The PROBLEM with replica MEDIEVAL SWORDS

[@daveburklund2295]

Most modern consumers really want an historical sword shaped object made to modern specs.

[@eldorian91]

Honestly that's what I'd want. A perfect modern item that's built to the spec that the historical object was aiming for.

[@Norvik_-ug3ge]

Exactly. If the original makers had access to our technology they would have made the swords perfectly symmetrical.

[@robertpatter5509]

Cold Steel does this. Do their Smallswords look like the original antiques? The size ,weight and proportions are way off. They do good in terms of making a sword with the aesthetics of the antiques, but made to a modern audience which wants more robustness. Alot of robustness in Cold Steel's case. They run with the spirit of the sword. It's essence. I have bought an Indian made replica of a 1767 French triangular Smallsword. Far better in proportion than the Cold Steel Smallsword, yet the Indian made hilt, guard and pommel were brass. The tapered blade was excellent. Far better than the Cold Steel blade. If only I had the Indian made triangular Smallsword blade on a Cold Steel handle, guard and pommel. Still the Indian made Smallsword blade is more robust than an antique one. But it's not insanely out of proportionality like Cold Steel. I just wished they used steel instead of brass. Though the scabbard is quite nice.

[@Justice-ian]

@@eldorian91 I agree with you (and Dave Burkland and Norvik) completely, and disagree with the "real big problem" clickbait BS. Historical builders weren't trying trying to make "bananas"; they were trying just like moderns to make "apples", but falling short (as Norvik implied) because they didn't have modern equipment and processes.

[@daveburklund2295]

@@eldorian91 I think you are making assumptions about what historical makers were aiming for based on what you, a modern person, would aim for.

[@coralmar5329]

As somebody that tried to make a sword as a novice - the rippling thing seems unavoidable

[@scholagladiatoria]

It is avoidable with the right tools and equipment (eg. a massive flat platen with a modern belt sander), but of course most historical swords were not made with that equipment. Japanese blades avoid it to some degree, due to how they are ground and polished, but even on my antique Japanese blades I can see some rippling, even if it is less than on European and Indian blades.

[@Willy_Tepes]

The problem is probably that you are using power tools. To make a completely flat surface with a file or stone is not a problem.

[@varangjar1544]

@@fettmaneiii4439 That's this question of replication...it's a modern sword you're making with modern tools. A true replica should illustrate the processes available at the time, which makes round wheels (for most periods) your only option.

[@messylaura]

one of the things those cheap square diamond blocks are good for it flattening out those ripples, block the sword like a car panel then continue with the polishing stages, the diamod blocks are not much good after flattening out a blade, often you can use a round file with the handle removed to flatten out a fuller along its length. trade wise i'm a panel beater so i've been used to getting metal straight for many years before making several swords, most from the rear leaf springs of the older london taxis when they were steel leaf spings the other roughing in tool if you only have basic equipment is a floor belt sander, if you used to using them you can take out the ripples

[@Willy_Tepes]

@@fettmaneiii4439 You have a point. I've never done production, only one-offs. Time is really not an issue then and a file does give a nice result with long strokes.

[@thechroniclesofthegnostic7107]

Well said! (And I love how you point out the use of filler. Given how effective filler was used in Indian swords, it's always annoyed me how often Euro sword aficionados have given it side-eye.) And just know (budget permitting of course) there are some of us who'll always be highly interested in reproductions you're involved in that are "imperfect"--but true to an actual historical piece. 😊

[@adriaanvanwyk662]

As someone that forges knives as a hobby, let me tell you how difficult it is to make something mostly simetrical just with hand tools and an angle grinder.

[@Willy_Tepes]

An angle grinder is a difficult tool to master.

[@Sk0lzky]

I didn't have a belt sander for my first 20 attempts so I'd just clamp a power drill with a grinding bit thing I found in grandpa's workshop, it was hilarious but you gotta do what you gotta do lmao It does make a nice hollow grind tbf

[@bologna3048]

Ah the angle grinder, aka the death wheel lol those things inspire me to do things by hand, they scary haha

[@Willy_Tepes]

@@oliviercoen446 I can get within a millimeter with an angle grinder. But when you are talking about a mirror polish, you are no longer using the grinding wheel.

[@thatlittlevoice6354]

Or, maybe even, spell symmetrical.

[@harmoniaartificiosa]

A very interesting video indeed. I would happily purchase a sword that’s based on an original, but with a higher degree of finishing and symmetry. I would absolutely buy a sword that is an exact replica of an original too, with all it’s imperfections. They would serve different purposes in a collection. But what I would really like is for the manufacturer/retailer to be very specific regarding these conditions in marketing and online shops etc. As long as you know what you pay for you will most likely be a happy customer.

[@GaelFabre-hn8si]

Hello and Hallelujah Matt! For more than 15 years, I try to make swords leaving away my modern point of view. The swords I make have always little imperfections because I finish it by hand with my eyes. A big problem we often forget in modern replicas (always in fact) is that the historical materials (bloomery iron and steel) don’t have the same visual aspect and mechanical characteristics than the modern perfect industrial steel. Quenching bloomery steel does not work the same as modern steel (it’s always difficult to get a full hard blade from the surface to the core), a real challenge. The composite structure of bloomery iron and steel (the same with the blast furnace steel from the beginning of the XVth century in Europe because it needs to be folded many times as bloomery materials to become clean) is a real difference with the modern steel. When I work with homemade iron and steel like these, I must forget everything I thought to know about swordmaking, because modern materials are not fully adequate for the swordmaking museum replica (not at all). The same problem if you try to make a medieval glass using Pyrex or Duralex glass… not the same visual characteristics and not same the mechanical characteristics as Museum medieval glass. Actually, it’s really difficult to talk about that with my colleagues because it’s a real questioning. In my view, we are just at the beginning of the comprehension of the museum artifacts made of iron and steel. And with that point, this implies having a certain humility because with modern materials, it’s not possible to get Museum characteristics. By my side, every day, it’s a perpetual questioning about my job because I am a XXIth century man who wants to work with materials from an other time, and it’s really difficult to assume for my little Homo sapiens brain🤷🔥⚔️.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Great to see you here Gaël, and thanks for posting! Yes the materials are a whole deeper issue, which I didn't really even touch on here. We could have another discussion about damage, toughness, hardness etc, and how the period steels will behave differently to modern steels.

[@Enishna]

As someone who has one of your blades secondhand (maybe third?), I absolutely love that I can tell it was made by hand and not machine perfect!

[@giodavid991]

And still you make, in my opinion, the most beautiful swords on the market. Keep making masterpieces ☝

[@thelegendaryklobb2879]

There's a great video on Tod's channel about medieval artistic sensibility, and he discusses many of these concepts in detail. Working with handtools makes complete symmetry almost impossible, imperfections were expected. What really mattered is if the item looked pretty enough for them. Of course a really symmetrical and perfect handmade object was really prized, like the quality of japanese blade polishing

[@HarryFlashmanVC]

I have one of Tod's simple pen knives, handmade and humble it is an object of wonderful charm and beauty BECAUSE it is handmade by a master

[@Skank_and_Gutterboy]

That makes sense to me.

[@charlottesimonin2551]

People tend to forget that until the 18th century the only reliable gauge of straightness was the human eye. Machine like precision for any item was the result of exacting care by individual groups of craftworkers. The quality of antique metalwork amazes contemporary metalworkers. We often forget that historical workers were part of a team directed by a master of the craft.

[@grahamthompson5581]

I love the conceptually simple origin of precise measurement - three flat planes. With two, the fact they fit perfectly could be due to them having the same curve - one convex, the other concave - but with three, if every pair fits together, they must all be genuinely flat.

[@jayreiter268]

@@grahamthompson5581 that is one of the basic principles of flat lapping.

[@LadyBits2023]

... It is truly crazy when people like you speak so confidently and with such authority about things that they know absolutely nothing about.... They have literally found levels line levels, horizontal levels Plumbob and various other measuring tools as far back as 5000 years ago.... 3000 years ago, they were transporting hundred ton blocks of granite across oceans.... You really don't think that people knew how to make a flat surface just because they hadn't standardized, measuring units and devices yet...?

[@tatache5971]

I love swords with asymmetries and imperfections. They look far more human, and those imperfections are a part of their beauty. That's why I love the swords made by Fabrice Cognot, Tod or Maciej Kopciuch: you have those file marks and uneven surfaces that add so much in my opinion. Reminds me of one of the most famous greek typefaces made in history : the Grecs du Roi made by Claude Garamont in the 1540s. Scholars are baffled by the fact that all the letters are different in size and width and look totally disproportionate one to another, but when you put them all together, they seem to magically equilibrate to give you an homogen text.

[@Aquilenne]

I like them too, but I usually end up preferring to go for antiques for the ones I like to keep around and admire as a piece of art, and the mid range modern ones for the swords that I actively use myself since they aren't going to hold their value quite as well as the antique.

[@fryeday]

You bring up a good point, and it comes up in other places like cosplay and just how crunchy an actual prop is. Would it be worth considering if experts such as Tod Cutler and yourself to go out of your way to point these flaws out when you're showcasing originals at someplace like the Royal Armouries?

[@alexandermagnus82]

The "imperfections" of hand tooling add an irreplaceable level of soul and character to the weapon. But I also can't help but think if we time travelled and asked the period smith's and swordsmen, many would probably respond "if you could create a perfectly symmetrical and well-fitted blade, why wouldn't you?"

[@FortuneFavoursTheBold]

I will be fine with all three cases. Exactly like an original in terms of flaws, or close to the original but tuned down the flaws, or the impression of the original but with little flaws. I will still take notes of all the aspects mentioned but I don’t think the flaws will bother me personally in any case. What I really care about is the handling. It should be very close to the original and each component should be within 5% of deviation both in terms of stats and geometries. The reproduction or replica should capture the geometric characteristics of the original, i.e. the tapering of not only the blade, but also the pommel, the quillons (in some cases the grip if the core of the original was preserved, not remade later); the transition on the pommel to the central hub, etc. The fittings and the grip should have produce hot spots during handling, neither. I think this is a reasonable request.

[@scholagladiatoria]

One thing I would say is that a lot of originals do in fact create hot spots in handling, and this informs us of how (or how not!) to use them. I classic and obvious example is the tulwar hilt, which most people find really weird and uncomfortable at first, because they try to use it the wrong way. We can say something similar of most viking era swords.

[@FortuneFavoursTheBold]

@@scholagladiatoria Oh absolutely. What I meant was not creating any hotspot when used correctly. If one gets hurt while not gripping the sword correctly, it is not the fault of the sword, obviously. 🙂

[@EriktheRed2023]

Perhaps the bladesmith's guild considered it a real coup the first time they managed to put an imperfect blade on the emperor's hip. From then on, everyone wanted a slightly asymmetrical blade. Or at the least, when someone complained about a blade, the smith could say the emperor had one with that particular 'aesthetic'.

[@briandavion]

a perfect blade with hand tools is impossiable Erik. there's no fancy trickery from the guilds here

[@Theduckwebcomics]

LOL

[@kleinerprinz99]

I bet the Emperor never actually looked at the thing and it landed in the armoury / treasury like any other trinket. They used to gift each other all sorts of things for diplomatic reasons and didnt really much care for it.

[@StudioNBS]

This sounds like an amazing low fantasy DnD plot. At first it sounds impossible that the Bladesmith’s Guild would scheme and murder, just for the goal of getting an imperfect sword on the emperor’s hip. Then you realize it’s like 15 million gold per year that they would stand to make if imperfect blades became fashionable…

[@markfergerson2145]

I am reminded of Spock's line "a difference that makes no difference is no difference" in the context of the usability of a sword. As you have pointed out more than once, sparring can loosen hilts and guards and pommels, bend tangs and even bend blades. Subsequent repairs will rarely result in such damage reverting to the exact original condition. So unless one wants a pure display piece, I personally see no point in obsessing over perfect symmetry upon delivery. If that's the goal, the blade might as well be chrome over zinc-aluminum alloy rather than steel with plastic fittings, saving the buyer a lot of money.

[@douglasyoung927]

As a bladesmith, I tell people that if they want to commission a replica, I will be replicating the process rather than the piece. I can make a piece very close to the original using historical materials references and processes but I will not make an exact copy (nor would I want to). I also tell people that I can make things "perfect" or near enough to it, but it will definitely double the cost and the waiting period. It's simply easier and more organic to approach and produce each and every blade as an original thing with its own personality. If the geometry, weight distribution and proportions are made close enough through the natural process of forging, it often makes a better tool/weapon than if the tool/weapon is forced to be an exact item. All that being said, I feel that you're replicas are excellent and fascinating, I'm glad to be watching this journey unfold.

[@thormusique]

This is all really fascinating and makes lots of sense. I suppose it must be really difficult to predict how any such functional replica will be received, especially being that any two sword enthusiasts/collectors could have quite different expectations. I for one think you're doing a bang-on job with these swords, the results being quite impressive and beautiful. Cheers!

