all :) Eng. is not my native language, sorry.
@@glyrr ummm.... have you ever heard of the "bind" in historical fencing? Blade on blade, edge to edge contact is in pretty much all of the manuals from the period.
@@Duzzies-101 Yes - for fencing. The situation is very different on a battlefield with hundreds or thousands of people. There, the sword is pretty much the last weapon used.
''Imagine''.. that's absolutely still true to this day. The US and UK military for instance get equipment from the lowest bidder which have, and most likely will in the future, come with problems that get people killed in a fight.
I bought 9260 and 1060 spring-steel Katanas a while ago. Pretty much better blade than any original Japanese Katana I think. Maybe not in balance, but the steel is of course much better and it doesn't break even if you'd hit it with a smithing hammer sideways on an anvil.
A very wise point of view in my opinion. One cannot archieve perfection, so why desperately trying to archieve it anyways? I think some ppl. here are erfectly right, machine production has made us overly sensitive for perfectionism, while we lost a certain sense to appreciate handcrafted things. Instead make it LOOK good and work adequate (or the other way round). I always found that imperfections and errors offer much more to learn from as a 100% perfect result. Btw, that's also why many tutorials on the internet don't help very much, because they never show what to do, when something ends up not 100% perfect.
Hardly surprising that pre industrial revolution manufacturing was at best "various", however it's refreshing to see this honestly appraised rather than the false statement "they don't make them like they used to".
I vaguely remember reading about how people from remote tribes and such are terrible at telling if things are perfectly streight and even. The suggestion was that perfect lines and corners aren't naturally as easy to see if you haven't been exposed to them your whole life. If buildings back then were similarly not quite square and such compared to today, perhaps people back then had less of an eye for it much like those tribesman? Perhaps to them what to us looks like it's obviously a off at a glance (as many of those historical pieces are) looked only off if they looked closely to most people back then.
Related to this I too vaguely remember reading that members of remote tribes are better at moving around their environment because their brain doesn't think in straight lines to navigate like we do
It's certainly the case that people from different cultures perceive colour quite differently, e.g. some languages don't have words for certain colours (like using the same word for blue and green) or have several words for what we would think of as the "same" colour. So I can certainly imagine concepts like "symmetry" or "identical" not really being used.
In regards to the IX949's asymmetry, (and many other diamond cross-section swords) I wonder if it was to make the sword stronger, as a slight Rhombus is stubborn enough to work with when the steel is hot in the smithy, let alone after tempered and finished as a sword? At any rate, nobody would bother ditching a usable blade for being slightly off, especially when it's slight warp goes well with the woodland themed hilt.
IIRC & going only from this vid's notes/points the problem wasn't with the x-section but with the 'waney' edge, introducing potential weaknesses into the blade (as well as offsetting balance a bit). Uneven sharpening (eg to remove combat-related nicks) may account for some of this, but for a 'dress' sword (as opposed to a combat sword) they may be pretty much discounted: the spine appears to be pretty straight throughout The pommel, however, strikes me as overly fancy (leading to the idea that this was a dress sword rather than a combat weapon). To my mind the pommel serves several practical purposes: it's an end-stop for the blade tang; it's a decorative item; but (for a combat weapon) it serves as a balance weight in much the same way as coarse angling (fishing) rods can be butt-heavy to help with casting accuracy & ease on arm muscles..
I actually prefer a little asymmetry. It makes the sword look organic. Like it's a living thing vs a machine. Nature is never particularly symmetrical.
I am not a "collector" - I just like nice weapons. As such, I want the best that can be manufactured these days, even if the design is ancient. So, don't spare the metallurgy or the computer controlled precision in production.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 modern steel is better understood, better heat treated, and has far more consistent carbon content and grain structure than historical steel. A modern mass produced sword would be far Superior in holding an edge and far less likely to deform or break.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 Modern is way, way, way better... tod said himself in this video 6:10 examples.. hell, even 50$ shop swords will be better than 95% medievalswords.. there was no consistency back then, heat treating is controlled now, there is no comparing todays technology to theirs.. also, now knowledge is literally free.
Gam3B0y That isn’t necessarily true depending on your status your swords could be made by the same guy who made Henry Vs. Meanwhile the current market is oversaturated with sword imitation crap, Deepeeka to name one. Also rat tail tangs on sword like objects that cause the blade to fly out. As well as overly heavy swords like Cold steels for example. In the medieval ages, and my preferred period, the Victorian age when they actually did start making steels comparable to what we have today if you went to a good quality maker you could get a real fighting sword and not a piece of crap. Matt Easton has even talked about this, that some officer’s in Victorian period would get what he called Tailor’s swords. Some officers bought swords from the same place they bought their uniform which as a result means that quite a lot of them were pieces of crap and actually broke in use/ combat. While on the other hand he mentions officer’s going out of the way to have custom swords made by amazing companies such as Wilkinson, Mole, or Thurkle. You honestly get what you pay for even back then. One such example he gave was an officer in the Navy stationed in Japan, One of the guys on board got a hold of a katana, they tested it against a Wilkinson saber, The Katana chipped/ was bitten into and the saber was left undamaged.
Interesting, When I was trying to make a living making split cane fishing rods, i'd see a very similar thing. I'd see classic and valuable rods from very well thought of makers made in the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century that had flaws that I would think unacceptable on one of my own rods. I don't know why, but attitudes have certainly changed. Perhaps it's because now having something made by a craftsman is a bit of a novelty in a world where almost anything can be mass produced. It's relatively expensive to buy anything hand made, that put more focus on the craftsmanship than a time where everything everyone owned was hand made.
I think it's a combination of things. People who make hand-made stuff now don't consider themselves journeymen - they aspire to be master craftsmen. They have customers who expect master craftsmanship. Secondly, the cost of materials may be less significant now compared to the perceived value of the work. It's possible to scrap something if it's not "good enough". The mass produced uniformity for comparison is there, for sure.
Mass production does not always equal quality. There have been leaps in material science and production techniques, but that doesn't mean you are always getting the benefits of it. Modern production is itself a 'good enough' application based primarily on costs. Modern affordable tools do not hold up as well as older affordable tools, for example. For some reason, despite supposedly more advanced material science, my breaker bars, wrenches, and presses from the 30s are far superior to modern ones in terms of durability/longevity. A sword today is not a necessity and can be sourced from all over the world, therefore when people purchase one they want top quality aesthetics. I'd wager if people considered a sword or dagger a necessity and there was only one or two smiths within their reach, they would gladly accept asymmetry. If you went to the grocery store, you'd pick the best looking fruits and vegetables, right? What if the grocery store only had less perfect looking fruits and vegetables? Would you choose to not eat? I eat natural home grown apples, none of them look perfect, infact many of them look unappealing compared to those in the store... but they taste better. I would assume people of the period mostly focused on function first and looks second, except in cases where the piece was explicitly made for its visual appeal or cost was no object. Honestly I'm blown away they did as well as they did with the resources they had in many cases.
My absolute favorite item in my collection, without a doubt is my is a reproduction of the Wallace Collection A975 warhammer(not the discontinued Arms & Armor). I find it so beautiful for its flaws: the top spike is ever so slightly misaligned, the langets arent perfectly symmetrical with one another, the haft isnt uniformally octagonal, etc. And ive always felt that it gave it such a look of authenticity. And despite its cosmetic flaws, this thing is SO extremely tough and solidly put together that at 60 USD, it has BY FAR the best cost-to-value ratio of any weapon i own.
It's the same today. You can buy all manner of AR parts and put them together - and get rifles with vastly different results. Maybe a more complex weapon these days, but the widely varying quality of what is essentially the same design seems exactly the same.
@@jackbaxter4924 Exact same game, exact same league, just updated. It's cool the connection we still have to the past. Then, as now, parts were fabricated, shipped in bulk, and put together by the end user to make a weapon that someone probably treasured. That it's a different weapon is immaterial.
I work with traditional boats in Norway, and something we see here, especially in older boats, is the exact same thing. They're extremely well built, and every piece of symmetry that matters is within 1/16", but where the symmetry and precision isn't critical for the function of the craft, it looks sloppily made from a modern perspective. One challenge of bringing that traditional skill into modern times is that people expect to see millimetre precision in places where millimetre precision isn't necessary, which makes it difficult to use traditional methods some times.
It kind of sounds like one sees from the philosophy of arms manufacturing between Germany and Russia in WWII. The Russian armaments were functional but they didn't sweat the details. Welds were sloppy some joints didn't align properly but it was functional and worked. The Germans couldn't help themselves but to do go down to the nth degree on the fit and finish of their production. In the end both were fit for purpose but one just took 4 times longer to accomplish. I can see the swordsmiths and armourers at the time thinking mostly of the same way. It works get it out
I assume most swords from centuries past that we see now exist because they were not total shit to start with. Most of the real crap has been winnowed out by time and use.
