Angel Sword Co.?

[DocNightfall]

There is a company out there called Angel Sword making custom modern wootz blades.

http://www.angelsword.com

Apparently they will make a sword or knife to any specifications you submit, no matter how out-of-this world. The smith who runs it says his premium swords, Japanese or European, will outperform Howard Clark's near-mythical L6 bainite katanas.

Does anyone here know if their stuff is good or if it's all hype?

P.S.

There is a video out there of one of his Avatar techno-wootz daggers cutting tameshigiri.

 

[Kohai999]

In doing 7 years of Japanese Sword Arts, I have never heard of a competitor using Angel Sword during competition.

AngelSword is a small production company, not an individual like Howard Clark. The owner of AngelSword is named Daniel Watson.

NOTHING currently outperforms Howard Clark's L6 bainite blades for swords, that has been tested with competition. Claims to the contrary must be taken with much salt.

Beware the Wizard!

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[psycho78]

Some of the knives and swords are cool....just not $1500- $5000 cool. Especially the knives.

 

[Cougar Allen]

 

[Vorpal Blade]

Angelsword usually does not make any two swords alike. Most are one of a kind. Most are not really historically accurate or traditional so they cannot be easily categorized by model. That might be one reason why sites like 'Armoury Reviews & Forum' have no reviews on Angelsword.

I have a couple. They are both double edged European style of Angel Swords bright knight line (S7 'shocksteel'). These swords get AS proprietary heat and cryogenic treatment after which they are supposed to be malleable in the upper 50s-Rc.

Purely subjective observations:
In my experience, they take alot of bend and snap back to true. After that, they bend out of true. One of mine was replaced when a powerful thrust into hardwood bent the tip. I could never get either AS to break, chip or dent. I and others have used them on hardwoods, pines and plywood. They have torqued bizarrly on bad hits and misplaced thrusts. Except in the aforementioned incident, nothing came amiss.

I have two other swords: The Hanwei "William Marshall" sword could bend alot and snap back to true but dented easily even when swung at plywood. I used to own a Museum Replicas European style sword made by Windlass. In my thoroughly disorganized and unscientific testing, it seemed similar in durability to the Hanwei product.

Another thing about Angelsword; Many of them balance behind the guard, at the guard or on the blade just in front of the guard. Personally, I find this untraditional arrangement much to my liking although I know many would argue against it.

My experience with Angelsword is based on only two examples which will probably remain the only two I will ever own. Both are several years old and were purchased at well below present prices. I have no experience with AS wootz blades which are far more expensive than AS 'Bright Knight' line.

So far, I have hesitated to buy the any of Albion's beautiful and high quality pieces because of the traditional forward point of balance. The same for Angus Trim's products and many others.

Howard Clark's L6 Bainite swords have a great reputation and, if I am not mistaken, Daniel Watson has expressed admiration. I wish Clark would make some European style models in Bainite.

 

[Triton]

There is a company out there called Angel Sword making custom modern wootz blades.

http://www.angelsword.com

Apparently they will make a sword or knife to any specifications you submit, no matter how out-of-this world. The smith who runs it says his premium swords, Japanese or European, will outperform Howard Clark's near-mythical L6 bainite katanas.

Does anyone here know if their stuff is good or if it's all hype?

P.S.

There is a video out there of one of his Avatar techno-wootz daggers cutting tameshigiri.

Here's a review I wrote about an Angel sword I handled:

http://pilgrimwebdesign.com/tritonworks/?content=reviews&review=angel_longsword

I have handled a pretty fair selection of their pieces at Blade a couple of years ago and think that this sword was fairly typical in terms of workmanship and handling of what they had there at least.

If angel swords aesthetic appeals to you and you have the money go for it. There is nothing inherently wrong with them as far as I have been able to determine.

If you intend to practice any sort of traditional sword art, be it Oriental or Western you would need to look elsewhere.

 

[Vorpal Blade]

Triton: I read your review with interest and can understand why you found the unusually reaward point of balance difficult to control. In my case, I was sold by that very feature on first handling the sword.