[@stevenmitchell6347]

Many swords are the product of multiple craftspeople. One forges the blade, one grinds and polishes, one creates the hilt and pommel, one creates the handle, one assembles the sword, and one does the final sharpening. Granted, some processes may have been done by the same person as others but very few were the product of one craftsperson. It's always interesting to see and hear your viewpoint on these subjects. Thank you!

[@corrugatedcavalier5266]

I really love my 14thc longsword that you showed in this video. As a harness fighter, it's very telling to me. And it moves surprisingly well even in one hand.

[@act.13.41]

If the old blacksmiths could have made them perfect, they probably would have done so, but only depending on the money the customer was willing to spend. The problem was the technology. We have the ability to do it now. They did not, nor would the customer want to pay for so much labor for a tool. Had some of these nobles known that their weapons would be shown in the Royal Armory centuries later, they may well have forked over the extra money for perfection and put the item in storage.

[@kevinsugrue]

A related point. The museum pieces that look perfect may either be ceremonial, or master craftsmen produced examples that didn't see regular use. The historic pieces that are more regularly traded as antiques often show their age and signs of wear and combat use. Genuine antiques are rarely perfect examples. Replicas are often based on an idealised view of the weapon.

[@Finkeren]

As someone who buys replicas occasionally, I want anything that makes the sword more authentic and look more hand-forged. If we as buyers are told beforehand, that the imperfections are intentional and completely historical, I think very few people would complain.

[@Riceball01]

Great topic, this issue actually pops up in the Star Wars helmet collector community. Most modern licensed replicas of Star WArs helmets are build in 3D software like CAD and so are pefetly symmetrical whereas the original were hand sculpted, particularly during the OT, and so will show imperfections. As a result, there are fans that are more purist who hate these modern replicas because they're too perfect, even in universe they most likely would have been perfectly symmetrical. In regards to modern sword replicas, I'd like them to be as near perfect as possible.So, as near symmetrical as possible, minimal gaps, as little wavyness in the blades, and so on. Of course, that would all depend on whether we're talking about a mass produced product from a company like Windlass, or something that's a one off or produced ins small batches all by hand.. But even with something made by hand, I'd rather it not be a 100% faithful reproduction with warts and all.

[@williamarthur4801]

Great video, really interesting subject, one I've thought about myself and never really resolved where I stand.

[@itsapittie]

It may not be unfair to say that modern buyers/collectors are demanding things that medieval makers would have done if they had the technology. Personally, I don't demand "perfection" but I do prefer that the replica take advantage of modern techniques to do things like make the quillons the same length and the fullers end pretty nearly in the same place.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Though following that line of logic, we may as well skip longbows and horses and move straight to compound bows and cars ;-)

[@vaenii5056]

So firearms?

[@itsapittie]

@@scholagladiatoria LOL! I don't mean that, of course. I do think the replica should be true to the spirit of the original but we don't necessarily have to replicate its "flaws" in the process. That's only my opinion, of course, because this is essentially a matter of taste.

[@TheTrueNorth11]

@@scholagladiatoria Can’t agree with that Matt.

[@Aquilenne]

Yeah, when I want something authentic to admire, treasure, and use incredibly sparingly as part of writing research, I'd rather go for real antiques that will retain their value. When I'm going for modern weapons to use for fencing or test cutting I prefer something more functional.

[@marcelogonzalez8547]

Extremely useful and illuminating video, actually cleared a few doubts I had. Thanks.

[@KAI19772011]

As a collector of other historical items let me say that your explanation is absolutely awesome 😎 impression vs replica. I always wonder why some guys are collecting just impressions (or destroyed originals after refurbishment) than history with repairs, smaller damages and bruises….

[@tylerfitts8194]

Love that you pointed all this out. Took my first 'swing' at hand forging a long knife recently. As you say, the slight imperfections seem inevitable when forging by hand, especially with limited tools.

[@scotttyson607]

The real problem with replicas is that no matter how well made they are they will never be AUTHENTIC.

[@ELVendedor5000]

Hey Matt! Can you please help Windlass improve their ancient swords! Especially the "Maintz Pattern Gladius" and that "Classic Hoplite Sword!" They badly need a whole do-over! 🤦

[@franksutton2264]

Todd discussed this on his channel as well. About how he’s not looking to make a perfectly clinical version of a historical piece even though he does have the ability to do so. The goal is to be on on the highest end of what you would see in period.

[@2bingtim]

Really good talk Matt. A great point well made. I'd not considered that before. I think if you'd paid a lot for a replica sword from a good maker you'd naturally be miffed if it wasn't "perfect", but given the "CONTEXT" you just outlined, few historical weapon smiths achieved what we expect today. My very first wsord(I've never had money to buy good swords) was a 1990s Deepeka Archers sword, which had two distinct wobbles/folds in the blade; just a cheap knock-off I'd thought before this. Not what I was expecting from the video title- I expected it to be more a discussion of the change in balance & handling of a repro sword due to blunt edges & more weight at the point which necessarily adds weight to the blade compared with the less metal on the edge of a finely sharpened tapered edge & thinner point. Always an education. thanks Matt.

[@shanksjeffcott8598]

This was great. And the if you want a banana by one not a apple is spot on. From years or reenactment and making weapons based on photos and attempting to make them as perfect as possible. The the shock and surprise when i got the chance of handling and seeing up close a historical 14th century sword and seeing as you said all the imperfections, i had been beating myself up about the I thought poor construction of my work when i was doing very well in comparison to the original.

[@p4riah]

'ideal' is i think the most important word used in this video. makers use modern techniques and tools to make an IDEALIZED version of a type of sword or a specific sword. it doesnt matter if that exact perfectly shaped sword ever existed or not. theres even a tendency for some people to actually associate the term 'hand forged' or 'hand made' with that idealized geometric perfection. some people just think 'oh hand forged means higher quality which means it should be perfect'. they assume that hand forged means a craftsman takes painstaking effort to get every detail geometicallly perfect, as opposed to some guy or machine churning out 'good enough' copies with some sloppy geometry. its totally wrong, but some people believe it subconsciously. in the end i dont think theres an ideal solution. it would be nice if everyone in the sword buying public educated themselves on both the historical context and the manufacturing realities, but the consumer knowledge base and education level in most markets is always lower than desired. theres always a disconnect between makers and buyers on some things. which is why i never fault makers for doing what they have to to get sales even if its not ideal, as long as it doesnt compromise the quality. in the end itll always be a compromise between historical accuracy and perfect geometry. creating a slightly idealized version of an original is not a bad route to take. trying to normalize hand forged variation is also valuable, tho it might lose you a few sales here and there, which bless them, some makers are perfectly willing to accept.