@@ИмяФамилия-ц6д So much about your statements is just false: 1. It wasn't Hitler who was obsessed with "monster-machines", it was the whole upper echelons, but even then "obsessed" is far too negative and doesn't paint the whole picture. There were reasons for what they did. They knew they never could out produce the USSR (let alone the US, who kept the best living standard in the world and still managed to supply every other power and raising an army from almost nothing) and thus they made the decision to they to outmatch them in class. If the USSR can throw ten tanks at on German tank, they had to kill ten tanks in return. It's hindsight that this method didn't work. 2. The T-34s armour is only better frontally on paper. Production quality (especially at the beginning of the war) was all over the place and in most cases too hard. This resulted in crew loss through spalling even though rounds didn't penetrate. The T-34 also had massive problems with field of view (most of the times even the commander couldn't see from which vector they were shot at), missing radios and a two man turret, which led to overworking of the commander. It also wasn't "better to manoeuvre". It's common knowledge that the T-34 steers horrible, especially compared to German and US tanks. Yes, it had better traction on muddy ground, due to the fact that the tracks were wider (which the Germans couldn't easily copy because of their train gauge).
@@ИмяФамилия-ц6д T-34 had thick amour and a capable gun, but the the production quality was extremely inconsistent. Many of the T-34 they didn't even bother to smooth out the edges of the amour plates used to construct the tanks, but T-34 was never meant to last. The Russians did the math and figured out that Tanks didn't last very long on the Eastern front. So the Soviets built T-34 with planned obsolescence in line, carefull not to pour to much energy into a tank that would liekly be destroyed soon anyway. It wasn't''t a bad strategy by any means, certainly it was more effective than the German method of building a tank like a Maserati.
I think you've summed it up there. If the original craftsmen were working piece work then as long as the item passed the quality check by the master of the workshop then they went for sale. If you're producing hundreds or thousands of the same item by hand then there will be many variations and imperfections, medieval hand production was just not able to achieve the same level of accuracy or replication that modern engineering can achieve.
This is also so true in relation to jewellery. When looking at the jewels of a crown (literally) the craftsmanship is just so poor by today’s standards of perfection...
It is designed to decieve. Your enemy knows you have a concealed dagger. He grabs for the hilt and grasps it firmly. Only too late does he realise... This is a bit warm, a bit squishy, a bit hairy. You finish him rightly where he stands.
for the blade edge-spine difference, could it be that it was damaged or chipped, so they ground away to get a straight enough edge? it didn't come out of the blacksmith like that, but it was from wear and tear?
I'm wondering if the differences in the bevel from center could be from sharpening that side more often or removing a chip in the blade. Not from the way it left the Smith Just a thought.
I was thinking about this as well, but more like how Tod hits the nail on the head here, pinpointing the difference between medieaval European and Japanese or general East-Asian aesthetics. Present any of these historical pieces Tod discussed to your local daimyo, or even your average period Asian customer, and you'd be in a world of trouble. Yes, there is the concept of wabi-sabi, but it's hard to explain; with wabi-sabi at least the intent of the presence of seemingly random asymetry, is much more deliberate. It forms a distinguishable difference. For example, a Japanese sword might have a guard that is decisively off-centre, shows hammer as well as file marks at non-regular intervals. They are there, because even though the craftsman might not have set them there on purpose, he has intentionally left room for these "faults" to occur, rather than them occurring because they are passed his customer's expectations. In fact customers from a certain class upwards, from a certain time onwards, will actually expect him to allow for these "faults", instead of merely accepting their existence. In the case of the Japanese sword's guard, with all its unevenness, you can expect it to fit the blade it was made for snuggly, with a tolerance that might be lower than what you'd see in a modern industrial production setting. Make no mistake, I am not suggesting the medieaval European sense of aesthetic was somehow less developped than its contemporary Asian counterpart; it was simply different. Instead, I would say that our modern understanding of aesthetics in the western world, was heavily influenced by the contact with other cultures. Edit: In summary, I think the phenomenon Tod describes is the exact opposite of wabi-sabi. From one meter away, wabi-sabi has to look natural, like something was casually left as and where it is, yet upon closer inspection one should be able to discern the finest attention to detail.
@@laionidas7614 It sounds like you know a lot more about it than I do. I thought wabi-sabi was the embracing of inevitable imperfection, I didn't know it was something that, in the case of making something, would be the goal from the start. If you make something by hand and have to _intentionally_ add imperfections, you must be bloody good at your craft! 😂
@@ironpirate8 You're not wrong, it's just rather complicated, and easily becomes an endless debate. In a way it is indeed about embracing inevitable imperfections, but in practise, this also means that to some degree you have to accomodate these imperfections when creating something. You need to intentionally add unintentional imperfections. Most people familiar with the concept, can't explain or even fully understand it themselves. I know I can't. You just need to look at stuff and get the jest of it at some point. I might be able to tell if a certain picture, an unevenly formed piece of pottery or a half deteriorated piece of furniture is wabi-sabi, and I can tell you a sword with a rattling guard or off-centre shinogi (polishing ridge) is not. But why,..
I tend to pick apart modern reproductions and often assume that the imperfections are due to the cost to correct them or a lack of ability to do better. I don't often consider the makers desire to create something intentionally flawed or imperfect. Thank you for the video sir.
I prefer sterile, perfect symmetry. But the most important measure is that it handles like a historical sword. Most modern ones don't and are far too blade heavy.
If they're made for re-enactment that can be due to having a modern required, defined dull edge e.g. 3mm whereas the original blade might be much narrower than that.
@@darthkek1953 The ones I have are sharp but no distal taper. It pushes the balance point out by about 3 or 4 inches relative to where it should be. But I bought them a long time ago and HEMA wasn't so much of a thing then. They feel like swinging a sharp baseball bat.
You know this really made me appreciate my knife I just bought at the medieval faire last weekend. It’s a Damascus steel bush knife. Paid about $150 on it. Brought it home and immediately started noticing the flaws in it. I wasn’t disappointed per-say just realizing that this guy probably hand made every knife, sword and axe in that stall and there were over a hundred of them. I was a little abashed to show it to my buddys at work because I saw the flaws in it and they’re big knife enthusiasts and have really nice stuff. But all my friends saw was the cool design and the neat touch mark in the handle. This knife would have been an absolute master work in the medieval age. And it’s Damascus which would have been quite a prize in its own right. Now after listening to your video I can appreciate each “flaw” as a guy hammering it in his shed. This is no stamped knife made by kershaw or whatever. It was made by a guy with a forge and anvil. Pretty neat when you think of it like that!
I think that the only advantages of reproductions is that they have the advantage of being made from more refined material, and are easier to get a hold of than antiques.
Related video idea: What would, by modern scientific standards, be a "perfect" sword in terms of functionality, steel quality, durability, sharpness, etc. If you were unbound by materials, what would the hilt be made out of? If you could make the best sword, with what we know now, with modern tools, what would it be? How close did they come historically? I look at some historical examples and I'm really blown away at how good some of it looks and how sharp they probably were.
It always comes down to what you intend the item to be (in my case its restoring classic cars) the holy grail is to restore or make the item perfect enough to fool a professional that it is an original survivor, blade or car. In the case of making a copy of a historical piece you can either make it perfect with all its faults, make it as a copy but clean up the really bad stuff that would allow the blade to fail as a usable item (even if its for show) or make it to a modern standard as if you had taken the maker of the sword and given him a modern reference point With regards to the top quality of the time its probable that most makers only had their own work as a reference, or the bloke in the next town, if they didn't know of mm perfect spacing etc then they would never think to achieve it that and the fact of quick mass production would escalate the floors very greatly So make the swords with the intent you need to or your customer requires, but like cars if you try to go into the middle ground you might produce something that doesn't fit in either category and would be a bigger failure.
A former co worker has a Boss 302 that he restored meticulously. When he went to put the center paint on the shaker hood, he found that the original paint was nearly 2" off of symetrical. When he went to correct that, he found that the shaker hood boss was also about 1 1/4" off center. So he stressed a lot about whether he should match exactly the original sloppy work, or center the paint in spite of the crooked metal... He went with neither. He chose to have the paint more centered than original, but offset a bit to look more centered on the metal contours. Fudging to trick the eye into not noticing the original slop.
@@tods_workshop The USA.... This was a ford product, and American companies were certainly at a low water mark for build quality at the era. The worst I can think of were dodge brand trucks with huge gaps around the doors, and so much sag you had to lift to close them sometimes. Nothing on the level with the apparent state of British-Leyland at the time. Watching that promo reel where a worker is bashing a fender with a lead sledge hammer to make it fit in the background is mind boggling. They put that in their own bragging footage! I do not lament the fact that both our countries were overtaken by the Japanese. We needed the pressure to force us to produce quality.
@@tods_workshop been a panel beater in uk since '86 last last 16 years i was working on london cabs for collision damage, the old fx4's were alot of fun, you made stuff fit.
I think they came to it with a mindset of "Does it function, does it look nice? Yes. Good." They didn't have machined surfaces, and they couldn't be spending an inordinate amount of time in order to get it perfect with hand-tools. They got it to a point where it fulfilled those two qualities, and then it was done and time to move onto the next piece.
