Quality jian on the market

nick_nameless · Post by **nick_nameless** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:53 pm

Hello folks,

I was curious to hear about people's experience with different jian from top makers, and who those makers might be outside of Huanuo Sword Art and Zheng-Wu. I currently own a Huanuo blade as an 'entry level' sword. It is the Royal Peony CDYM High Carbon sword that is among the swords that Mr. Rodell sells. I have also been in touch on a somewhat regular basis with Kenneth H. from Zheng-Wu, and will probably someday invest in one of their higher end blades.

I have heard some good things about Angel Sword, more with regard to quality than with regard to actually dealing with them, and both aspects are important. Does anyone have experience with these blades? Any other recommended makers out there? This would be for blades that would run in the 4 figure and up range ("up" being a relative number...I'm not looking for $10,000 swords, just to find out who makes good stuff).

Thanks!

B.Ko · Post by **B.Ko** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:05 pm

Hi,

I haven't handled one, but based on the price, pictures and descriptions, I would pass on the Angel Sword Jians.

The handle is not of a historical profile....seems too flat and slab like.

As well for the price that they want you can get a Sanmai rayskin covered scabbard jian from Huanuo or pay more from Zhengwu and get high layer sanmai or even twistcore san mai from Zhengwu. They Angel jian seem way too expensive for what appears to be a monosteel sword.

Huanuo's monosteel is exceptionally hard. Regarding the Royal peony sanmai model, on Youtube, Lancelot Chan has a clip where he tests the RC hardness of it....55-60 on spine, 60 at the edge. This is quite hard yet the blades are very resilient. Their monosteel is at 55 - 60 yet still springy and resilient. This is quite good. Laoshi Rodell and Philip Tom can correct me if I am wrong but I believe antiques edges were about 55-60 or 60-65.

You have a very good jian which has historical fittings, scabbard and grip profile already. If you want to upgrade, get the gold plated Peony with Sanmai blade, hardwood handle, and rayskin scabbard, for less the price of the Angel Sword jian....just my opinion of course!!! Or the Zhengwu jians which come with rayskin covered handles too!!!

I had John Lundemo make me a jian with differentially treated blade, very sharp, very tough but since it was based on pictures I sent him, the handle is not quite historically accurate. Also more expensive that the options above too.

Have Fun

Ben

nick_nameless · Post by **nick_nameless** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:41 pm

B.Ko wrote:The handle is not of a historical profile....seems too flat and slab like.

I observed that as well.

At the same time I have asked myself if historical accuracy in the sword is really important to me. After all, throughout history sword makers generally tried to improve on sword design. Maybe a more modern design would be superior for training? Maybe not...

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:42 pm

After all, throughout history sword makers generally tried to improve on sword design. Maybe a more modern design would be superior for training?

I would not bet on it. Nowadays swords are made for collecting, practise and unfortunately most of the time just to make money. In the old days sword would protect and end lives, and as such they were often among the very best a culture could come up with.

Besides, in training any historical art we should aim at using an item as close as possible the the item that was used in the time the art was formed, as all movements are tailored on that design.

If any modern sword maker would move away from historical design, I would highly doubt the practicality of this feature. It is hardly ever well thought of and usually just caused by not looking well enough at the historical design. Of course there are exceptions like Howard Clarke's L6 katana but he only changed the material into something more durable and not the overall design.

-Peter

nick_nameless · Post by **nick_nameless** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:12 pm

Peter Dekker wrote:I would not bet on it. Nowadays swords are made for collecting, practise and unfortunately most of the time just to make money. In the old days sword would protect and end lives, and as such they were often among the very best a culture could come up with.

Besides, in training any historical art we should aim at using an item as close as possible the the item that was used in the time the art was formed, as all movements are tailored on that design.

If any modern sword maker would move away from historical design, I would highly doubt the practicality of this feature. It is hardly ever well thought of and usually just caused by not looking well enough at the historical design. Of course there are exceptions like Howard Clarke's L6 katana but he only changed the material into something more durable and not the overall design.

-Peter

I don't want to seem argumentative, but I think there are easily seen counter points to your points. I am not saying one is right or the other, but just that there are 2 sides to the thought process...

On the making of swords: I think you are completely discounting the advances in steel quality, technology available for smithing and heat treating, and advances in material science that lead to greater understanding. Also, metalworking hasn't stopped, and sword making isn't exactly an 'ancient art'. Well...it is an ancient art, but it's an art that has progessed up virtually to modern times. One of the reasons katana are held in such high regard in the sword community is that the japanese were still making them for general use not that long ago. Yes, sword making is somewhat of a niche art, and is certainly dying off, but I think you have to take the rest of the picture into consideration and realize that it is much easier to make a good sword in the stock removal age than it was in he forging age.

On the training in a historical art: In training anything in life, throughout history, humanity has sought ways to make things better. Martial arts styles evolve. They always have. The tools to do so many tasks have evolved, and improved on those tasks. If a sword could be made that was as good or better in balance and feel and significantly better in cutting than was available hundreds of years ago, then why not use it?

If you took the time to familiarize yourself with the jian from angelsword, you would see that this is not a discussion on changing taiji sword practice into taiji chopstick practice. These are jian, with a slightly different handle shape and a monosteel blade. This is not all that different from what Howard Clark has done with his L6 blades. Granted I am not making a direct comparison in quality because I do not have the specific expertise to do so yet.

B.Ko · Post by **B.Ko** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:46 pm

I checked the Angel Sword site again and one thing really stood out.

http://www.angelsword.com/chinese/bk-chinese_jian1.php

The Point of Balance is either '0' at the hilt or 2.5" from the hilt.

This makes the sword really hilt heavy and really it is not historically balanced. This would effect things like point tracking, ability to deliver an effective cut or blade stability during a thrust.

Such hilt heavy jians are typically what one would find in the whippy 'performance dance' jian and not one built for swordfighting.

Even if the steel is superb, I would stay away from such an unbalanced jian. Your Peony jian is balanced and handles like the antiques!!!

I agree that modern steels may be better, the monosteel in Huanuo is very good. However, the weight and balance in the old jians were governed by what worked or didn't work in a struggle where lives were at stake.

Chris Fields · Post by **Chris Fields** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:24 am

About steel quality of today, yes it is EXTREMELY better than years past. I am actually surprised Huanuo uses only 1065, there are many steels much better suited for sword making today, such as 5160, 6150, and 4150, of which I have yet to see a sword made of 4150, though it is perfect for sword use as it will hold an edge extemely well at a high hardness, and is easily differentially tempered for a moderate to low hardness in the center or back of the blade. 9260 is also a great steel. I think 1075 or 1095 may have a bit too much carbon, but I could be wrong. Alot of stage combat blades use 1075 and 1095, and they are some strong swords that take a tremdous beating, however, they are stage combat swords, so they are not really swords.... but stage combat tools that look like swords if you know what I mean. =)

The other thing that bothers me is that the sword making process actually doesn't matter too much, mixed metals aside of course. Wether a monosteel blade is forged or machined, doesn't effect the end result, it is the heat treatment process where the blade will get all is qualities. So to say a sword is better because it's forged is just wrong. Infact, most swords of old were mostly groud anyway on large stone griding wheels. Only the basic shape is forged out. So, for the modern person making a blade by maching a flat bar of steel, that flat bar was forged into that shape. So, you can say the steel in your sword was "forged".

However, the art and science of sword making has been lost for the most part, ever since the invention of the small sword and firearms, the art of sword making was no longer needed. Only a very few people in the world today can make sword as they did in the old days. So, we have lost certain things, like the optimum blade geometries for particular blade shapes and such. However, with these companies like Huanuo, we are getting back to it.

I was reading some stuff from the Al Pendry, the UF professor who recreated wootz damascus latter pattern with the microstructure the same as an original. He stated that the only reasons he can see that the persians were able to make swords as good as they did, is that got luckly that the iron ore from their mine had just the right ingredients in it. And after several heat treatment processes, the vanadium and molybdenum(sp?) would seperate out into the hard white bands that made the persian swords soo sharp. The loss of that sword making art was also traced back to a time when the persians swiched mines for their iron ore. How much of this is true, I really don't know. However it makes sense. The persians thought they were cursed by the gods, when in reality, the new iron ore just didn't have the same ingredients in it.

Maybe Paul or the other swords smith can varify that or not. Thanks =)

nick_nameless · Post by **nick_nameless** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:07 am

B.Ko wrote:Even if the steel is superb, I would stay away from such an unbalanced jian. Your Peony jian is balanced and handles like the antiques!!!

That is an interesting point. I have done a little bit of correspondence with the smith at Angel Sword in hopes of getting him in touch with Mr Rodell for a blade evaluation.

As far as the Peony is concerned, I am not looking to get rid of it. The question presented was if therre are other quality jian makers on the market. I only presented Angel Sword because I was aware of them. I am not indicting Huanuo Sword Art or Zheng-Wu.com, just wondering what else there is and what people's experiences with other makers are.

Talking about a sword maker's product in theory is one thing. I am guilty of that here as well. I think anyone just discounting the product without handling it is doing that swordmaker a disservice.

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:11 am

nick_nameless wrote: On the making of swords: I think you are completely discounting the advances in steel quality, technology available for smithing and heat treating, and advances in material science that lead to greater understanding.

I am by no means discounting advances in steel quality, I was talking about design features like balance, blade geometry and hilt design.

nick_nameless wrote: On the training in a historical art: In training anything in life, throughout history, humanity has sought ways to make things better. Martial arts styles evolve. They always have.

Surely they evolved, so far as to completely make swordsmanship obsolete by the wiespread use of firearms and smart bombs. But if we train a historical art, that is we study the techniques of a certain time period, we require our tools to be closest to the ones used in that particular era. I realize I might be a nut for historical accuracy, but that is why I use the term historical.

I am also a passionate archer in the old Manchu style, of which I would get to understand very little would I use a modern compound bow. Surely the bow is quite a feat of modern engineering with much more accurate sighting system and greater stability, but by no means historical and thus not relevant for my training. For contemporary archery, they are perfect just as modern wushu swords are well suited for modern wushu, but neither can then be still called an historical art.

nick_nameless wrote: If a sword could be made that was as good or better in balance and feel and significantly better in cutting than was available hundreds of years ago, then why not use it?

This is exactly the point, old sword design reached a peak in balance and cutting ability in a time that it was high on the priority list in China's army counting about one million men. Nowadays a few smiths are trying to reinvent the wheel and some got pretty good at it, but only by using old design features. As for cutting ability, no significant advances are made to make new swords cut better than old swords. But it wasn't all about being able to cut for old swords, they were also designed to stay in one piece when hitting another sword and thus have different cross-sections that for example cooking knives that do not need to endure such stress.

nick_nameless wrote: This is not all that different from what Howard Clark has done with his L6 blades.

Howard Clarke only changed the steel, not the design / balance.

I leave further comments on particular Chinese reproduction swords to the other members of this forum who are bound to have a good idea on which swords perform good in training from their personal experience.

Yours,

Peter

nick_nameless · Post by **nick_nameless** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:01 am

Peter Dekker wrote:I am also a passionate archer in the old Manchu style, of which I would get to understand very little would I use a modern compound bow. Surely the bow is quite a feat of modern engineering with much more accurate sighting system and greater stability, but by no means historical and thus not relevant for my training. For contemporary archery, they are perfect just as modern wushu swords are well suited for modern wushu, but neither can then be still called an historical art.

It seems that we are just approaching this from different mindsets. I can not comment on what you practice and it's level of historical accuracy.

For my part, I study taiji and praying mantis kungfu from a man that spent most of his life in the modern era using these skills to defend his own life and the lives of others. While I understand that his teachings have great historical roots, it is very modern in practice.

I do not care that much about historical accuracy, I care more about quality and performance from modern smiths.

I hope that clarifies what I was hoping to chat about

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:09 am

I love the art deco look of the Angel swords, and I am OK with a general modern look in a modern sword, but if you change the balance you change everything. I suspect that the balance is so close to the guard because that is what people who have been practicing with Wushu toys expect. So Angel sword appears to have made a finely crafted copy of swords designed to look good in a movement. From a commercial point of view this makes sense. 90% or more of people would expect balance and handling to be like the swords they have already handled, and the swords they had handled were wushu toys.

As for the flat handle, I think it lets the sword hang well on the wall. Many antiques just don't lie flat enough. Clearly it is a defect in their design

Josh

nick_nameless · Post by **nick_nameless** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:21 am

josh stout wrote:I love the art deco look of the Angel swords, and I am OK with a general modern look in a modern sword, but if you change the balance you change everything. I suspect that the balance is so close to the guard because that is what people who have been practicing with Wushu toys expect. So Angel sword appears to have made a finely crafted copy of swords designed to look good in a movement. From a commercial point of view this makes sense. 90% or more of people would expect balance and handling to be like the swords they have already handled, and the swords they had handled were wushu toys.

As for the flat handle, I think it lets the sword hang well on the wall. Many antiques just don't lie flat enough. Clearly it is a defect in their design
Josh

I asked the question about the balance of the blades to Daniel. Hopefully he will provide some information on it. For the sake of information, he is/was a taiji instructor.

nick_nameless · Post by **nick_nameless** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:12 pm

B.Ko wrote:The Point of Balance is either '0' at the hilt or 2.5" from the hilt.

This makes the sword really hilt heavy and really it is not historically balanced. This would effect things like point tracking, ability to deliver an effective cut or blade stability during a thrust.

Such hilt heavy jians are typically what one would find in the whippy 'performance dance' jian and not one built for swordfighting.

Even if the steel is superb, I would stay away from such an unbalanced jian. Your Peony jian is balanced and handles like the antiques!!!

I mentioned the point of balance issue on their forum, and got the following response from Damiel, who is the smith and as he recalls is at least familiar with Mr. Rodell (he mentioned they did some push hands together a while back).

daniel wrote: I have over thirty years practice in Tai Chi Chuan and specialize in the sword. I have owned over 100 antique jians.

All designs, weights, POB, and handle lengths are within the realm of legitimate variations of historical jian... even though they may not be CENTERED within those variations.

I try to use the best combination of factors to get the best result.

Take it FWIW. I have no interest in any way on who's jian people like or dislike, but I do enjoy the fact finding of it. Hopefully we all might find a few extra swordmakers that we can at least consider as a resource

Interestingly, my sifu did not like the Huanuo jian I purchased, although he did not have an issue with me practicing with it. In his mind it was too heavy and too long. Also he was not fond of the crossguard, concerned that it might result in a cut/hurt/sore hand during practice. I have not yet practiced extensively with it because I have not officially started learning jian, so I can't give much feedback except that being a little taller and stronger, and having handled the sword for a bit, I am not concerned about any of the three points he made. As long as I am cleared to practice with it, then it's a fine sword to start with

Sifu is around 5'6" and 70, so I can imagine he would appreciate something smaller and lighter.

Scott M. Rodell · Post by **Scott M. Rodell** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:25 pm

B.Ko wrote:... Point of Balance... at the hilt or 2.5" from the hilt... makes the sword really hilt heavy and really it is not historically balanced. This would effect things like point tracking, ability to deliver an effective cut or blade stability during a thrust...

Having spent a fair amount of time test cutting with jian, as well as other types of Chinese swords, I have to say I'm in complete agreement with B. Ko. Experince has shown that swords with a POB near or at the guard make very poor cutters (please see the thread: Kris Cutlery Gim (Jian) viewtopic.php?t=417). They just don't have enough mass behind the cut. Also, they tend to be dangerous to cut with, as they tend to bounce off harder targets while at the same time, transmitting a fair amount of shock to the hand. Personally, I tend to put my faith in examples that compare well with historical examples. I've always found they cut well.

B.Ko wrote:.... the weight and balance in the old jian were governed by what worked or didn't work in a struggle where lives were at stake.

Putting aside advances in metallurgy, given that swords in the past were used for the propose for which they were designed, in life & death situations, I have to really wonder if a modern sword smith produce something better without the same "test" enviroment? I have been impressed by a number of smiths who very frankly said that there were things the smiths of old understand about making swords that we just don't understand today.

Scott M. Rodell · Post by **Scott M. Rodell** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:27 pm

nick_nameless wrote:... Hopefully we all might find a few extra swordmakers that we can at least consider as a resource...

I second that! The more the better, it will, at the very least, push the established companies to improve & offer everyone more variety.