[@mrln247]

One suggestion on the pommel fit, back in the day Smith's would do a lot hot fitting metal onto wood so they may have cooked it on tight to the the wooden handle that has now disintegrated. Possibly also did one or two guards the same way.

[@McHaven07]

i hope that both examples are all well labeled and perhaps explained in their item descriptions, so people can make informed decisions.

[@elizabethparry3071]

I hand forge knives and swords. No matter how carefully they are forged and filed and ground, the final heat treatments cause distortions. These bends are traditionally removed using sets of wooden blocks, and this is a very imperfect process. Regarding loose guards, and filler, this is indeed true - I have an old sword where the guard was made firm with some kind of pitch or resin.

[@WillyShakes]

I always take a file, sandpaper, and sometimes add small engravings to swords I purchase. Removing the sharp edges that bite the hand, reshaping the crossguards, etc all ends up making it look more authentic and that's great for a reenactor like me. That being said, I hope you're planning to do a XI or XII Type sword in your next batch!

[@freestylebagua]

Symmetry should be the idealized form, but weight, length and relative proportions should be exact, to sum up :)

[@MattsGreatHall]

reproduction vs. replica. Good insights, Matt. It's cool to hear what you're working on. There’s a market for “interpretive replicas” but probably not one for exact reproductions. On a slightly tangential topic, the asymmetry and imperfections clearly seen in originals is exactly why I find the assertion that “most medieval knightly swords had a mirror polish finish” extremely dubious. That debate pops up from time to time.

[@scholagladiatoria]

We know that some medieval armour and blades did have a mirror finish, because it is mentioned in text and shown in art. There are 15th and 16th century paintings where you can see the whole background reflected in the armour. We also know that they used water-driven wood and leather wheels to polish stuff, as that is also described in text and shown in art, and some such wheels survive.

[@Incandescentiron]

I noticed your microphone, reminding me to tell you that your audio sounds great!

[@danielflynn9141]

Matt, thanks for contributing to this on-going discussion about the modern consumers' expectations and how to manage them. I have seen several folks recently blow up some sword forums with their criticism of well known makers, and some of the criticism was valid, but some of it was not. I think the sword buyer ought to manage their expectations about what they are looking for. If they want a "perfect" object that looks aseptic and clean and machined, they should look for a maker who specializes in making swords to that standard. If they want a more hand-forged appearance and are willing to tolerate wavering midribs, rippling, slight asymmetry, uneven polish, and a myriad of other imperfections deriving from the fact that human hands made the object, then they ought to find a maker who specializes in making swords to that standard. One standard is also not necessarily better than the other. I respect the exacting standard of the maker who aims for perfection, but I also respect the maker who strives to make swords that have a hand-made aesthetic. But just as the buyer should manage their expectations, I feel that makers ought to help us along a bit by more clearly defining what they believe are tolerances the buyer ought to anticipate with their wares, and define more clearly what defects are, true defects. I'm sure you're aware of an interaction a sword buyer had with a well-known maker over the weekend on Facebook, which seemed to involve every other maker coming to the defense of their colleague. It was like an episode out of Wagner's Ring Cycle or something. What was especially irritating about this episode is that the buyer had a few legitimate concerns, but his blustery attitude and knee-jerk reactions made it impossible to facilitate a proper discussion about it. Similarly, the maker defended himself by going on the offense and writing a satirical take down of the persnickety modern consumer on his own page, which was transparently about the interaction he had with this customer. This culminated today with a post that was more lucid and serious, but garnered the support of every well known maker in Europe and North America. This was really unfortunate. The buyer could have spent a few days to calm down and think more rationally about it, because it was really awful to see this person basically get ratioed by EVERYONE. It had the effect of making the congregation of smiths backing up this maker look like a gang of elitists. Furthermore, it's making the buyer feel really on the spot, and the temperature isn't being lowered on the forum. I appreciate your contribution to this discussion and found it helpful and constructive.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Weirdly, I filmed this video in the middle of last week, before this whole thing really blew up! Strange how things pan out sometimes...

[@rookriflerookrifle8286]

Excellent information 👍👍

[@kennoesen634]

Excellent video Matt and I understand the dilemma. I appreciate your desire to appease both sides of what collectors and enthusiasts want. I normally only collect real swords, 18th century on, but I'm a George Washington fan. In 1976 Wilkinson made a sterling silver (w/hallmarks) hilted replica series of a George Washington sword. I acquired one of these last year. Like yourself they had access to the real one to make the replica. Wilkinson chose to "age" or false patina the hilt to make it look like the original. The problem is, it looks like it was falsely aged. So at first glance it looks great, in your hands up close not so much. The hilt itself and details, very well copied. Wilkinson also chose to not match embellishments/etchings on the blade, they did their own versions, that in my opinion also take away from it being a copy of the original. Also the colichemarde blade looks all shiny and new, unlike the falsely aged silver hilt. Had they aged both blade and hilt the same and replicated the correct blade engravings even though worn it's a better sword. If you're gonna replicate it aged as it is at this time, be consistent. But..... that being said, would I have liked to see it replicated all brand new and gorgeous as Washington would have received it and let the silver patina naturally over time? I think that may have been better than the fake patina look. But had the blade and hilt both been correctly copied and worn and aged, the resulting copy would have been better. It's the miss match that I believe causes the greater disappointment. It's still a nice copy of a sword that can never be owned. Congrats on the project and I look forward to seeing the final versions. Side note, do you have a video on screws and bolts on swords? Over the years I passed up on some older period swords because I saw screw heads and/or bolts. I recently learned just how long ago the screw was invented and bolts were used in Europe in the 1500s, possibly 1400s. Might make for a good video topic.

[@bjornnilsson1827]

There's also a certain randomness of survival in remaining historical examples. If a smith did a dozen "identical" but hand-made swords back in the day. Those will have various random variations. There's absolutely nothing to say that the often sole surviving example is the one that was closest to the maker's intent/vision.

