horseclover
Basic Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2000
- Messages
- 3,256
This is not a review but some general impressions. There has been a fair amount of excitement regarding the new 2016 sword lineup. I had bought one of the backswords back in May and had a chance to put it through its paces. I like the general handling quite a bit but although it pretty much makes the thirty foot view, my take is a thoroughly modern adaptation. Summed up in two words, cheesy goodness. It does in fact have real rayskin for the grip but is covered with plasticy paint. The wire wrap lazy and the turks head anachronistic. Indeed, the decorative facets of the sword overall are anachronistic.
That said, I still kind of like it and had some fun doing a bit of cutting against goza mats. A few brief pictures of that day. The similar sword next to it, a Hanwei Mortuary.
There is a bit of hubub about this sword and mostly negative. One reported broken (no pictures shared) and several marching with pitchfork in hand because the blade stock thickness seems to be quite varied. Posted as 6mm by Cold Steel, the example I have is a bit less than 5mm (measured a few times). Others reporting as little as 4mm. There are a few trying to contact Cold Steel for some sort of compensation, or to at least acknowledge the issues. Someone else reports taking one apart and finding a loose grip fit (a no picture poster). These complaints and observations not hard to find, just look for a review.
I won't link their threads, as contrary to BF. I feel it is a bit bashful and shy of them not to come here, even after inviting them to face Cold Steel directly. I seem to be solitary there in actually liking mine for what it is. For perspective, I own some dozens of antiques and varied reproductions.
I am not new to the reproduction market and generally kind of chide Lynn Thompson's descriptions of things. A friend has been tinkering with one of their 1796 light cavalry swords for years but he will never get it to behave like an original. If I have one great pet peeve of the reproduction producers is the thinness of stock and the apparent lack of knowledge regarding how neat non-linear distal taper can be.
The main issue with this particular sword seems to be based on those really peeved because Cold Steel didn't deliver with a true dimension listed on their own pages.
I still give mine a general three thumbs up for what it is and will enjoy it (likely table fodder in the fall) for the time being. I also still view it as a very modernistic and stylized effort, when a truer to form build wouldn't have been a big step to endeavor. That part leaves me a bit "meh" until I pick it up to flourish and soon to be cutting more.
An ok deal at street discounts, I first saw the bargains at the usual suspects and soon followed by a bit less where I bought it.
I don't feel it is a matter of haters got to hate but rather uniformity by the producers, as well as truly measuring stuff once production has commenced. Small variations are understandable but 2mm is a huge difference in sword blades. I could wonder if the folk I pointed this way might chime in but the heck with twisting anyone's arm.
Cheers
GC
That said, I still kind of like it and had some fun doing a bit of cutting against goza mats. A few brief pictures of that day. The similar sword next to it, a Hanwei Mortuary.
There is a bit of hubub about this sword and mostly negative. One reported broken (no pictures shared) and several marching with pitchfork in hand because the blade stock thickness seems to be quite varied. Posted as 6mm by Cold Steel, the example I have is a bit less than 5mm (measured a few times). Others reporting as little as 4mm. There are a few trying to contact Cold Steel for some sort of compensation, or to at least acknowledge the issues. Someone else reports taking one apart and finding a loose grip fit (a no picture poster). These complaints and observations not hard to find, just look for a review.
I won't link their threads, as contrary to BF. I feel it is a bit bashful and shy of them not to come here, even after inviting them to face Cold Steel directly. I seem to be solitary there in actually liking mine for what it is. For perspective, I own some dozens of antiques and varied reproductions.
I am not new to the reproduction market and generally kind of chide Lynn Thompson's descriptions of things. A friend has been tinkering with one of their 1796 light cavalry swords for years but he will never get it to behave like an original. If I have one great pet peeve of the reproduction producers is the thinness of stock and the apparent lack of knowledge regarding how neat non-linear distal taper can be.
The main issue with this particular sword seems to be based on those really peeved because Cold Steel didn't deliver with a true dimension listed on their own pages.
I still give mine a general three thumbs up for what it is and will enjoy it (likely table fodder in the fall) for the time being. I also still view it as a very modernistic and stylized effort, when a truer to form build wouldn't have been a big step to endeavor. That part leaves me a bit "meh" until I pick it up to flourish and soon to be cutting more.
An ok deal at street discounts, I first saw the bargains at the usual suspects and soon followed by a bit less where I bought it.
I don't feel it is a matter of haters got to hate but rather uniformity by the producers, as well as truly measuring stuff once production has commenced. Small variations are understandable but 2mm is a huge difference in sword blades. I could wonder if the folk I pointed this way might chime in but the heck with twisting anyone's arm.
Cheers
GC
Last edited:
