modern jian weight verses antique jian weight

Tony Mosen · Post by **Tony Mosen** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:21 pm

can anyone explain perhaps why good quality contempory jian though acurate in design do not seem weigh as-well' as the majority of antique jian that were produced for combat.

from research the contempory jian seem to be heavier' how is it that no one seems to be making jian to traditional weight when technicaly speaking we now have better materials to make jian with in our time.

?????

B.Ko · Post by **B.Ko** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:20 pm

Some antiques were as heavy or heavier than modern jian...I have one almost 3 lbs.

I have noticed that it could be a blade geometry issue. Modern ones tend to have flat diamond profile and to strengthen the edge I've seen some have a 'fatter central ridge' which translates to a wider 'wedge' shape at the edge. One of my antiques even lacks a central ridge, it's a flat oval with curved sides going to the edge. This keeps the blade more narrow....less metal.

Perhaps which a more clamshell shape one can avoid the 'fat diamond' syndrome which adds more metal.

Another reason could be that modern jians are an inch or two longer than antiques. Laoshi Rodell has stated in old posts the 'average' jian measured 29" long...this is from shoulder of the blade to tip. The shoulder rests near the base of the guard. Too many people measure from the distal portion of the guard and this adds up to 2-3" extra length to the blade. This particularly so in custom swords. Also I've found most modern jian are 30" or longer in blade length.

Chris Fields · Post by **Chris Fields** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:33 pm

B. Ko - I think you nailed it. Most modern Jian are just too long. Adding 2 inches to the lenght adds about 5% to the total weight. They may not seem like much, but it also places the balance point alittle farther away from the guard, those the blade "feels" more heavier than it actually is.

Also, the diamond cross section is much easier to make than the oval cross section... well.. depending on contruction methods. It looks nicer too, but the blade does become slightly heavier, however much stronger.

I have also noticed that no modern Jian seem to have to grooves in their blades. I wonder why, I have seen many antiques that have groves. this would certainly lighten the blade.

Scott M. Rodell · Post by **Scott M. Rodell** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:58 am

B.Ko wrote:Some antiques were as heavy or heavier than modern jian...I have one almost 3 lbs...

While one does encouter jian over 2 pounds, as both B.Ko & I have, jian over 2 lbs are uncommon. Most are closer to 1 3/4 lbs. (.8 k.).

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:25 pm

B.Ko wrote:I have noticed that it could be a blade geometry issue. Modern ones tend to have flat diamond profile and to strengthen the edge I've seen some have a 'fatter central ridge' which translates to a wider 'wedge' shape at the edge. One of my antiques even lacks a central ridge, it's a flat oval with curved sides going to the edge. This keeps the blade more narrow....less metal.

I've seen the oval crossections on antiques as well but both flat diamond and oval crossections seem to have been common on antiques. I've even had an antique jian with a diamond cross section that was as thick as 9mm at the base. It is true that without exception all modern sword makers seem to focus on the diamond cross-section. I'd like to see Chinese sword makers break away from the idea: "if he is succesful I copy his style" and start looking at more antiques for themselves.

On length, indeed most modern jian appear a bit too long. It is still within historical limits but the majority of changjian I have had pass by were shorter than that. It is partly because of the common misconception that these jian were made for smaller people and that longer people need a longer jian. As a result, swordmakers tend to adapt to the market.

Chris Fields wrote:Also, the diamond cross section is much easier to make than the oval cross section...

I would tend to disagree as facets and center ridge lines are pretty difficult to keep true when polishing an object. You don't see many facetted blades from the late Qing, a period in which less funds and skill was put in the construction of weapons as compared to the early and mid. Qing.

-Peter

Chris Fields · Post by **Chris Fields** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:41 pm

As a sword maker, I was speaking of modern sword making. Today, a diamond shaped blade is easier to make because the flat sections are easier to grind against a flat grinding wheel. I would think it would have been the same in the past as well, but maybe not.

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:55 pm

In the past one would use a flat grinding stone.

-Peter