[@jr618]

Great topic! I read so many reviews of different swords I plan on purchasing and the amount of different expectations are just crazy. I personally like a modern version based on historical reference. Modern materials such as better steel, micarta instead of wood or leather on a handle, and a better fit and finish. This obviously costs much more, but it's what I prefer. I couldn't agree with you more on the fact that if you want an exact replica of a sword, you should expect what some would call, "imperfections". There were no CNC machines back in the day. Everything was hand forged and it's not going to have tight tolerances. You will have rippling, gaps, no perfect symmetry, etc. Perhaps a good solution to this problem is to go the way of Kailash Blades. They don't make swords obviously, but I love their idea. They offer both traditional (historic) and modern (which you will pay more for). I'm not a blade smith, so I will not comment on what it would take to make such a thing happen. Just an idea that I'm entertaining! Thank you again for another fantastic video!

[@TimParker-Chambers]

This reminds me to a certain extent, of one of my other passions: Collecting replica watches. While it's not a hobby I've really engaged with in about 10 years, I am very much reminded of how a n00b would sign up to the forum, and ask ''Which is the best rep of a Rolex Submariner?!?'' Now, what they were really meaning, was ''What can I buy, which is 1:1 perfect to the original, which no one is going to ask 'is that a fake Rolex??''' Simple answer: Anything without 'Rolex' on the dial... A friend who's boss collects vintage cars and watches, stopped wearing Rolex all together, because he got sick of being asked if it was fake. And what irritated him, was these inquiries were not coming from randos in the pub, but people who personally knew him and his *other* collection... The man owned many classic vintage cars; clearly, he had the 5-8k for a Submariner 🥴🥴🥴🥴🙈🙈🙈🙈 Over the years, I had replicas of several brands: Rolex, Omega, Panerai, but the real jewel in my collection, my favorite every-day watch, was a flawless replica of a Double Red Sea-Dweller, 1665 model, as would have been sold in the mid-late 70s. But. It was also pristine condition: White luminous markers, not ones which in an original, would have become a cream/sepia tone with age... The case and bracelet were pristine, not covered with the spider-web of scratches, nicks and dings, which a 30 year old divers watch would have picked up during years of wear and tear... In short, it was too perfect for my taste... So with a variety of abrasives and tools, I re-finished the case, crystal and bezel insert, to something resembling decades of wear and tear: Then it was perfect and as I wanted it to be 😍😍😍😍 I wore it daily for Years, until the movement needed servicing and seized, but the local watchsmith had retired, so, my beloved watch became little more than a paper-weight 🥴🥴🥴🥴 And in my years of wearing it, I had *one* comment on it: I was at a bar, and the guy next to me, said ''That's a nice watch,'' I said ''Thankyou,'' and that was the conversation done 🤣🤣🤣🤣 No questioning, no accusations or inquisition, just an honest compliment, and a polite reply 👍👍👍👍 Nowadays, I wear a Chinese-branded clone of Casio's watch, which was based on the Seiko Roger Moore wore in Octopussy, which I got from Amazon, and I love it: Quartz precision, and a countdown timer to keep track of when things will have finished cooking 👍👍👍👍 And I guess with swords, it's very much the same: Does the collector want original, or modern recreation? Do they want one which is geometrically perfect, or do they want that 'as hand-made' uniqueness? It's things like that, which make collecting anything so much fun 🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@lilivi4301]

This reminds me of guitars where certain people HATE modern features that are straight up improvements with zero downsides because it's not vintage correct. Gibson headstock angle (significantly increases risk of breakage and tuning issues), volutes (risk of breakage), telecaster 3 barrel bridge saddles instead of 1 per string which offers better intonation, locking tuners, 2 point vs. 6 point tremolos (tuning stability), modern capacitors, modern weight relief, etc.

[@Dynotop1a]

This is pretty similar to reconstructions of extinct organisms too. People going to museums generally want to see what they’ve imagined a Tyrannosaurus rex skull to be when even a particularly complete specimen is usually crushed, deformed, broken, or scattered by geological and taphonomic processes. For example, the famous Sue the T.rex’s (FMNH PR 2081) original skull is displayed separately where you can see how it’s been crushed and deformed despite being nearly 100% complete. The mounts use an incredibly reconstructed version of the skull that has been digitally restored to better show how the skulls would have looked “in life”, or at least prior to fossilization and deformation. It’s a fascinating culmination of technology, scientific research, and art on its own. Very rarely are articulated fossil skulls not significantly crushed. An example of one is the Burke Museum’s Tufts-Love Tyrannosaurus (UWBM 99000), which is probably the best and most absolutely complete T. rex skull ever found. However, its bones were still not entirely preserved in their original position prior to paleontologist’s re-articulating them. There is a very nice 3D scan of the Tufts-Love T. rex specimen on sketchfab if anyone reading this wants to have a look and the Burke museum website has some really cool videos of the preparation process. Of course, this just gingerly touches the surface of that discussion, but I thought it might be interesting to note the parallels between fields. I think some of this can be relevant to many, much less “niche”, things, honestly.

[@aarsandijvie]

I like the imperfections as long as they don't mess with the integrity of the overall sword. That being said the modern versions are mostly made with modern machines versus handforging which would drive the price up significantly if you want to incorporate all the imperfections.

[@TripperJonMD]

Great video. Interesting and informative as always. Additionally really great and practical advice.

[@CrochetingPup]

@scholagladiatoria Typically I am a perfectionist, but when it comes to replicas, I prefer them how they historically were manufactured. Tool marks, slight wonkiness/imperfections and hammer marks on peens make it feel as if you are holding an original example. This is why I love Tod's work so much. He strives for historical accuracy AND authenticity. 😄

[@CanadianCuttingEdge]

You make some great points and I think any rational person would agree. The remaining question is how do we know which "replica" is made to which standard when we are shopping?

[@texasbeast239]

Many of us don't really know what we NEED. So we look up lists of things to WANT. And many of us want it all in whatever we wish to purchase. (Military brass are this same way when it comes to major weapon system contracts too.) But I think more time behind the blade shows people a greater sampling of weapons and the variety of builds that are totally functional, if not perfectly fashionable. And when you learn to love that slightly rippled blade with the tiny gap over there or the nick down here, then most of the list of wants starts to ring as superficial. I'm in luck, for I'm trying to channel my favorite D&D dwarf, whose kit was said to have been hand-forged by himself as a young dwarf (meaning the mistakes of relative inexperience would be evident), adjusted over time, and beat all to hell from countless adventures and battles. So perfect gear is utter anathema to me!

[@dwightstone7483]

Excellent information... 😊👍

[@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis]

Always enjoying your videos Matt, thank you!