I studied Japanese work at University and in museums. Metal work for harnesses, scabbards, snuff boxes and small carvings (netsuke) and other objects. I also had a teacher of materials conservation from England. The idea you present is great. The metallurgy that exists for any given period is both a locality and period specific necessity. Advancements are made out of necessity, when does this pressure necessitate change? Did they need to have a specific change of specifics or materials for it to work? ...a Smith and Wesson revolver from 1979 needs a metal to resist certain specific explosive pressures. This precision was necessary. In the past there is dispersal of materials, mines smelters and forges, poor and great craftsmen and artists working and the quality of raw materials was different. Your video hit the nail on the head, these things were made because someone needed a sword or dagger. If it wasn't made there, perhaps in Italy it was more precise and gained prestige because of this and things advanced on...
Like he said in the video, often times steel/blades and fittings were imported from other regions/countries and assembled. The fabrication tolerances even 70 years ago weren't good, one of the reasons why many high tolerance parts had the serial number of the machine on them, because they would only fit and work in that machine.
I prefer new, precise versions of antiques. So for me, I would like a "sterile" version of the older sword. I guess we wouldn't call it a "reproduction," perhaps a "reboot" or just "inspired by" or what have you.
Hej Tod, there are some deliberatly uneven made handles. These are of to some degree because this will fit better in the hand/handles better. What about this pieces, could you decide if they just weren't good enough or if it was done on purpose? See this: ua-cam.com/video/75CZaOcyTSw/v-deo.html
Great video, and once again you speak with passion, precision, and deep knowledge. 5 thoughts: 1) Asymmetry of a blade or hilt may sometimes be for a practical reason; after all, the hand holding it is not symmetrical, and nor is the cutting or thrusting motion. The fact that an example is almost but not quite symmetrical may give the misleading impression that it was meant to be perfectly symmetrical. 2) There may be a sound engineering reason for rivets not being in a perfectly straight line, as it might introduce a weakness, especially if they are in line with the grain of a wooden component. 3) In some cultures there is a belief that "nothing is perfect except (the ) God(s) and it was common to introduce at least one obvious flaw to avoid appearing to compare yourself to God. 4) They did not have access to perfectly calibrated Vernier gauges and steel rules. 5) For comparison, the Japanese aesthetic idea of Wabi-Sabi which emphasises that nothing is perfect, and finds beauty in imperfection.
this is purely conjecture but i would think that detail and overall complexity would have been desired over symmetry. my reasoning being that as you said swords were meant to look good at a few feet away. symmetry takes a lot of time and effort and can only really be appreciated right up close. whereas a more complex and detailed hilt that may not necessarily be exactly symmetrical shows the amount of time and money that went into the sword at a glance or from a few feet away much better than symmetry can. im fairly certain swords were one of the ways in which wealth was shown off at the time. i would guess that in terms of bang for your buck visibly complex and detailed designs would have been a far more effective way of showing off said wealth than compared to spending the same amount of time and resources on a perfectly symmetrical sword. in my opinion, in the context of swords being a show of wealth that was generally not inspected inches away with rulers and precise measurements and what not, symmetry simply wasn't as effective at showcasing ones wealth and status and i suspect that probably played some part in dictating what medieval people thought to be aesthetically pleasing in terms of sword make and design. when you only have so much money to spend on a sword and u want it to look as expensive as possible to other medieval folks, putting all that money into the aspects of the design that will actually visibly show how much money you put in in the first place, symmetry is of far less importance.
going into video: -shouldn't the originals be flawed? Of course unless they're for royalty/VIP customers, then won't they be made as perfect as possible? -Wouldn't replicas be flawed replications? Most people aren't gonna put the same effort in when they could do it faster, easier, with machines; technology has progressed past a lot of "flaws" present at that time presumably. Coming out: -It's a balancing act isn't it? finding what's authentic and what's the thing your customer is looking for.
I’m very torn over this point. I sincerely appreciate that things were not made “perfectly” in the past, but today we have the ability to make them close to perfect even when doing things completely by hand. I’m a woodworker and sincerely try to have things to the thousandth of an inch simply because I can and that’s the standard I like to hold myself to. It’s not sustainable and not necessary though. Things work when they are good enough. So I’m torn.... either way I truly do appreciate the time and energy you put into your pieces. It shows.
They made items to the best of their ability in every area and so should we. The sword made today should be far better in every way than they were then. Take what you do as a woodworker with the available tools and machines. Your creations are only limited by the available materials and the time you have to make them.
I love that sword so much. Not JUST that reproduction in particular-I even love the Deepeeka versions. It's one of my favorite extant museum examples being reproduced by all the companies and smithies. But that one in your hands looks so slender and agile and well-proportioned. It must be a joy to swing around and thrust with.
"What i don't want is something that people would go "That must've been created with witchcraft"'. Gave me a nice chuckle. I don't think people would say that , i think people would've said that it must be a king's or some kind of nobility's sword and that you stole it , that's more likely.
Resources could be a factor as well, it's relatively easy to get good workable steel nowadays, back before the industrial revolution it would be more costly to start over again from scratch.
Great vid. Ten years ago I made a copy of the Brocas tournament helmet for a customer. I got all the black & white pics from the Royal Armoury they made in the past, from the inside and outside. I was really stunned by the asymmetry of the piece and had a very bad time in incorporating that in my copy... It looked great, as the original did... I learned to accept that approach, to live with the nature of the "looks" of a piece, and accept the imperfections as a part of that great looks.
Your philosophy and approach is exactly why I have a grail piece of yours that I desperately want to have. I have a German ancestry so my hope is for the CIRCA 1500 MESSER - SHORT SWORD. it would be so cool to have an edged tool that is fairly like my ancestors could have had.
Years ago, I got to hold a Bronze Sword, from the middle east, that was 3,000 years old... Perfect balance.. and being an artist who works in clay and having my clay sculptures cast into bronze.. I was fascinated by the skill of the casting of this sword.. the amazing handle with a round ribbed hollow ball at the end of the hilt.. I couldn't imagine how they cast that.. I tried to imagine the foundry in which this sword was made.. Just really amazing to have been privileged to have held it.. Thank you for today's video..
True that the original specimens would likely have more flaws compared to modern replicas. Still, one does wonder if one purchases a piece for reenactment purposes, would these flaws in the originals further the accuracy of such exercises? After all, you are arguing for the purposes of people who buy these things. Modern people may purchase replicas for more purposes other then hanging it on a wall.
I hate knife spines which are out of line with the handle, and wonkey swords and spears on statues and paintings, I wouldn't have liked all that sloppiness back in the day.
Doesn't it make sense that the original blade was sharpened on one edge more than the other? Habitual use of one edge for cutting could result in uneven wear.
Could it be that the uneven side was favoured in use and so grinded down by resharpening? I mean from 9mm to 14 is something you can see without measuring. Just an ideea 😊
Excellent question! Oakeshott talked about blades changing from one of his 'types' to another due to sharpening having gradually changed the blade shape so this would have been an issue
Didn't the end results of an ancient piece have a lot to do with the tool quality and availability, i mean, your "metal file" isn't their "metal file" and so on, no? You making a dagger blade today and them making a dagger blade 300 or 400 years ago (or even farther back), is going to be so different in process that it would be interesting to watch you make a simple dagger with the tools and ways of old. (i'd definitely watch)
Are those asymmetries representative? Meaning if most of the original works that survived to this day have them? Maybe its just the human nitpickery to focus on imperfections. Arent the pieces you picked just a botched work of shitty smith? I agree the craftsmen back then had tools incomparable to today's machinery. So people could not have as strict expectations as we have today but maybe the selection you picked was made poorly or corroded asymmetricaly.
Sees the bollock daggers with uneven balls, Yep that is perfectly normal.
@@tods_workshop You'll have to ask Matt E. to do some editing for you. Guaranteed 20% more innuendos per video.
Art imitates life.
Perfection.
They actually crafted each one to match their owner.
You worded it a lot more politely than what I was about to say!
@uncletigger I think it looks a little gay.
So, medieval people looking at a modern machine made reproduction would think:
"Its too perfect, therefore it must have been made by a wizard"!
"Look at that pommel - It's witches work, my liege!"
A monk bring the sword inside a monastery - "It's the sword of Gabriel!" *instant new relic*
Honestly, if you traveled back and had a perfectly made sword, claiming it's a God's gift would be the best way to avoid being burnt alive.
just think of a modern steel sword, perfectly heat treated and perfectly sharpened. Everyone would go pretty mad about it, so you just claim it was made by an archangel and gifted to you so you can protect christians.
Boom, you're a national hero.
Even better, go back to the "bronze" age and "cut through" other people's swords
@@levi2725 - More "chip at," bronze is still very strong.
@@Verbose_Mode Oh yeah, that's why I used quotation marks, but putting a dent in an enemy sword like that would be pretty terrifying
@@Verbose_Mode The thing is that even the bronze we make is better then what they had during that age, a good bronze sword of that era would be like us using one made from 9160 high carbon steel, this is a six month old comment I know, but whatever.
I like your style of doing things. Of course you can cnc mill a sword with as good as no tolerance ... but it will never have the "warm" look of something handmade.
Ghostselkie like I said in a separate comment. I’m torn. Handmade things will ALWAYS have flaws. But I just really can’t wrap my head around the “good enough” attitude of the time. Handmade things can be close to perfect but it’s about finding a balance that fits both aesthetics and economics. Unfortunately I think I’ve been spoiled by modern abilities for far too long. I just don’t know if that’s a bad thing or not...
@@EliotChildress Got to remember that they didn't have all the same tools we have today, so even though you feel like it wouldn't be much work to get something done "properly", it might entail a lot more time and effort than was worth the cost.
Would a Lord tolerate being made to wait a week or more for relatively small minutia that don't effect the function of these weapons?
@@EliotChildress Historically they didnt have measuring equipment like we have today. Sure they can mark things on a piece of wood or metal to use to measure stuff, but most of them probably used fingers or thumbs, which leads to the inaccuracies. Also I would imagine the materials were much more expensive, so if you messed something up, you had to just go with it.
@@Shadowofromefanatic exactly! Laying a thumb or pressing your thumb makes the fleshy part different widths, several mm even. Back then tolerances were in millimeters, not thousandths of mm like today's machining!
its like tattoos now to the 50s...
Now I'm a bit afraid that my tattoo will look awful in 50 years...
@@bbnykis lol
@@bbnykis How do you think the 20-something yolos are going to feel in 50 years when their stupid face tattoo melts down their head?
@@bbnykis Don't worry it already looks awful
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the crossguard and hilt of that Longsword, but that blade is absolutely beautiful.
TlsGrz On the contrary, I think they're quite beautiful:)
Thanks for the info ,we were made to believe that the old swords were that perfect we couldn’t reproduce a sword that perfect ,what a shock .We have a TV program called Forged in Fire and they are expected to reproduce a perfect knife in 6 hours with handle made out of wood elks horn etc . Thanks for the info sir I will pass the info on to other people .
Makes me feel better about my current project.
I love how you just happen to have a beautiful knife to hand to use as a pointer...
I got a reproduction USMC 1942 machette. I think it looks better with a few scratches then it was when I got it. If I had the money to buy a handmade sword. I want it to show that it´s handmade and I kind of like the battlefield pickup look.
Thanks for the video. I learned something new today. I've always thought that the craftmanship of the past were better than present. What are your thoughts on Asian (sword) craftsmanship of the past as compared to the present day craftmanship?
Isn't the reason for swordblade's disproportion that it was re-grinded from notches multiple times? I know you would not expect notches that deep and so much more from one side, but also given the slightly concave line of the edge, it seems to me as an explanation... Feel invited to correct me.
Enjoy the clips 👍
New business model: Sell any piece you mess up in your new "EXTRA Historically Accurate" collection.
knightshousegames the man is telling you his style, that is the beautiful thing about craftsmen. If you want a perfect machine cut piece, they are out there. If you want an authentic piece (which you will find most reenactors and living history participants do indeed want!) It’s out there. And with Tod you’re getting a nicely done piece that doesn’t break the bank, and it is likely of superior quality to your perfectly machine cut piece.
It's a joke. I'm glad he is doing it this way.
@@knightshousegames I'd still buy an "extra historically accurate" item from Todd. :-)
@@averagejo1626 exactly!
Oh for real. I do historical musical performance, and honestly, a big part of it is understanding that our standards for performance and perfection is so much higher now. Usually musicians were given manuscripts not too long before the performance and that was just what you did. So our idea of note perfection is a modern thing, comes from highly edited recordings, and actually frequently doesn't capture the essence of collaborative and spontaneous performance. Often if something goes really squirrelly someone will say "well that was just extra authentic performance" (I am NOT saying that we try to do a bad job. We do our best. But sometimes things just go wrong in the moment, no matter how much you prepare!)
This is by far the hardest thing to make the general audience understand about European swords. Well said!
The "perfection" of machine production probably spoiled our sense for symmetry a little too much.
Yeah, I just look and think that they genuinely did not care about what we consider aesthetic. Symmetry and flawlessness are not things that existed anywhere in their life, scars, wobbly teeth, this stuff was not just normal, it is how the world worked in their mind.
@@tods_workshop Certain fields require perfection, symmetry, and complete control. Art is not one of them and I consider what you do art. If you insert a bit of you in every piece you make, it makes the piece that much special and unique.
@@AzureBeatPony People value what's hard to do. People in the past would have paid far more for super symmetrical items, because it would have been much harder to produce. Now such symmetry means easier mass production. It's like how mashed potatoes with lumps means it's not from cheap flakes while in the past getting super smoothness was the goal.
They did it without glasses, that alone takes away much precision from many good artisans. And without power tools, here again many blade smiths do now everything with a grinder where they most likely did most with a hammer
@@patrickmccurry1563 But asymmetry and flaws show up in high status items. There's a sword that I think is supposed to have belonged to a king of England where the crossguard is highly off center. The weapon is gilded and heavily decorated but is not at all symmetrical. If we were talking millimeters that would make sense, but this is something like a 3 cm difference in length. Hell, the bishop's sword Tod just showed belonged to a high status man, and it isn't bothered with being bilaterally symmetrical.
We value what our culture values. Today, symmetry or is the default starting point of attractiveness. Asymmetery is a designed disruption of that. I can't think that they thought that way given what we see of the artifacts they left.
I am not a master craftsman by any stretch of the imagination. But, I would say, it would be a shame to expect a craftsman to make something worse than what their skill allows. We don't currently produce swords for the same purpose that they were made historically. We aren't trying to arm garrisons or armies. The speed of manufacture vs. functionality vs. look balance is completely different. It would be a shame to ask a modern craftsman to lower his/her quality to copy something that I'm sure the medieval craftsman would have wished they could have had the time and energy to achieve and still make a living.
@@tods_workshop Oh, I agree...I might have not been completely clear. I didn't mean perfect...I meant more along the lines of not being an exact copy for some of the obvious issues like asymetrical curves or blades. I think there is a big difference between machine made or sterile produced products and hand crafted with less refinement. And, as you said, some things you cannot make and sell even if the originals had that. You do beautiful work, Tod. Wish I could afford some of your work. I believe there is a big difference between leaving the finish a little rough with maybe some pitting here or there or not totally cleaning up file work to keep authenticity and intentionally making things asymetric or imperfect to try and copy the original.
I completely agree, yet I would go even one step further & suggest that the manufacturing process included a great deal more involvement by apprentices than is seen now due to the required amounts of weapons needed. This could logically account for much of the reduced quality.
I would also assume that a common attitude may have been "function over form", bearing in mind that weapons are (were) in fact tools to be used. Now I've never used a sword in my life, but I am a carpenter. I'll pound nails with a wrench if I have to, but in such a situation on payday I'm going to buy a hammer. I want that sweet Estwing framing hammer, but I'm not making much & have other bills, so I'll settle for a basic Craftsman claw hammer in the meantime. It'll do for now. I propose a good deal (if not a majority) of weapon sales back in the day fit this market, which would explain the numbers of "less than perfect" examples found today.
But I merely speculate.
Still though I think if they did work with our standards they crafts would have improved as well. Ofcourse still not on par with what we can today because of technological differences.
You're sort of correct, but also not.
Mass production now is essentially no different from mass production then: Make the product just "good enough" using the least amount of work and effort required.
I know many craftsmen that make products for sale and really cut corners to get any profit at all out of it. Very few are willing to pay $1,000 just to cover the labor cost for a pair of hand knitted gloves...
@@ollep9142 Yeah, that's what I said. The mass produced stuff is "better" than back then because our tools are better.
"We don't make mistakes, just happy little accidents"
bob ross?
Bob Ross!!!
Bob Ross..
Bubba.
Just going by the title I'm going to guess the answer is CONTE-
oh wait I'm on the wrong channel.
Aim for perfection yet allow for imperfections... happy accidents and tolerable mistakes... making it more for the individual. If the owner uses it they know how to handle it from experience. Like a gun with a sight being off or the weight is not like another. ...?
"There are no mistakes, just happy little accidents" Bob Ross would say proudly.
@John Saf Even in modern forged firearms, not each piece is perfectly identical. The only way you're going to get "perfect" is to have a nearly ideal toolpath and tooling and CNC mill and cut it out of billet... but it's not going to be as strong as a forged part.
This video:
"Tod calls out medieval swordmakers and trashtalks their sloppy craftsmenship."
I love it.
Daniel Schroedinger if you want the ultimate clickbait title it has to be something like “Todd absolutely DESTROYS medieval sword makers!!!!” or something along those lines. :)
Y. Moroboshi and if that was the title id never have watched a great vid.
10 ways Todd absolutely destroys medieval blacksmiths! Number 4 will make you literally poop in your pants!
@@richardpatterson4312 surely that's a Number Two ??
Its almost like these things were made by bashing metal until it looked right.
That's... that's exactly how they did it back then, with a minor detail that I'd add: (bashing) _while following a general concept_ (until it looked right). But yes, you nailed it David. Cheers sir, may you have a great day.