Both my AS examples are hand & a half swords weighing three pounds and three pounds, two ounces, respectively. As you point out, they feel lighter in handling because of the rearward balance. I have become used to it and can handle the swords accurately. I also find the rearward balance makes it easier to reverse blade direction and reduces fatigue.

These are only subjective conclusions from someone who does not practice any sword art but uses them only for cutting and skewering objects. Perhaps if I got more into the practical aspect of combat swordsmanship, I would find I was wrong.

 

[Triton]

Triton: I read your review with interest and can understand why you found the unusually reaward point of balance difficult to control. In my case, I was sold by that very feature on first handling the sword.

Both my AS examples are hand & a half swords weighing three pounds and three pounds, two ounces, respectively. As you point out, they feel lighter in handling because of the rearward balance. I have become used to it and can handle the swords accurately. I also find the rearward balance makes it easier to reverse blade direction and reduces fatigue.

These are only subjective conclusions from someone who does not practice any sword art but uses them only for cutting and skewering objects. Perhaps if I got more into the practical aspect of combat swordsmanship, I would find I was wrong.

I'm curious, have you handled any of Albion's, Arms and Armor or Angus Trim's items?

To my mind one has much more control, especially more point control with a sword balanced in a more traditional fashion. I can't help believing that those that actually depended on swords for their lives and livelihoods knew a bit what they were about. That is not to say that there is any one "typical" historical balance there is not. There are balance points all over the map on originals... however I have never seen an original balanced like an Angel Sword.

If you like what you are feeling of course more power to you different strokes and all that.

 

[Vorpal Blade]

I have not handled Atrims or A&A. At blade shows, I have gotten somewhat of a feel for a wide variety of Albion models but of course could not swing, thrust or make contact with anything in that environment. These are beautiful swords and I was very tempted to buy but resisted. The forward balance was the deciding factor.

I have used Windlass Steelcrafts and Hanwei swords with forward balance and found them wanting in performance but of course they usually do not have refinements like distal taper.

My first Angelsword was purchased at a knife show purely for the unusual balance and the potential it implied. Subsequent usage did not disappoint.

Of course your are 100 percent correct that those who "actually depended on swords for their lives and livelihoods knew a bit what they were about." And the majority had POB farther out than one inch from the guard.

On the other hand, European sword design changed little from the Spatha until the development of full plate armor. Weapon design tends to be conservative, often for good reason. If swords had not become obsolete....who knows?

These are all very subjective impressions from someone who does not participate in any traditional sword art. Modern practitioners must have the last word.

 

[Triton]

I have not handled Atrims or A&A. At blade shows, I have gotten somewhat of a feel for a wide variety of Albion models but of course could not swing, thrust or make contact with anything in that environment. These are beautiful swords and I was very tempted to buy but resisted. The forward balance was the deciding factor.

I have used Windlass Steelcrafts and Hanwei swords with forward balance and found them wanting in performance but of course they usually do not have refinements like distal taper.

Excellent, I wondered if you had handled a quality reproduction (forgive me but both MRL and Hanwei are somewhat hit and miss in that department) and what you thought of the balance points.

It's interesting that you refer to them as "balance forward" designs (which indeed the are but only in relation to Angel Swords) which highlights that we all talk from our perspective. :thumbup:

On the other hand, European sword design changed little from the Spatha until the development of full plate armor. Weapon design tends to be conservative, often for good reason. If swords had not become obsolete....who knows?

These are all very subjective impressions from someone who does not participate in any traditional sword art. Modern practitioners must have the last word.

I've often seen folks that do not do historic designs claim that their swords are the next step in sword evolution... and perhaps they are... but since swords are no longer used in warfare what is that continued evolution based on? What is driving it? Historically it was driven by changes in body defenses. The slashing type X viking sword would have little effect upon plate like say a type XVII would and the type XVII in turn gave way to a more cut and thrust style type XVIII when plate in its turn became obsolete. What is the equivalent today? I wonder about even modern practitioners of Japanese or Western Arts having the last word. After all the tools they use may also evolve away from their original purpose. For example the chisel grind katana. From all reports they do very well in tamegishiri (spelling?) cutting... but historically nothing like them was ever seen. How would they do in combat? Who knows? They are a specialized instrument like a tennis raquet or paintball gun.