[@Sir_Ian]

Very true. I have noticed the opposite problem when it comes to inlay work (for the most part, at least). Extant examples are obviously not perfectly symmetrical or machine-perfect, much like the blades and fittings, but the inlay work looks so fine, nuanced, skillfully laid, and in some cases, extremely extravagant and detailed. However, when I see reproductions with inlays in them (again, buy and large), the inlays seem large, chunky, sloppy, simplified for repeatability, or feel otherwise inauthentic for some reason. I think some of it might be that the people inlaying these reproductions may just simply not have as much practice or experience inlaying as the ancient metalworkers doing this fulltime, and some of it may be cutting corners for the sake of repeatability or ease of manufacture. Again, this is just buy and large, there are certainly some bad historical examples and incredible reproductions, it's just something I noticed.

[@Wyrdrock]

The reason we like swords and want to own them at all isn't because we are historians trying to go back and live in that exact time period with all of it's flaws, (for that we go to a museum). We like them because they represent and fulfill an abstract idea of fantasy and potential for adventure that each one of us has in ourselves within some sort of historical context. We don't fantasize about historically having a crooked sword, we fantasize about having the best of the best and that's what we want to own. We own swords as fantasy items (even historical ones) not relics. Those that want them as relics buy relics and not functional fantasy replicas.

[@bobhopkinsvalhalla1968]

As an amateur bladesmith, I much prefer the tiny imperfections of a handmade blade to the surgical precision of a machine made piece. The human touch. Cheers Matt..!

[@thewhiskeycowboy-official]

The same thing is often seen with automobile "restoration" or even resto-mods and "tributes". The originals are seldom as nice, and perfect, as what folks want now. Many folks now want "tributes" of the original swords.

[@koleary1798]

To be fair, making a mass (or semi mass) produced modern replica of a historical sword, truly warts and all, would cost a fortune so 100% it makes sense to mainly focus on the soul of the piece and how it handles

[@HarryPrimate]

I have a US Cavalry Saber Model 1860 that is dated 1862. Not only does the blade have some vague imperfections but it also has a slight twist to the left. I always felt like it gave it character.

[@piccalillipit9211]

*I MAKE BESPOKE HISTORICAL SUITS* 1890 to 1930 - I have exactly the same issue - people are expecting mass production style finish on an item made by hand in the traditional way... Because I'm dealing directly with a single person at a time, I can see expectations. I'm also massively oversubscribed so I don't have to deal with people with unrealistic expectations.

[@frobro7]

As long as the seller provides these details on the website then hopefully people will understand what to expect

[@johnhanley9946]

An interesting fact that few people are aware of, is that many of the original swords in question here were uneven because they were made in the Dark Ages, and the people making them couldn't see clearly because there was no light.

[@vast634]

And they could not see blue back then.

[@johnhanley9946]

Sounds legit... kzbin.info/www/bejne/emKQiKh4l7uYaKc

[@joannakleinheksel-horn3494]

Very valid points Matt!

[@elementzero3379]

I don't collect swords, but rather enjoy vicariously through guys like Matt. I can see a place for both the "flawless sword" and the replica in a collection. I'd enjoy them each for their qualities. I do believe I'd build a collection more from realistically flawed replicas than from idealized, flawless swords. For me, the small imperfections bring me closer to the history they represent.

[@napke8571]

Another super video! I myself want it as close as possible to originals, with some flaws and imperfections. If that is the case, the weapon feels more real, like it want to tell a story. Keep in mind that real swords ( axes, spears etc etc etc ) from the past where made for war, guarding towns and protecting important people and yes some dueling. So I do believe by far most of real weapons where good to high quality. Why? It was your protection, the highest standard of weapons on that day and if needed to kill another one, simple as that. Yes modern steel is better, yes machines can help us perfecting replica weapons but another thing lot of us forget: we are no natural specialists wielding swords for combat, people from the past where. Better trained and now how to use hand weapons. Fancy Witcher style sword fighting, forget it! Real combat was chaotic brutal force. Units clash on each other, one big mess of hacking, slashing, breaking, screaming awful scenes....best change to survive? The ones with medium/heavy armour. Well, I really like the Diablo style of item finding: 'crude bastard sword' or 'flawless dagger of the...' you get it, wonderful games, cant wait for part 4! Thank you for your video, waiting for the next one! Greetings from the Netherlands.

[@mikeblair2594]

I know what you mean. As a black and blade smith I do everything by hand. No tool in my shop runs on electricity. I forge as close to the end product as I can, then it's draw filed and then I have a piece of very hard sandstone (the Geological pressures must have been insane), this stone is set into a piece of wood that has handles on both sides. This is how it gets ground and the file marks ground out. Nothing is ever machine made straight. No two pieces are the same. It just can't be, its hand made as are the tools that I use to make it. Including drill bits. Used with a bow drill.

[@wylde_hunter]

My overall feeling is that a replica should be the best example of what a swordsmith could make using the technologies of that time. If a loose tang or fitting was unavoidable and the swordsmiths had to shape wooden handles or use pitch or glue to deal with that, then the reproduction should show this. I think there should be two categories for reproductions - "Faithful Recreation" showing every bump, difference and asymmetry and "Modern Recreation" with as perfect a blade, guard, pommel and fittings as can be crafted using modern technolgies. I have seen wonderful khopeshes made from Damascus steel that were both effective weapons and very cool but there is something special about holding a bronze khopesh, warts and all that takes you right back to Ancient Egyptian times.

[@jamess2873]

YES! This is a constant problem. People think of 'the old masters' with such incredibly romantic ideas of master craftsmen making absolute perfection with their 'lost' skills that we just dont have anymore. The reality was they were working with relatively more basic tools, to a budget, and what worked and looked good was far more important than what was physically perfect and would function no better but be way more expensive. Katanas are so much flatter because the Japanese culture put so much more emphasis on purity of aesthetics and form, and there were specialised blade polishers who would spend 3 months hand polishing each blade, an amount of time and skilled resources almost no European smith would apply. I am a bladesmith, and I do fuss over details and especially I like to make tangs fit really snugly and blades nice and flat, but I dont sweat small dimension mismatches or slight thickness variations etc. because it doesn't matter and literally no one would notice.