David Liddelow exactly but if you knew how to smash metal for many years you smashed that metal correctly
David Liddelow exactly but if you knew how to smash metal for many years you smashed that metal correctly
To paraphrase a quote from the Discworld series, specifically "Guards! Guards!", a sword just needs to be really good at killing people.
Andrew Lockwood I’d guess most swords never hurt anyone so it was probably actually more important that it looked good- like modern sports cars I suppose. (Good quote though)
@@joemacleod-iredale2888 Cohan The Barbarian, from the Discworld, not to be confused with that other fella with a similar name, would say that a sword needs to be very good at killing - with a band of 6 other 70+year old men, he took over an empire, and then took on the gods, rolling a 7 on a 6-sided die, and he bought an apple.
Vimes, also from Discworld, used a very plain and ordinarily-looking sword, which he borrowed from a rookie guard named Carrot, and used it to cut the very fancy sword his enemy used. Carrot got it back.
‘Hmm?’ Colon had momentarily been lost in a little world of speculation. Real kings had shiny swords, obviously. Except, except, except maybe your real king of, like, days of yore, he would have a sword that didn’t sparkle one bit but was bloody efficient at cutting things. Just a thought.
@@ravennexusmh Right. So long as it did the job.
"That must have been created with witch craft!" LOL great comment.
I work with research on military uniforms and equipment from roughly 1918 until 1945. It's surprising how POORLY a lot of these modern, factory made items were made for military purposes as well. We also do some reproductions for collectors, reenactors, role players, theaters, films and museums etc. Museums, theaters and films are very tolerant on us making "proper" reproductions, with mistakes, "mistakes" and features. The regular customers, such as collectors and reenactors especially tend to complain a lot if you're actually making an exact reproduction. Hence we have somewhat different production limits for your average Joe and the actual reproductions.
It's all quite interesting.
Hell even post war stuff can have quite a bit of asymmetry, I have a Bulgarian great coat, I think it airforce but idk the exact branch, probably made in the 50s-60s and I bought my friend one and it was almost completely different, the fabric was of a different texture and thickness the color was slightly different, the collar was slightly off in a different direction to mine, the liner was slightly different, but it was still similar enough to say hey that’s a Bulgarian great coat.
Tod, I'd love to see a how it's made / production video regarding your Tod Cutler pieces.
Received my Quillon Dagger a few days ago and I'm in love.
Hi Tod. On the long sword why did you make the grip twist in the opposite direction to the original? Was it to make it a more comfortable grip for the right hand? I'm a stonemason and it's the same with masonry of the time. They were really rough. I cringe anytime I walk though a church or cathedral. Most apprentices could do better work.
It's really nothing out of the ordinary there. Production methods and skill of those involved have progressed massively over the centuries and even the last few decades. Automation, precision and data science have done wonders (or heresy, depending on your point of view) for quality. I can only wonder how BigData will shape everything when it's become really widespread.
The interesting thing I saw it in the forte of the longsword is the slight inward curve. It eases the sharp corners somewhat and gives it a nice look.
Sometimes things like the asymmetries in the sword blade actually come out being attractive. I'm reminded of go boards, which don't actually have a square grid. The grid is slightly longer along the players' line of sight to partially offset the foreshortening from perspective.
The other thing to remember is that historically these were functional items. Cosmetic defects were really irrelevant. Even in the modern era, cosmetic defects in functional items are typically overlooked.for example, look inside a computer case. You'll see places were plating is rubbed off when parts rub together, etc. Does anyone care? Not really. Semi trailers and shipping containers are another fine example. You typically see them dinged up, dirty, etc. No one really cares as long as they are structurally sound.
Someone buying a sword today is not interested in it as a functional item. When was the last time that there was a serious sword battle? They're interested in it as a beautiful museum piece, and as such, flaws that are cosmetically offensive are much more important than they would be had the sword been a functional item.
Many people appreciate the beauty of 'imperfect' functional items. The Japanese call it 'wabi sabi'. Perfection really depends on your point of view like the difference between randomness and chaos.
Last sword battle to speak of was "Strezetice Cavalry Clash of 1866" which was part of the Battle of Königgratz 1866 ...
I'm a fan of reproductions that aim not to correct "flaws" in the design, but only material flaws and damage due to degradation. Keep it faithful to the original, use modern technology, but keep it looking historical, so long as it's still functional.
Fixing symmetry in the design is one of the only exceptions to the rule.
That and use a steel which is unlikely to have hidden flaws which may break when used.
@@GunFunZS I'd consider this a material flaw
This brings up a question: Are we sure the asymmetry of a blade was an original feature or is it the result of a lifetime of repairs? These were weapons that people used, no matter how ornate, and not always in combat. Maybe a lord accidentally chipped his sword after getting drunk and smashing it on a table. Maybe someone bent an edge or two hitting armor during training. Maybe the castle blacksmith who had to fix the sword simply didn't have the tools or skills to fix them straight? In that case should the replica emulate the final look of the blade or the appearance when it was first presented to the owner?
@@andrewsuryali8540 With many swords it is hard to tell if they're had a lot of cumulative resharpening or edge resharping, for example due to damage. It can be hard to tell what they looked like, fresh to the consumer
Excellent points, and I very much agree with the mindset. Yeah modern times have really cranked up the expectations of attention to detail, and while striving for perfection something is just... lost.
Hey Tod would you like to make some videos on Eastern culture weapons?
As a Taiwanese I will be thrilled if I can see my own culture through the eyes of a master craftsman.
Every other episode of 'Grand Designs' - "The build's hit a problem; the frame of the wall is 5mil out, & it's holding-up putting the roof on". >frowns
Id love a medieval version of that programme. "The cathedral is nearly ready, except for one side having subsided about 3ft. Never mind, here's some buttresses- don't they look lovely?"
Thank you! This subject is something I have had to struggle with my entire artisan life - finding 'good enough' - or even finding when too perfect lacks character and too much character makes something look cheap.
From the level of understanding of my craft, where I'm at currently, having sought to master my skill to a level where I can trust my inner vision to become manifested into a product representation that give that 'kick' / surge 'sense of acheivement' - has become a formula that balance the ratios of all things involved into 'making' by deeply comprehending the 'purpose' of a product.
I think you bring these aspects up in a beautiful way - I think your message is a help for anyone striving to find 'perfection' in their own way.
You sound like someone who have a level of mastery in understanding of your artistry that give you freedom to contemplate the perhaps dark arts of producing an implement :)
Nice video, thanks!
PS. I'm a CG/3D-artist - and while I love to dive into the details that tell me how an object was made - the hardest part has been to add the right balance of imperfection to my inner dream of what a perfect sword, in this case, should look like. I tend to imagine a too perfect object how it would look in its own time - same as I cherish the clean innocent beauty of an old rusted and distorted form, when it was new. I guess I'm a romantic after all :)
Eng. is not my native language, sorry.
And now imagine equipping an entire army before the battle. The quality must have been awful at best.
Remember this would also affect how they were used in combat. Ex: Sword on sword contact very uncommon due to the risk of breaking the blade.
@@glyrr ummm.... have you ever heard of the "bind" in historical fencing? Blade on blade, edge to edge contact is in pretty much all of the manuals from the period.
@@Duzzies-101 Yes - for fencing. The situation is very different on a battlefield with hundreds or thousands of people. There, the sword is pretty much the last weapon used.
''Imagine''.. that's absolutely still true to this day. The US and UK military for instance get equipment from the lowest bidder which have, and most likely will in the future, come with problems that get people killed in a fight.
@@Turgz Not true.
Todd's blades COULD still be so well made that I would swear they're made by witchcraft in the 21st century.
Symmetry wasnt invented until the industrial revolution
Legitpenguins69 even applies to music with the accordion/ universally tuned pianos.
No arguing with Gun Jesus :)
symmetry wasn't invented.
I bought 9260 and 1060 spring-steel Katanas a while ago. Pretty much better blade than any original Japanese Katana I think. Maybe not in balance, but the steel is of course much better and it doesn't break even if you'd hit it with a smithing hammer sideways on an anvil.
A very wise point of view in my opinion.
One cannot archieve perfection, so why desperately trying to archieve it anyways? I think some ppl. here are erfectly right, machine production has made us overly sensitive for perfectionism, while we lost a certain sense to appreciate handcrafted things.
Instead make it LOOK good and work adequate (or the other way round).
I always found that imperfections and errors offer much more to learn from as a 100% perfect result. Btw, that's also why many tutorials on the internet don't help very much, because they never show what to do, when something ends up not 100% perfect.
Hardly surprising that pre industrial revolution manufacturing was at best "various", however it's refreshing to see this honestly appraised rather than the false statement "they don't make them like they used to".
That statement is true, though. It's just that more often than not they make them better than they used to.
I vaguely remember reading about how people from remote tribes and such are terrible at telling if things are perfectly streight and even. The suggestion was that perfect lines and corners aren't naturally as easy to see if you haven't been exposed to them your whole life. If buildings back then were similarly not quite square and such compared to today, perhaps people back then had less of an eye for it much like those tribesman? Perhaps to them what to us looks like it's obviously a off at a glance (as many of those historical pieces are) looked only off if they looked closely to most people back then.