Anyway some random ramblings thanks for reading through all that drivel...

 

[Vorpal Blade]

Just one observation. The Angel Sword piece you reviewed was two thirds again heavier than mine. That could go far in explaining the difficulty you had maneuvering it.

The balance point being "virtually at the hilt" may have had "the effect of making the sword much easier to swing then its weight would suggest" but I would speculate that sheer weight might have been at least part of the reason "the sword feel(s) very odd in the hand."

Perhaps if you got to handle a lighter piece sometime the impression might be different.

 

[Triton]

Just one observation. The Angel Sword piece you reviewed was two thirds again heavier than mine. That could go far in explaining the difficulty you had maneuvering it.

The balance point being "virtually at the hilt" may have had "the effect of making the sword much easier to swing then its weight would suggest" but I would speculate that sheer weight might have been at least part of the reason "the sword feel(s) very odd in the hand."

Perhaps if you got to handle a lighter piece sometime the impression might be different.

Quite likely. Although I wonder if a lighter sword balanced in that manner might also seem a bit odd. I have noted that Angel Sword does seem to provide weights all over the map from the under two pound range for lighter items to some in the 8 pound range. In any event there are certainly fans of balancing a sword that way judging from the prices that Angel Sword charges (and I assume gets) and since it is largely a matter of personal preference I certainly would not say it is right or wrong merely that it is "odd" when compared to historical swords or their reproductions. Since the folks at Angel Sword do not appear to be trying to reproduce historical pieces there is nothing wrong with being different in function as well as form as far as I can tell.

 

[the possum]

Fellas, have you not seen the article on sword balance on the ARMA site? Link.

Personally, I would consider this the wrong way to balance a sword; at least a cut and thrust type. The observations you guys have made about it's handling and point control make perfect sense once you understand the principles in the article above.

 

[Triton]

Fellas, have you not seen the article on sword balance on the ARMA site? Link.

Personally, I would consider this the wrong way to balance a sword; at least a cut and thrust type. The observations you guys have made about it's handling and point control make perfect sense once you understand the principles in the article above.

Wrong for a fantasy sword? I am not sure that the term applies. After all what is "right" for a sword that was created from imagination? Wrong for a historical sword? Absolutely. Wrong for an effective sword? Maybe, but I think for the most part Angel Sword owners have no complaints about their swords cutting abilities. I've never cut with one so I can make no comment other then to say that it certainly did feel "odd" to me.

 

[the possum]

Wrong for a fantasy sword?

Perhaps when you put it in that sense, there is no "wrong" way for anything. However, considering they put claims of "extreme performance" all over their website, well, you'd think they were talking about actual performance. This includes more than just cutting. Though all the important areas could be improved with proper balance. Handling, control, point control, speed, maneuverability, and cutting power, all at the same time.

 

[Triton]

Perhaps when you put it in that sense, there is no "wrong" way for anything. However, considering they put claims of "extreme performance" all over their website, well, you'd think they were talking about actual performance. This includes more than just cutting. Though all the important areas could be improved with proper balance. Handling, control, point control, speed, maneuverability, and cutting power, all at the same time.

Ahh I understand. Yes I agree in that sense. I can't speak to Angel Sword's marketing I don't really follow them that much since their products appeal to a different genre then my areas of interest. I will have to admit that I enjoyed working on that particular sword though, it's nice to get a changeup every now and again although I do wish the customer would have had the funds to allow me to play with the design a little bit more.

 

[Vorpal Blade]

I read George Turner's article "Sword Motions and Impacts". (Link on post #13 of this thread). I was very impressed by article's depth of analysis and comprehensive scope. Obviously Mr. Turner left out most of the math leading to his conclusions so the average reader could better understand. Surely this is an important work in the sword community.

