Weights of Walter Allen Swords

[Alexander McCracken]

Hi Guys,

I've been going through my reference materials, looking at
Walter Allen Swords, and I noticed that there are no overall
weight stats listed for those (or any for that matter) weapons.
The only reference points I have are Mac's diamond reproduction,
and a comment (don't remember who said it) about Allens
weighing in over the 3 pound mark, because there was so much
extra steel used. Mac's diamond weighs in around 3 pounds
9 ounces, so I guess the question is, would that indeed be a
good weight for most of his other pieces? A couple of them
(just eyeballing them, and we know how accurate THAT is) look
to be smaller, such as two listed in the Reid article that I mailed
out a while back (thanks again Dave), but most look like
monsters. I believe that this was so a fully gloved hand could
fit within the basket?

Anyway, I'm just curious. I'm wondering if there are any
advantages to owning an Allen sword of a much higher weight
versus a lighter, more speedy basket. A bigger basket makes
sense to me if you've got big hands, or are above average in the
physical build department, but other than that, I'm not sure of
the usefulness of an Allen. I guess an excellent starting
comparison would be the two Evans swords that Mac owns?

Any thoughts?

Alex

[Thomas McDonald]

Hi Alex

It is unfortunate that the weight infomation is usually left out of these articles & books !

I know Vince has weighed that 'Keith family' Walter Allan (mentioned in Oakeshotts book) and it was a much lighter piece than what the 'Diamond' hilt weighed !

So weight variation ran the gauntlet with baskethilts in general, and no doubt Walter's stuff !

Vince said the original 'Diamond' , and a few others by WA , were indeed all around bigger pieces .... so that would cause the weight to creep up !

Three and a half pounds is very weildable in my opinion , if the balence & blade tapers are done right !
I actually prefer the feel of my 'Diamond' to my two & a half pound 'Stirling' piece ...
So go figure !

Walter being who he was probably made some of these larger ,finer ,pieces for specific customers who requested they be larger to fit their needs !
{That Blade Gallery baskethilt that Vince did for Dennis Desjardins was built purposely larger to accomodate his hands , which were bigger! )

Mac

Originally posted by Alex McCracken
Hi Guys,

I've been going through my reference materials, looking at
Walter Allen Swords, and I noticed that there are no overall
weight stats listed for those (or any for that matter) weapons.
The only reference points I have are Mac's diamond reproduction,
and a comment (don't remember who said it) about Allens
weighing in over the 3 pound mark, because there was so much
extra steel used. Mac's diamond weighs in around 3 pounds
9 ounces, so I guess the question is, would that indeed be a
good weight for most of his other pieces? A couple of them
(just eyeballing them, and we know how accurate THAT is) look
to be smaller, such as two listed in the Reid article that I mailed
out a while back (thanks again Dave), but most look like
monsters. I believe that this was so a fully gloved hand could
fit within the basket?

Anyway, I'm just curious. I'm wondering if there are any
advantages to owning an Allen sword of a much higher weight
versus a lighter, more speedy basket. A bigger basket makes
sense to me if you've got big hands, or are above average in the
physical build department, but other than that, I'm not sure of
the usefulness of an Allen. I guess an excellent starting
comparison would be the two Evans swords that Mac owns?

Any thoughts?

Alex

[Paul Wagner]

I've been collecting stats on broadswords from every source I can find for awhile now. Based on 78 examples, the average pre-1746 broadsword was 1m long, with an 88cm and a weight of 1.17kg (2lb 8oz), and a blade width of 38mm.

I don't have any specific info on Walter Allans, but the weights did vary from 850g (1lb 14oz) up to 1.6kg (3lb 9oz), which suggests weight was probably determined largely by personal preference of the purchaser...

Paul

[Alexander McCracken]

Hi Mac!

Originally posted by Thomas McDonald

It is unfortunate that the weight infomation is usually
left out of these articles & books !

I know Vince has weighed that 'Keith family' Walter
Allan (mentioned in Oakeshotts book) and it was a
much lighter piece than what the 'Diamond' hilt
weighed!

Really? That's pretty interesting, because I was under
the impression that WA made all his stuff to monumental
proportions, but it seems that if the baskets are all of
different weights that there is a pretty good chance that
each was tailored specifically for the customer ordering
the sword. I'd wondered originally if the baskets were
used to stop sword blows instead of the blades (as has
been suggested elsewhere), but given the high cost then
(as now) and high attention to detail for each sword, it
didn't seem that this ought to be the case.

Originally posted by Thomas McDonald

Vince said the original 'Diamond' , and a few others by
WA , were indeed all around bigger pieces .... so that
would cause the weight to creep up!

But was that due to increased hand size, and thus
basket dimensions for the customer ordering the
sword? Or was it purely because of a LOT of steel
being needed, in general, for that diamond, or the
other swords in question?

Originally posted by Thomas McDonald

Three and a half pounds is very weildable in my opinion,
if the balance & blade tapers are done right! I actually
prefer the feel of my 'Diamond' to my two & a half pound
'Stirling' piece... So go figure!

How so? I would imagine your Stirling piece to lend
itself well to lightning-like thrusts and then back again
to a defensive angle, where-as something as big as
the diamond would be great for just scything your
way to victory. Would you say that one is better for
point attacks and the other for chopping? If not, why
do you think the diamond is better? Perhaps a better
match for your build?