Related to this I too vaguely remember reading that members of remote tribes are better at moving around their environment because their brain doesn't think in straight lines to navigate like we do
It's certainly the case that people from different cultures perceive colour quite differently, e.g. some languages don't have words for certain colours (like using the same word for blue and green) or have several words for what we would think of as the "same" colour. So I can certainly imagine concepts like "symmetry" or "identical" not really being used.
In regards to the IX949's asymmetry, (and many other diamond cross-section swords) I wonder if it was to make the sword stronger, as a slight Rhombus is stubborn enough to work with when the steel is hot in the smithy, let alone after tempered and finished as a sword? At any rate, nobody would bother ditching a usable blade for being slightly off, especially when it's slight warp goes well with the woodland themed hilt.
IIRC & going only from this vid's notes/points the problem wasn't with the x-section but with the 'waney' edge, introducing potential weaknesses into the blade (as well as offsetting balance a bit). Uneven sharpening (eg to remove combat-related nicks) may account for some of this, but for a 'dress' sword (as opposed to a combat sword) they may be pretty much discounted: the spine appears to be pretty straight throughout
The pommel, however, strikes me as overly fancy (leading to the idea that this was a dress sword rather than a combat weapon). To my mind the pommel serves several practical purposes: it's an end-stop for the blade tang; it's a decorative item; but (for a combat weapon) it serves as a balance weight in much the same way as coarse angling (fishing) rods can be butt-heavy to help with casting accuracy & ease on arm muscles..
Hi Tod, Could you please put up a video of you actually making one of your swords/daggers etc? I would love to see how you go about it... Thanks. :)
I actually prefer a little asymmetry. It makes the sword look organic. Like it's a living thing vs a machine. Nature is never particularly symmetrical.
Most animals are pretty symmetrical.
I'm pretty sure my left leg is a big longer than my right
I am not a "collector" - I just like nice weapons. As such, I want the best that can be manufactured these days, even if the design is ancient. So, don't spare the metallurgy or the computer controlled precision in production.
I thought this video was going to be about which is a better sword as in usefulness not which is a better sword as in looks 🤔
Yeah. I wanted to know about modern mass produced steel, vs skilled working steel from ages ago.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 modern steel is better understood, better heat treated, and has far more consistent carbon content and grain structure than historical steel. A modern mass produced sword would be far Superior in holding an edge and far less likely to deform or break.
@@drumer960 [Citation Needed]
@@antediluvianatheist5262 Modern is way, way, way better...
tod said himself in this video 6:10 examples..
hell, even 50$ shop swords will be better than 95% medievalswords.. there was no consistency back then, heat treating is controlled now, there is no comparing todays technology to theirs.. also, now knowledge is literally free.
Gam3B0y That isn’t necessarily true depending on your status your swords could be made by the same guy who made Henry Vs.
Meanwhile the current market is oversaturated with sword imitation crap, Deepeeka to name one. Also rat tail tangs on sword like objects that cause the blade to fly out. As well as overly heavy swords like Cold steels for example. In the medieval ages, and my preferred period, the Victorian age when they actually did start making steels comparable to what we have today if you went to a good quality maker you could get a real fighting sword and not a piece of crap.
Matt Easton has even talked about this, that some officer’s in Victorian period would get what he called Tailor’s swords. Some officers bought swords from the same place they bought their uniform which as a result means that quite a lot of them were pieces of crap and actually broke in use/ combat. While on the other hand he mentions officer’s going out of the way to have custom swords made by amazing companies such as Wilkinson, Mole, or Thurkle. You honestly get what you pay for even back then. One such example he gave was an officer in the Navy stationed in Japan, One of the guys on board got a hold of a katana, they tested it against a Wilkinson saber, The Katana chipped/ was bitten into and the saber was left undamaged.
Interesting,
When I was trying to make a living making split cane fishing rods, i'd see a very similar thing. I'd see classic and valuable rods from very well thought of makers made in the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century that had flaws that I would think unacceptable on one of my own rods.
I don't know why, but attitudes have certainly changed.
Perhaps it's because now having something made by a craftsman is a bit of a novelty in a world where almost anything can be mass produced. It's relatively expensive to buy anything hand made, that put more focus on the craftsmanship than a time where everything everyone owned was hand made.
I think it's a combination of things. People who make hand-made stuff now don't consider themselves journeymen - they aspire to be master craftsmen. They have customers who expect master craftsmanship. Secondly, the cost of materials may be less significant now compared to the perceived value of the work. It's possible to scrap something if it's not "good enough". The mass produced uniformity for comparison is there, for sure.
Mass production does not always equal quality. There have been leaps in material science and production techniques, but that doesn't mean you are always getting the benefits of it. Modern production is itself a 'good enough' application based primarily on costs. Modern affordable tools do not hold up as well as older affordable tools, for example. For some reason, despite supposedly more advanced material science, my breaker bars, wrenches, and presses from the 30s are far superior to modern ones in terms of durability/longevity. A sword today is not a necessity and can be sourced from all over the world, therefore when people purchase one they want top quality aesthetics. I'd wager if people considered a sword or dagger a necessity and there was only one or two smiths within their reach, they would gladly accept asymmetry. If you went to the grocery store, you'd pick the best looking fruits and vegetables, right? What if the grocery store only had less perfect looking fruits and vegetables? Would you choose to not eat? I eat natural home grown apples, none of them look perfect, infact many of them look unappealing compared to those in the store... but they taste better. I would assume people of the period mostly focused on function first and looks second, except in cases where the piece was explicitly made for its visual appeal or cost was no object. Honestly I'm blown away they did as well as they did with the resources they had in many cases.
My absolute favorite item in my collection, without a doubt is my is a reproduction of the Wallace Collection A975 warhammer(not the discontinued Arms & Armor). I find it so beautiful for its flaws: the top spike is ever so slightly misaligned, the langets arent perfectly symmetrical with one another, the haft isnt uniformally octagonal, etc. And ive always felt that it gave it such a look of authenticity. And despite its cosmetic flaws, this thing is SO extremely tough and solidly put together that at 60 USD, it has BY FAR the best cost-to-value ratio of any weapon i own.
It's the same today. You can buy all manner of AR parts and put them together - and get rifles with vastly different results.
Maybe a more complex weapon these days, but the widely varying quality of what is essentially the same design seems exactly the same.
Talk of cold AR parts among these beautiful tributes to the past makes me sad. Different game, different league, my presumably American friend
@Michael Smith What's the difference? A bunch of parts that are produced in one place and fitted together into a weapon elsewhere.
@@jackbaxter4924 Exact same game, exact same league, just updated. It's cool the connection we still have to the past. Then, as now, parts were fabricated, shipped in bulk, and put together by the end user to make a weapon that someone probably treasured. That it's a different weapon is immaterial.
Best of both worlds:
Business end = flawless
Decoration = human touch
interesting, the casting flaws add more texture, make the original look more beautiful.
tbh I prefer the original too. But I wouldnt buy show piece sword that doesnt seem to be made well.
This video actually makes me feel less unhappy about the minor imperfections in my own sword. :D
I work with traditional boats in Norway, and something we see here, especially in older boats, is the exact same thing. They're extremely well built, and every piece of symmetry that matters is within 1/16", but where the symmetry and precision isn't critical for the function of the craft, it looks sloppily made from a modern perspective. One challenge of bringing that traditional skill into modern times is that people expect to see millimetre precision in places where millimetre precision isn't necessary, which makes it difficult to use traditional methods some times.
It kind of sounds like one sees from the philosophy of arms manufacturing between Germany and Russia in WWII. The Russian armaments were functional but they didn't sweat the details. Welds were sloppy some joints didn't align properly but it was functional and worked.
The Germans couldn't help themselves but to do go down to the nth degree on the fit and finish of their production.
In the end both were fit for purpose but one just took 4 times longer to accomplish.
I can see the swordsmiths and armourers at the time thinking mostly of the same way. It works get it out
Here is where the finish matters. Will it effect the function of the piece. Yes, make it right. No, make it so you don't hurt the user.
I assume most swords from centuries past that we see now exist because they were not total shit to start with. Most of the real crap has been winnowed out by time and use.
@@ИмяФамилия-ц6д So much about your statements is just false:
1. It wasn't Hitler who was obsessed with "monster-machines", it was the whole upper echelons, but even then "obsessed" is far too negative and doesn't paint the whole picture. There were reasons for what they did. They knew they never could out produce the USSR (let alone the US, who kept the best living standard in the world and still managed to supply every other power and raising an army from almost nothing) and thus they made the decision to they to outmatch them in class. If the USSR can throw ten tanks at on German tank, they had to kill ten tanks in return. It's hindsight that this method didn't work.