Still, I could not help but be sceptical about many of the things I read. Take pommels for example: Mr. Turner's main idea about pommels is that they are there not for balance but to control the sword's rotational behavior and to increase striking impact.

An increase in striking impact makes sense to me. But I have to think Sir Richard Burton's observation about the pommel being there for balance still holds true.

Why does a forty-five inch cavalry sabre do well without a pommel and why does a short sword need one? The short sword would usually have been used on foot, perhaps with shield or buckler and must be held horizontally much of the time. If balance is pulled back toward the hand by means of a counterweight or pommel, the result is a great reduction in fatigue because the weight is now balanced more evenly.

Try holding a forty-five inch cavalry saber sans pommel horizontally for any length of time and the blade will get VERY heavy. But a cavalry soldier does not need to hold the blade horizontally for long. He can hold it upright and swing on the way by. If the cavalry soldier gets in a stationary swordfight, he has the wrong sword for the job.

Counterbalance is unique to swords. Axes, warhammers, maces and flails cannot make effective use of a pommel because the POB on these weapons is near the striking point and any counterbalance would be prohibitively heavy.

If I understand it right, Mr. Turner states "if the desired striking point on a straight sword edge was about a third back from the tip, it wouldn't ever have a large pommel." Yet many Viking swords had quite large pommels and seemed to do the job. Maybe there is an explanation for this.

The above are just some of the things I found incongruous. I have no desire and am incapable of dissecting the entire article. So maybe my objections are ill considered.

Are there modern swordmakers out there following Mr. Turner's principles? Do they use plumb bobs to measure pivot point, impact point etc? Who are they?

 

[the possum]

Take pommels for example: Mr. Turner's main idea about pommels is that they are there not for balance but to control the sword's rotational behavior and to increase striking impact.

An increase in striking impact makes sense to me. But I have to think Sir Richard Burton's observation about the pommel being there for balance still holds true.

This begs the question, what do you mean by "balance"? The idea that "This type of sword should balance exactly 4 inches in front of the crossguard" or whatever is wrong. The center of mass does not control how the sword will maneuver or handle in dynamic use.

So yes, the pommel is there to control "balance" both in the static and dynamic sense. This improves linear and rotational movements respectively, and thus the combined effects of the two during use.

Why does a forty-five inch cavalry sabre do well without a pommel and why does a short sword need one?

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the reasons you've come up with, but will also add that if the blade is already designed to be heavy for lots of momentum, then a pommel also makes less sense simply because it would have to be huge to make any difference. I don't think a heavy saber would really feel better with a cannon ball hanging on the butt.

Counterbalance is unique to swords. Axes, warhammers, maces and flails cannot make effective use of a pommel because the POB on these weapons is near the striking point and any counterbalance would be prohibitively heavy.

This does not refute the ideas of the pivot points at all. You simply have to understand that you're gripping the opposite ones. Take a look at the performance section on sword forums, and a guy with axe experience notes how the pivot points affect the swing, and can be adjusted by tapering the shaft so it's heavier towards the head. (again, opposite of a sword)

If I understand it right, Mr. Turner states "if the desired striking point on a straight sword edge was about a third back from the tip, it wouldn't ever have a large pommel." Yet many Viking swords had quite large pommels and seemed to do the job. Maybe there is an explanation for this.

Why would you believe Viking swords were never used for cutting with the tip area?

The above are just some of the things I found incongruous. I have no desire and am incapable of dissecting the entire article. So maybe my objections are ill considered.

No, it's always good to hash this stuff out. Everyone can learn something. There are things in that article I also disagree with.

Are there modern swordmakers out there following Mr. Turner's principles? Do they use plumb bobs to measure pivot point, impact point etc? Who are they?

Yes. Yes. Peter Johnsson has started listing pivot points in with the other vital stats on his swords. Angus Trim and Tinker have said that if a sword is balanced by their definition, it will also be balanced by Turner's methods. (They continue to use their "harmonic balance" methods with predictable and repeatable results, but both methods are determined by the way mass is distributed through the blade and hilt.) I have experimented with and used these ideas in my own short swords for several years, and even did a write up in the testing section on how I greatly improved the performance of my khukri using these methods. Cliff Stamp has also been examining this subject in detail since I pointed it out to him a couple years ago and has come to the same conclusions.