[@consumer1073]

good video, please do something on that tachi behind you and to the right, above your shamshir

[@purifyws]

Great video Matt! I’m wondering what the second sword down on the wall to our left is. You said the sword under it was a 17th century rapier, which I’d actually like to know more about too honestly lol

[@lathanchurch8352]

There are a few windlass blades I would absolutely love to have but they have been discontinued unfortunately

[@wayneanderson5293]

All good and valid points. If you look at a hypothetical sword's history, it can easily wind up "imperfect." A modern sword, made with modern steel and digitally controlled heat treatment, CNC-milled pommel and guard, can easily be technically "perfect" - ultra-straight, flat, with guard and pommel and grip fitted to thousandths of an inch. I don't think any bladesmith in history ever started out with the intention, "Today I'm going to make a ripply, imperfect sword that will have sloppy fittings." No, of course they all intended to make them as good as their technology and their abilities allowed. Starting with who made it: Was it made by a specialized bladesmith? (Such as indicated by the German name, "Messerschmitt.") Certainly a King's armories would have master bladesmiths, the best in the land, who did nothing but refine their craft to produce good, functional weapons - and an occasional showpiece for the King to show off. He would have apprentices and journeymen who made somewhat lesser pieces - still good enough, but no masterpieces. That's fine. Then there's the village blacksmith. He spends his time forging spoons and gates and farming tools and the occasional kinfe, as well as probably shoeing horses. But when there's a military need, he might be called to produce a few swords or spearheads or daggers, which will naturally be rougher than what the King's armories produce. Yet these also get to the battlefield, and eventually the museum's collection. Such a blacksmith might make all the metal parts of the sword - the blade, guard, and pommel - or he might have an apprentice work on the parts less critical than the blade, which he probably heat treated like a farmer's scythe. Back in the royal armories: The master bladesmith is most valuable turning out master-quality blades. A polisher is grinding, polishing, and sharpening the blade. Apprentices make the guards and pommels, and in some cases they won't be perfectly fitted. Then these parts are sent to a swordcutler, who creates the grip and puts it all together. (You don't waste a master bladesmith's time on woodworking!) He then sends it to the scabbard maker. Each piece is made by a specialist, the best in his craft - ideally. But passing through all those hands, the original intent may have been lost. Let's suppose they aren't. A well-fitted (for the time) masterpiece blade comes out. Great. But the swords on the battlefield aren't super-nice weapons. They're plan and functional. If a pommel gets loose, shove some leather in there to tighten it up. A grip cracks, and in replacing it the pommel is lost. Another one is pulled from stock, and again, it's a sloppy fit. Put in some leather or wood to shim it. It got chipped in battle - grind out the edge - now it's wavy, but still worth keeping. Blades were often kept for centuries, with fittings sometimes replaced just to reflect current styles. We get composite weapons, often ill-fitted, where the original may have looked much better. And a common foot soldier's sword will always be different from a knight's sword, which in turn will be different from what you find preseerved for centuries in the collections of the Royal Armories. So in replicating a sword: Do you want a copy of the piece as it is in the museum? Or do you want the smith's original intent? Or something in between? All are equally valid. Just know what you're looking at, and make an informed choice.

[@M.M.83-U]

In my opinion we need to put in place a tier system. 1) The proper replicas, made with modern machinery but exact to the last detail to the originals 2) Albion Museum Line level ones 3) the ones that fit in the typology, not a specific specimen, made with modern tools and to modern expectations, like Tod's ones 4) Reconstruction exercises/experimental archaeology ones, made to the typology with traditional tools and methods.

[@psychosytheXmediaXco]

I imagine a lot of people don't want to drop 1000$ or so on a blade just to have to explain to some people that 'no no it's SUPPOSED TO BE ASYMMETRICAL.' Of course that's an excellent opportunity to go into a mini-lecture about swordcraft to someone who probably doesn't care that much. But that will stop them pointing it out in the future.

[@michalberanek2783]

I love both the Albion model of pure crystallized essence of sword, and the Tod's Workshop approach - as if you came to the weaponsmith and said "make another one of those". But I don't really see the appeal of making a carbon copy with all of the imperfections exactly as they were on the original (not that anyone's doing that to my knowledge)

[@NegotiatorGladiarius]

That said, you do bring a valid point in another aspect. Next time I 3d-model a sword for Skyrim or the like, I probably should introduce a slight bit of wobble in the edge and general geometry. The more I think about it, the more I think the game's lighting would look a lot better and more realistic in that case. Lighting on perfectly straight and symmetrical blades always looked a wee bit bland and boring to me, and slightly uncanny valley compared to handling real sword. Albeit modelling the distal taper and such helped a bit with making, say, a Type XV look less flatly shaded. So I was already kinda pondering the idea, but now I have an actual expert confirming it. So thanks for the information in any case, same as all your videos.

[@Dejawolfs]

Great video matt, with an important subject

[@DJRockford83]

I always think that the thing with replicas is that with modern machining and forging the quality and symmetry is far better BUT if the smiths of the time had access to these they'd definitely have used them. Their intent is fairly evident and that's nearly as important

[@Joeseph113]

@scholagladiatoria my one and only concern with making replicas of historical pieces is that I worry that some of these swords are in the museum because when they were finished and held in hand/practiced with they were found to have terrible handling qualities and so were never used. The swiss saber Todds Workshop replicated and you both reviewed would be an example where the hilt was too tight to the hand. Now in your case I know that you are yourself a fairly experienced HEMA instructor and so I have confidence that you would select historical pieces that at least feel good in the hand and would appear to be solid in form and function, so I am quite interested to see the next batch! As for the asymmetry and such on the original hand forged weapons vs what we expect in the modern market I would argue that when buying a modern reproduction it would be good to strive for a quality level which we are capable of producing with modern technology while trying to be as faithful as possible to the original, and in this endeavor if there are some imperfections (as we would call them in our modern concept of the word) that should be acceptable to the buyer, especially if it is being marketed and advertised as a historical reproduction and those "imperfections" are being implemented in the making of the sword on purpose. A buyer should understand they are purchasing a historical reproduction, not a modern design. A maker advertising a modern sword based on a historical design by contrast should accept that they will be held to the modern quality standard. Many modern sword makers such as Albion, Angus Trim, Valiant Armory, Sterling Armory, just to name a few do indeed hold themselves to the higher modern quality standard as they market themselves as being in the modern sword making business.

[@wompa70]

As someone who can't make the ends of a circle meet, close enough is generally close enough for me. I think the most important thing is that the descriptions before purchase be accurate. If it says the blade is 32 1/2 inches it shouldn't be 36 when you get it.

[@fornavnefternavn208]

Yea i thought the same to be honest even tho a 60 does die in the video

[@Randomper279]

It’s a hard question to answer. I always thought reproductions look too machined too perfect so I lean more toward more handcrafted aesthetic. But on the other hand there is something to be said having a precision crafted item. Why can’t we market both ie: precision line and the authentic line? Cost might be a factor though. 🤷

[@Lord_Ravener]

I imagine actual sword users of the time understood imperfections in the finish and what set them apart from actual structural defects which could cause catastrophic failure in combat. That would be the extent of what I'd find acceptable in a present-day sword purchase. That said, I require my smith to smelt freshly debogged bog iron in the dark of a new moon during a solstice (either one is fine, I'm no tyrant) or they (the smith) goes into the wicker.

[@jamesanderson6769]

As a machinist, the degree of accuracy we can get with modern machines is uncanny. And completely repeatable. It is a science. Whereas hand forged blades are more akin to artwork.

[@theromanorder]

This is an odd request but can u do a video on if u used a 2 handed sword 1 handed but instead of holding it at the top hold it in the middle.... How would this effect stuff.... I got this idea from im im left handed for 2 handed swords but right for a one hand, so i to alow me to dual with a two handed sword i use my right and can then put my left hand on top in a second to two hand it

[@sangomasmith]

I guess that one way to find out where the line between "best that a smith could do" and "result of bad preservation/hard use" lies would be to find a smith who still works with (or is willing to only work with) period accurate tools and see what they can do. Which I suspect is doable, but only just. I also suspect that a lot of the irregularity/wonkiness was caused by the historical artefacts passing through a number of hands. Modern smiths tend to be blade makers, hilt makers, pommel makers, setters, polishers and retailers. This allows the smith (who is now a highly-skilled niche artisan) to carefully shape and fit all the parts as he works in order to prevent gapping and general wonkiness. But historically a sword might be put together out of a blade made by one shop (and polished by another, engraved by a third) and a hilt, pommel, handle and so on all made by other specialists. The whole would then be hand-fitted before final polishing etc was done. So one part would have to be made in one place (without the benefit of modern metrology) to fit something made in another. The inevitable result would be a lot more 'play' in the sizing of components, with an accompanying amount of bodging needed to fit them all together. A final suspicion, and one that I think is reflected in the historical records we have relating to a lot of museum pieces, is that a lot of the items which survived into the modern day are the ancient/medieval equivalents of riced-up hatchbacks or gold-plated lambos - i.e. either everyday items gussied up according to the fashion of the times, or else luxury items where function was secondary to style. Which means a lot of fancy trim (much of which has been lost to the ages) over a base of very average workmanship. Here I think the standard complaint would be of buyers who pay far more for the services of the polisher, engraver, goldsmith and jewel setter than they do for those of the bladesmith, wood worker or leather worker. So there's a bias in the historical record towards 'flash' items over 'craft' items (which, being of good make and quality, got used until they were worn out completely).

[@varangjar1544]

Here's a question...when looking at a given replica...if you were to (with time travel?) store it in the exact same conditions as the original, for the same lenth of time, would you be able to determine which was which?

[@maszkalman3676]

probably not...

[@jayreiter268]

Mat I have some Windless Blades on order. One is a Scottish Dirk. Should I sharpen it and use it? I do have knives for field use.

[@1781BOJ]

Hi Matt, great film as always. I’ve got a question please about the French hunting sword. I was wondering if it was late 18th C and if there’s anyway it would be used in war? The reason I ask is that I’m the museum conservator for Jersey Heritage and we have a nearly identical sword which was reputedly used by the Baron De Rullecourt in the battle of Jersey in 1781. I’ve always been suspicious about it being something a professional soldier would use but I didn’t realize it was a hunting sword. Cheers Neil

[@QuentinStephens]

Great points. I wish, though, you'd made this video - or at least the first part - when you were actually at the Royal Armouries / London Museum and had the real things to hand, as you do later on. It's one thing to say that you've handled a sword made for Emperor Maximillian but quite another to say, "THIS is a sword made for Emperor Maximillian; see how ..."

[@TheBruces56]

I think you should make any sword to the level that the ancient swordsmith would have if he had the ability and technology to do so.

[@KingLoopie1]

Part of the imperfections come from the fact that the person making the sword or knife was trying to meet a quota for supplying an army (and make s living...) The imperfections are what gives it personality! And these same imperfections scream 'I am handmade, not cnc'd!' 👍

[@stevenkennedy4130]

What do you think about the Windless Steel Craft line of weapons? Thanks for the share!!

[@Matthew_Jensen]

This is an interesting topic. I babble about swords a bit online and am guilty of pointing out all the things you are talking about. As a review person, I try to show the thing and point out what it is as objectively as I can. Perfection or crude, the camera shows what it is. Admittedly my tastes lean toward the perfection side of things but I don't see the harm so long as I point it out as a subjective preference. Do you think the criticisms are unfair or cause some kind of harm?

[@chuckreevs]

I am a sword maker now retired but still make hangers i enjoy you nowlege on old and relicas

[@silverjohn6037]

Just out of idle curiosity but would anyone know if surviving double edged swords show an equal amount of wear on both edges or is the damage asymmetric suggesting that they had a preferred edge to use?

[@garethbarry3825]

Long time subscriber here; one of my passions (other than forging swords) is aviation and flying flight simulators on the PC, particularly a program called 'DCS.' One of the jets in particular has been extremely, painstakingly detailed by the software engineer (Heatblur's f-14 tomcat), to the point where all of the flaws-and by that I mean wear-and-tare in the cockpit, bits of tape to hold switches in place etc are all included, just like the real thing. Now it seems that many, many of the people who fly this plane online (Tom Cruise wannabe's like myself) are extremely upset with this - they want a clean, 'perfect' jet. To make it even more complicated, not every jet of the same model in the same squadron will fly exactly the same- the shouty-internet types will seek out the performance characteristics of a particularly 'hot' example, and will be dissatisfied when the modeled performance comes up short. People say they want replicas and simulators - but what a lot of people want is the fulfilment of their minds-eye/imagined version of a given historical thing.

[@meteorplum]

I think that as people of the industrial age, we have ideals on the word "replica" that just isn't achievable with manual processes, and possibly also not with mechanized processes. On the other hand, it might be worthwhile to have specific terms beyond just "replica". "Historical replica" might be used for copies that follow all the measurements of the source item, asymmetries included. "Stylistic replica" would be copies that don't have any asymmetry that isn't intentional in the original item. "Stylistic item" would be composites of different versions of the same kind of item from a period, as though created by a craftsperson of the era.

[@1977ajax]

Re tolerance between blade and guard; no mater how well fitted, water can seep in and corrode the tang. It _must_ have been common to seal this joint (say by packing with wax) to prevent rust inside the hilt. Seen Royal Marines do this with their knives.