2. The T-34s armour is only better frontally on paper. Production quality (especially at the beginning of the war) was all over the place and in most cases too hard. This resulted in crew loss through spalling even though rounds didn't penetrate. The T-34 also had massive problems with field of view (most of the times even the commander couldn't see from which vector they were shot at), missing radios and a two man turret, which led to overworking of the commander. It also wasn't "better to manoeuvre". It's common knowledge that the T-34 steers horrible, especially compared to German and US tanks. Yes, it had better traction on muddy ground, due to the fact that the tracks were wider (which the Germans couldn't easily copy because of their train gauge).
@@ИмяФамилия-ц6д T-34 had thick amour and a capable gun, but the the production quality was extremely inconsistent. Many of the T-34 they didn't even bother to smooth out the edges of the amour plates used to construct the tanks, but T-34 was never meant to last. The Russians did the math and figured out that Tanks didn't last very long on the Eastern front. So the Soviets built T-34 with planned obsolescence in line, carefull not to pour to much energy into a tank that would liekly be destroyed soon anyway. It wasn't''t a bad strategy by any means, certainly it was more effective than the German method of building a tank like a Maserati.
I think you've summed it up there. If the original craftsmen were working piece work then as long as the item passed the quality check by the master of the workshop then they went for sale. If you're producing hundreds or thousands of the same item by hand then there will be many variations and imperfections, medieval hand production was just not able to achieve the same level of accuracy or replication that modern engineering can achieve.
I agree that trying to avoid accusations of witchcraft would have probably been for the best.
This is also so true in relation to jewellery. When looking at the jewels of a crown (literally) the craftsmanship is just so poor by today’s standards of perfection...
Could the bollocks daggers asymmetry be a case of art imitating life?
It is designed to decieve. Your enemy knows you have a concealed dagger. He grabs for the hilt and grasps it firmly. Only too late does he realise... This is a bit warm, a bit squishy, a bit hairy. You finish him rightly where he stands.
@@thumper8684 Well played!
for the blade edge-spine difference, could it be that it was damaged or chipped, so they ground away to get a straight enough edge? it didn't come out of the blacksmith like that, but it was from wear and tear?
I have a boat, it is a forty footer, It looks good from from forty feet.
I'm wondering if the differences in the bevel from center could be from sharpening that side more often or removing a chip in the blade. Not from the way it left the Smith Just a thought.
Wabi-sabi. In hand made items, I want to see some tool marks and the like.
I totally agree. There is a certain beauty in small imperfections.
I was thinking about this as well, but more like how Tod hits the nail on the head here, pinpointing the difference between medieaval European and Japanese or general East-Asian aesthetics. Present any of these historical pieces Tod discussed to your local daimyo, or even your average period Asian customer, and you'd be in a world of trouble.
Yes, there is the concept of wabi-sabi, but it's hard to explain; with wabi-sabi at least the intent of the presence of seemingly random asymetry, is much more deliberate. It forms a distinguishable difference. For example, a Japanese sword might have a guard that is decisively off-centre, shows hammer as well as file marks at non-regular intervals. They are there, because even though the craftsman might not have set them there on purpose, he has intentionally left room for these "faults" to occur, rather than them occurring because they are passed his customer's expectations. In fact customers from a certain class upwards, from a certain time onwards, will actually expect him to allow for these "faults", instead of merely accepting their existence. In the case of the Japanese sword's guard, with all its unevenness, you can expect it to fit the blade it was made for snuggly, with a tolerance that might be lower than what you'd see in a modern industrial production setting.
Make no mistake, I am not suggesting the medieaval European sense of aesthetic was somehow less developped than its contemporary Asian counterpart; it was simply different. Instead, I would say that our modern understanding of aesthetics in the western world, was heavily influenced by the contact with other cultures.
Edit: In summary, I think the phenomenon Tod describes is the exact opposite of wabi-sabi. From one meter away, wabi-sabi has to look natural, like something was casually left as and where it is, yet upon closer inspection one should be able to discern the finest attention to detail.
@@laionidas7614 It sounds like you know a lot more about it than I do. I thought wabi-sabi was the embracing of inevitable imperfection, I didn't know it was something that, in the case of making something, would be the goal from the start.
If you make something by hand and have to _intentionally_ add imperfections, you must be bloody good at your craft! 😂
@@ironpirate8 You're not wrong, it's just rather complicated, and easily becomes an endless debate. In a way it is indeed about embracing inevitable imperfections, but in practise, this also means that to some degree you have to accomodate these imperfections when creating something. You need to intentionally add unintentional imperfections. Most people familiar with the concept, can't explain or even fully understand it themselves. I know I can't. You just need to look at stuff and get the jest of it at some point. I might be able to tell if a certain picture, an unevenly formed piece of pottery or a half deteriorated piece of furniture is wabi-sabi, and I can tell you a sword with a rattling guard or off-centre shinogi (polishing ridge) is not. But why,..
I tend to pick apart modern reproductions and often assume that the imperfections are due to the cost to correct them or a lack of ability to do better. I don't often consider the makers desire to create something intentionally flawed or imperfect. Thank you for the video sir.
It’s not alway that they want something purposely imperfect. Despite out modern technology it’s not possible for us to make everything perfect.
I'd love to see Skallagrim's views on the topic, since he always comes down hard at anything that rattles after even some abuse
That knife keeps making me nervous XDXDXD "Don't stab yerself!"
I prefer sterile, perfect symmetry. But the most important measure is that it handles like a historical sword. Most modern ones don't and are far too blade heavy.
If they're made for re-enactment that can be due to having a modern required, defined dull edge e.g. 3mm whereas the original blade might be much narrower than that.
@@darthkek1953 The ones I have are sharp but no distal taper. It pushes the balance point out by about 3 or 4 inches relative to where it should be. But I bought them a long time ago and HEMA wasn't so much of a thing then. They feel like swinging a sharp baseball bat.
You know this really made me appreciate my knife I just bought at the medieval faire last weekend. It’s a Damascus steel bush knife. Paid about $150 on it. Brought it home and immediately started noticing the flaws in it. I wasn’t disappointed per-say just realizing that this guy probably hand made every knife, sword and axe in that stall and there were over a hundred of them. I was a little abashed to show it to my buddys at work because I saw the flaws in it and they’re big knife enthusiasts and have really nice stuff. But all my friends saw was the cool design and the neat touch mark in the handle.
This knife would have been an absolute master work in the medieval age. And it’s Damascus which would have been quite a prize in its own right. Now after listening to your video I can appreciate each “flaw” as a guy hammering it in his shed. This is no stamped knife made by kershaw or whatever. It was made by a guy with a forge and anvil. Pretty neat when you think of it like that!
I think that the only advantages of reproductions is that they have the advantage of being made from more refined material, and are easier to get a hold of than antiques.
Related video idea: What would, by modern scientific standards, be a "perfect" sword in terms of functionality, steel quality, durability, sharpness, etc. If you were unbound by materials, what would the hilt be made out of? If you could make the best sword, with what we know now, with modern tools, what would it be? How close did they come historically? I look at some historical examples and I'm really blown away at how good some of it looks and how sharp they probably were.
It always comes down to what you intend the item to be (in my case its restoring classic cars)
the holy grail is to restore or make the item perfect enough to fool a professional that it is an original survivor, blade or car.
In the case of making a copy of a historical piece you can either make it perfect with all its faults, make it as a copy but clean up the really bad stuff that would allow the blade to fail as a usable item (even if its for show)
or make it to a modern standard as if you had taken the maker of the sword and given him a modern reference point
With regards to the top quality of the time its probable that most makers only had their own work as a reference, or the bloke in the next town, if they didn't know of mm perfect spacing etc then they would never think to achieve it
that and the fact of quick mass production would escalate the floors very greatly
So make the swords with the intent you need to or your customer requires, but like cars if you try to go into the middle ground you might produce something that doesn't fit in either category and would be a bigger failure.
A former co worker has a Boss 302 that he restored meticulously. When he went to put the center paint on the shaker hood, he found that the original paint was nearly 2" off of symetrical. When he went to correct that, he found that the shaker hood boss was also about 1 1/4" off center. So he stressed a lot about whether he should match exactly the original sloppy work, or center the paint in spite of the crooked metal... He went with neither. He chose to have the paint more centered than original, but offset a bit to look more centered on the metal contours. Fudging to trick the eye into not noticing the original slop.
@@tods_workshop The USA.... This was a ford product, and American companies were certainly at a low water mark for build quality at the era. The worst I can think of were dodge brand trucks with huge gaps around the doors, and so much sag you had to lift to close them sometimes. Nothing on the level with the apparent state of British-Leyland at the time. Watching that promo reel where a worker is bashing a fender with a lead sledge hammer to make it fit in the background is mind boggling. They put that in their own bragging footage! I do not lament the fact that both our countries were overtaken by the Japanese. We needed the pressure to force us to produce quality.
@@tods_workshop been a panel beater in uk since '86 last last 16 years i was working on london cabs for collision damage, the old fx4's were alot of fun, you made stuff fit.
Chinese crappy iPhone knock off for 70$ from Alibaba. Does it look like real thing from 1m distance? Ok, sounds good enough.
clicked so fast and only got second like, big pepehands
I think they came to it with a mindset of "Does it function, does it look nice? Yes. Good." They didn't have machined surfaces, and they couldn't be spending an inordinate amount of time in order to get it perfect with hand-tools. They got it to a point where it fulfilled those two qualities, and then it was done and time to move onto the next piece.
On this episode of Tod's Workshop, Tod roasts extremely old people.
I studied Japanese work at University and in museums. Metal work for harnesses, scabbards, snuff boxes and small carvings (netsuke) and other objects. I also had a teacher of materials conservation from England. The idea you present is great. The metallurgy that exists for any given period is both a locality and period specific necessity. Advancements are made out of necessity, when does this pressure necessitate change? Did they need to have a specific change of specifics or materials for it to work? ...a Smith and Wesson revolver from 1979 needs a metal to resist certain specific explosive pressures. This precision was necessary. In the past there is dispersal of materials, mines smelters and forges, poor and great craftsmen and artists working and the quality of raw materials was different. Your video hit the nail on the head, these things were made because someone needed a sword or dagger. If it wasn't made there, perhaps in Italy it was more precise and gained prestige because of this and things advanced on...
There was also a feeling that pursuit of perfection was disrespectful and in many cases asymmetry was actually stronger for the purpose.
Presumably they were made in busy workshops with a lot more throughput than the numbers made today, by craftsmen not that numerate?
Like he said in the video, often times steel/blades and fittings were imported from other regions/countries and assembled. The fabrication tolerances even 70 years ago weren't good, one of the reasons why many high tolerance parts had the serial number of the machine on them, because they would only fit and work in that machine.
I prefer new, precise versions of antiques.
So for me, I would like a "sterile" version of the older sword. I guess we wouldn't call it a "reproduction," perhaps a "reboot" or just "inspired by" or what have you.
same...
also preferably made from a new high end powdered steel...
Came to this from your video from today. Congratulation, my friend! You were 3 years ahead of the conventional wisdom on this topic!
Hej Tod, there are some deliberatly uneven made handles. These are of to some degree because this will fit better in the hand/handles better. What about this pieces, could you decide if they just weren't good enough or if it was done on purpose?
See this:
ua-cam.com/video/75CZaOcyTSw/v-deo.html
Great video, and once again you speak with passion, precision, and deep knowledge. 5 thoughts: 1) Asymmetry of a blade or hilt may sometimes be for a practical reason; after all, the hand holding it is not symmetrical, and nor is the cutting or thrusting motion. The fact that an example is almost but not quite symmetrical may give the misleading impression that it was meant to be perfectly symmetrical. 2) There may be a sound engineering reason for rivets not being in a perfectly straight line, as it might introduce a weakness, especially if they are in line with the grain of a wooden component. 3) In some cultures there is a belief that "nothing is perfect except (the ) God(s) and it was common to introduce at least one obvious flaw to avoid appearing to compare yourself to God. 4) They did not have access to perfectly calibrated Vernier gauges and steel rules. 5) For comparison, the Japanese aesthetic idea of Wabi-Sabi which emphasises that nothing is perfect, and finds beauty in imperfection.
this is purely conjecture but i would think that detail and overall complexity would have been desired over symmetry. my reasoning being that as you said swords were meant to look good at a few feet away. symmetry takes a lot of time and effort and can only really be appreciated right up close. whereas a more complex and detailed hilt that may not necessarily be exactly symmetrical shows the amount of time and money that went into the sword at a glance or from a few feet away much better than symmetry can.
im fairly certain swords were one of the ways in which wealth was shown off at the time. i would guess that in terms of bang for your buck visibly complex and detailed designs would have been a far more effective way of showing off said wealth than compared to spending the same amount of time and resources on a perfectly symmetrical sword.
in my opinion, in the context of swords being a show of wealth that was generally not inspected inches away with rulers and precise measurements and what not, symmetry simply wasn't as effective at showcasing ones wealth and status and i suspect that probably played some part in dictating what medieval people thought to be aesthetically pleasing in terms of sword make and design. when you only have so much money to spend on a sword and u want it to look as expensive as possible to other medieval folks, putting all that money into the aspects of the design that will actually visibly show how much money you put in in the first place, symmetry is of far less importance.
going into video:
-shouldn't the originals be flawed? Of course unless they're for royalty/VIP customers, then won't they be made as perfect as possible?
-Wouldn't replicas be flawed replications? Most people aren't gonna put the same effort in when they could do it faster, easier, with machines; technology has progressed past a lot of "flaws" present at that time presumably.
Coming out:
-It's a balancing act isn't it? finding what's authentic and what's the thing your customer is looking for.
I’m very torn over this point. I sincerely appreciate that things were not made “perfectly” in the past, but today we have the ability to make them close to perfect even when doing things completely by hand. I’m a woodworker and sincerely try to have things to the thousandth of an inch simply because I can and that’s the standard I like to hold myself to. It’s not sustainable and not necessary though. Things work when they are good enough. So I’m torn.... either way I truly do appreciate the time and energy you put into your pieces. It shows.
They made items to the best of their ability in every area and so should we. The sword made today should be far better in every way than they were then. Take what you do as a woodworker with the available tools and machines. Your creations are only limited by the available materials and the time you have to make them.
I love that sword so much. Not JUST that reproduction in particular-I even love the Deepeeka versions. It's one of my favorite extant museum examples being reproduced by all the companies and smithies. But that one in your hands looks so slender and agile and well-proportioned. It must be a joy to swing around and thrust with.
Imperfections are called Character. Some handmade things should have character. Each is one of a kind and special. 👍🏼👍🏼
"What i don't want is something that people would go "That must've been created with witchcraft"'.
Gave me a nice chuckle. I don't think people would say that , i think people would've said that it must be a king's or some kind of nobility's sword and that you stole it , that's more likely.
just as mister (awesome Greenleaf guy who makes armour) Grahm said : "...there was a lot of bodging and you see it all over the place....."
Resources could be a factor as well, it's relatively easy to get good workable steel nowadays, back before the industrial revolution it would be more costly to start over again from scratch.
Great vid. Ten years ago I made a copy of the Brocas tournament helmet for a customer.
I got all the black & white pics from the Royal Armoury they made in the past, from the inside and outside.
I was really stunned by the asymmetry of the piece and had a very bad time in incorporating that in my copy...
It looked great, as the original did...
I learned to accept that approach, to live with the nature of the "looks" of a piece, and accept the imperfections as a part of that great looks.
I wonder how blade qualities differ between copy and the original?
As a cabinetmaker I strive for perfection and settle for excellence.
Your philosophy and approach is exactly why I have a grail piece of yours that I desperately want to have.
I have a German ancestry so my hope is for the CIRCA 1500 MESSER - SHORT SWORD. it would be so cool to have an edged tool that is fairly like my ancestors could have had.
I still view your work and think that you must have used witchcraft. Beautiful work.
Years ago, I got to hold a Bronze Sword, from the middle east, that was 3,000 years old... Perfect balance.. and being an artist who works in clay and having my clay sculptures cast into bronze.. I was fascinated by the skill of the casting of this sword.. the amazing handle with a round ribbed hollow ball at the end of the hilt.. I couldn't imagine how they cast that.. I tried to imagine the foundry in which this sword was made.. Just really amazing to have been privileged to have held it.. Thank you for today's video..
True that the original specimens would likely have more flaws compared to modern replicas. Still, one does wonder if one purchases a piece for reenactment purposes, would these flaws in the originals further the accuracy of such exercises?
After all, you are arguing for the purposes of people who buy these things. Modern people may purchase replicas for more purposes other then hanging it on a wall.
I hate knife spines which are out of line with the handle, and wonkey swords and spears on statues and paintings, I wouldn't have liked all that sloppiness back in the day.
Doesn't it make sense that the original blade was sharpened on one edge more than the other? Habitual use of one edge for cutting could result in uneven wear.
Could it be that the uneven side was favoured in use and so grinded down by resharpening? I mean from 9mm to 14 is something you can see without measuring. Just an ideea 😊
Excellent question! Oakeshott talked about blades changing from one of his 'types' to another due to sharpening having gradually changed the blade shape so this would have been an issue
Didn't the end results of an ancient piece have a lot to do with the tool quality and availability, i mean, your "metal file" isn't their "metal file" and so on, no? You making a dagger blade today and them making a dagger blade 300 or 400 years ago (or even farther back), is going to be so different in process that it would be interesting to watch you make a simple dagger with the tools and ways of old. (i'd definitely watch)
It makes me curious about ancient metal working tools.
Are those asymmetries representative? Meaning if most of the original works that survived to this day have them? Maybe its just the human nitpickery to focus on imperfections. Arent the pieces you picked just a botched work of shitty smith?
I agree the craftsmen back then had tools incomparable to today's machinery. So people could not have as strict expectations as we have today but maybe the selection you picked was made poorly or corroded asymmetricaly.
@Michael Smith Me neither. I was reffering to the fact that people tend to focus more on flaws than stuff thats is in order.
8:05 oooookay there is definitely something wrong with that handle
Tods workshop very good sword have to admit is that a live blade I use my hand forged sword to cutting practice keep up great content