 

[Vorpal Blade]

This begs the question, what do you mean by "balance"?

Balance of course is POB or the spot on the sword where there is equal weight to either side lengthwise. Where the balance is has an important effect on wrist strain. A three pound longsword with POB behind the guard (in the palm of the hand) and held more or less in the horizontal position causes little wrist strain. Another (atypical) three pound longsword with most of the mass and POB toward the tip, held more or less in the horizontal position causes alot of wrist strain. This sword must be swung mostly from the shoulder and large muscles of the body to avoid straining the wrist. The first sword can be maneuvered much more easily because when it is held or maneuvered in the horizontal position, the wrist can assist without strain.

I have an Angelsword, three pounds, two ounces with POB about one inch in front of the guard, on the blade. It is a hand & a half sword and the grip area six and one half inches. When used with one hand, up against the guard, the sword is supremely maneuverable and hits hard. If I move my grip back against the pommel, away from the POB, wrist strain increases and the sword gets harder to maneuver. I can still swing the sword effectively but fine control is diminished; and I find hitting impact is not much increased.

(QUOTE)I'm not sure I entirely agree with the reasons you've come up with, but will also add that if the blade is already designed to be heavy for lots of momentum, then a pommel also makes less sense simply because it would have to be huge to make any difference. I don't think a heavy saber would really feel better with a cannon ball hanging on the butt.(END QUOTE)

Actually, I do not advocate hanging a cannon ball off the butt. It would lump up the scabbard and look silly. I think "lots of momentum" is the key phrase here. This type of sabre is designed mainly for big swings while passing by at speed. It does not have the agility for prolonged engagement.

In the civil war, this type of sabre was mainly a symbol of rank for officers. It had already become obsolete in the face of rapidly advancing firearms technology.

(QUOTE)This does not refute the ideas of the pivot points at all. You simply have to understand that you're gripping the opposite ones. Take a look at the performance section on sword forums, and a guy with axe experience notes how the pivot points affect the swing, and can be adjusted by tapering the shaft so it's heavier towards the head. (again, opposite of a sword)(END QUOTE)

I am not trying to refute the idea of pivot points. But I believe that, in the absence of plate armor and all other things being equal, that a well-balanced sword (POB not far from the hand) is a superior weapon to an axe, mace or warhammer. It is superior in large part, because of the maneuverability bestowed by a pommel. It is also superior due to the length of the cutting edge(s).

(QUOTE)Why would you believe Viking swords were never used for cutting with the tip area? (END QUOTE)

I believe no such thing. Some original Viking swords actually have rounded tips suggesting use of the tip for slashing. They also would have made a horrible stab wound in an unarmored person even if relatively shallow. Turner states... "Using an overly large pommel would MOVE THE PIVOT POINT OUT PAST THE TIP,(Capitols mine) which should guarantee that no physical part of the blade could ever be used for an impact that doesn't cause hand shock"... In general, he argues for small pommels. But many Viking sword pommels were quite large while the blades were often thirty inches or so. Not so long compared to many blades that came later. Yet the Viking sword pommels were often larger than those on the longer blades; Nevertheless the Viking swords worked fine without the hand shock that Turner predicts.

I am curious what you did not agree with in the Turner article.

Thanks for the info on the various sword makers. I am familiar with Angus Trim and am looking forward to learning more about Johannson and Tinker.

 

[the possum]

Balance of course is POB or the spot on the sword where there is equal weight to either side lengthwise. Where the balance is has an important effect on wrist strain. A three pound longsword with POB behind the guard (in the palm of the hand) and held more or less in the horizontal position causes little wrist strain. Another (atypical) three pound longsword with most of the mass and POB toward the tip, held more or less in the horizontal position causes alot of wrist strain.

Sure. When just holding it out there is no weight forward to torque on your wrist. Not sure what you mean by an atypical 3 pound sword though...

This sword must be swung mostly from the shoulder and large muscles of the body to avoid straining the wrist. The first sword can be maneuvered much more easily because when it is held or maneuvered in the horizontal position, the wrist can assist without strain.

This is where I disagree. If your example sword balances behind the guard, what would happen if you held it in your hand and placed the tip on a scale? The scale would say it's weightless, right? But when you try to swing it, does it really feel like the blade is weightless? Can you swing it as fast as a pocketknife? It does not, because the center of mass is not what controls how the blade feels (the amount of strain on your wrist/body) during fast moves. The moment of inertia does. This could be easily demonstrated with a couple different swords- they could be the same length and weight, with the same center of mass, yet handle totally differently.

Next, there are fundamental differences in the way you'd move swords balanced differently. If the center of mass is out on the blade, when you start the swing, the blade will naturally want to lag behind your hand, and then you snap it around once your arm is up to speed. This way you can get the swing started without having to move the mass of the sword- it just pivots. On the other hand, if it balances on the grip (behind the guard), then the blade won't want to rotate when swung. You will be forced to swing it as a whole, or actively make it lag behind your hand with wrist action.

I have an Angelsword, three pounds, two ounces with POB about one inch in front of the guard, on the blade. It is a hand & a half sword and the grip area six and one half inches.

Honestly, if I had known you owned one of these I probably wouldn't have spoken up. I understand it can be hard to look at things objectively when you have that much invested in a piece, both financially and therefore also emotionally. edit- I missed when you mentioned this earlier; I should have paid better attention.

When used with one hand, up against the guard, the sword is supremely maneuverable and hits hard.

Compared to what?

If I move my grip back against the pommel, away from the POB, wrist strain increases and the sword gets harder to maneuver. I can still swing the sword effectively but fine control is diminished; and I find hitting impact is not much increased.

Yes, this is what I'd expect, since the sword is not designed for this. I would not expect this to be a valid comparison against a sword designed totally differently from the start.

Re: Viking swords-

I believe no such thing. Some original Viking swords actually have rounded tips suggesting use of the tip for slashing. They also would have made a horrible stab wound in an unarmored person even if relatively shallow. Turner states... "Using an overly large pommel would MOVE THE PIVOT POINT OUT PAST THE TIP,(Capitols mine) which should guarantee that no physical part of the blade could ever be used for an impact that doesn't cause hand shock"... In general, he argues for small pommels. But many Viking sword pommels were quite large while the blades were often thirty inches or so. Not so long compared to many blades that came later. Yet the Viking sword pommels were often larger than those on the longer blades; Nevertheless the Viking swords worked fine without the hand shock that Turner predicts.

I do not think Turner was advocating small pommels at all. He was advocating pommels of the correct size. Some designs do require a fairly sizeable pommel to adjust the pivot points. I own a Windlass sword where the corresponding pivot point for a center at the guard is indeed well beyond the end of the blade. (I removed some weight from the pommel to help it out, but that's not the real problem; the blade is. The mass in the blade must be distributed correctly before you can fine tune things with the pommel.) It's performance is exactly as predicted by the article. My big bowie knife can out chop it. Have you tried finding the pivot points (what Cliff has termed the "dynamic balance point") for your sword? I would expect it also to be beyond the blade's tip.

I am curious what you did not agree with in the Turner article.

I don't like the way he got on a soapbox making fairly obvious attacks on certain sword makers, in an article that was supposed to be scholarly. I take his slam agains the concept of "harmonic balance" with a huge dose of salt, because I have not had enough experience with that concept to say yes or no. However, several sword makers have used this concept predictably and repeatably to change the performance of their swords, and have seen the same things in original antique swords they've handled. So I'm not ready to embrace or renounce it either way yet. I don't like the way he handled the section on draw cutting. While I agree that the blade can't magically get thinner when drawn, it is true that cuts should be drawn when cutting skin and flesh simply because that's how those materials respond to the edge. Bone does not, but it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has any degree of butchering experience, etc., that the blade glides through much easier when drawn.

But I do very much agree with his ideas about the pivot points, and wish I had read this article 15 years ago.