Originally posted by Thomas McDonald

Walter being who he was probably made some of these
larger, finer, pieces for specific customers who requested
they be larger to fit their needs! (That Blade Gallery
baskethilt that Vince did for Dennis Desjardins was built
purposely larger to accomodate his hands, which were
bigger!)

Or he needed them bigger to accomodate his designs.

Take care,

Alex

[Alexander McCracken]

Hi Paul,

Originally posted by Paul Wagner


I've been collecting stats on broadswords from
every source I can find for awhile now. Based on
78 examples, the average pre-1746 broadsword
was 1m long, with an 88cm and a weight of 1.17kg
(2lb 8oz), and a blade width of 38mm.

I don't have any specific info on Walter Allans, but
the weights did vary from 850g (1lb 14oz) up to
1.6kg (3lb 9oz), which suggests weight was probably
determined largely by personal preference of the
purchaser...

Interesting!!! Thanks a bunch. So I guess this breaks
the image I had of all WA's stuff being made for giants
to wield. Do you know which sword that he made
weighed 850g? I'm really curious. As far as personal
preferences having a bearing on size, what are your
thoughts as to what those would be? Fighting style,
build, hand size, all of the above? I have this mental
image of most clan gentry being on the smallish side,
rail-thin, and a WA being on the big side for them. But
I'm sure I could be wrong here!

Take care,

Alex

[E.B. Erickson]

Hi everyone,

No help with weights from here, but Wallace's "Scottish Swords and Dirks" can help with size, as he lists overall length and blade length. Here's the heights of the WA hilts illustrated.

Sword #36 5 1/2"
Sword #37 6"
Sword #38 6"
Sword #39 6 3/4"

Overall, pretty large hilts compared to a lot of extant antiques.

In Reid's article on WA, sword #4 is stated to be a small and close fitting hilt-- this could be the lightweight mentioned above.

Alex, to help with comparison, 5 1/2" is about the size of your japanned and gilt hilt.

Hope this info is helpful! --ElJay

[Alexander McCracken]

Hi Eljay. Good to hear from you again!

Originally posted by E.B. Erickson


No help with weights from here, but Wallace's
"Scottish Swords and Dirks" can help with size, as
he lists overall length and blade length. Here's the
heights of the WA hilts illustrated.

Sword #36 5 1/2"
Sword #37 6"
Sword #38 6"
Sword #39 6 3/4"

Overall, pretty large hilts compared to a lot of extant
antiques.

#39 is definately a monster... But a HANDSOME monster.

Originally posted by E.B. Erickson


In Reid's article on WA, sword #4 is stated to be
a small and close fitting hilt-- this could be the
lightweight mentioned above.

Hard to tell as usual from the pics, but if number 3 and 4 are
to scale, then you're certainly right. I'm assuming this takes
into account the missing additional rearguards too. That same
line though gives me pause. "It is smaller than the others, almost
close-fitting to the hand..." That makes me wonder if most of
Allen's other baskets were NOT close fitting to the hand. IE, they
WERE big even for the guys using them. Well, obviously that is
the case if based on your measurements above! So then, why?
Was it to fit a gloved hand inside, or was the metal canvas that
Allen needed more important than keeping the basket small? Or
maybe the owners really DID have big paws as Paul has
previously said?

So again, if the baskets were NOT made for men with big hands,
or even gloved hands, is there any reason for having a basket of
such massive proportions?

Originally posted by E.B. Erickson


Alex, to help with comparison, 5 1/2" is about the size of your
japanned and gilt hilt.

Holy cow, youre right. On the smaller end of the Allen
scale of things to be sure, but still... And you made mine
to take a gloved hand! So perhaps that could be the reason,
or at least *A* reason most of his were darned massive.

Originally posted by E.B. Erickson


Hope this info is helpful!

As usual, yes. Take care!

Alex

[Thomas McDonald]

Hi Alex

Sorry for not reponding to your questions yet, things have been hectic ( just sold my house , and am in the process of buying another etc., etc.)

I'll address them as best I can later today !

In the meanwhile let me put up an example of a simpler form of hilt done by Walter Allan, as shown & described in the book "Scottish Arms Makers" by Charles E. Whitelaw ( plate III fig.4)

Using Eljay's method of subtracting blade length from overall length (excluding button) this hilt would be 5 1/4" long !

Guessing the pommel at about an inch , that would make the basket length 4 1/4" !

So nothing over-sized with this one !

Mac

[Alexander McCracken]

Mac,

Originally posted by Thomas McDonald

Sorry for not reponding to your questions yet, things
have been hectic (just sold my house , and am in the
process of buying another etc., etc.)

I'll address them as best I can later today!

In the meanwhile let me put up an example of a simpler
form of hilt done by Walter Allan...

Guessing the pommel at about an inch, that would make
the basket length 4 1/4"!

I hope your house buying/selling goes well. Did you get
something with a special room to display your swords in?

Thanks for the info on that smaller Allen sword. I wonder
if that's one of his older ones? I'm thinking that from what
I've read, his early stuff is both smaller AND more traditional,
such as the photo you posted. I wonder if WA, as he got
older, sort of became the flamboyant swordmaking
Versace of his time?

*DUCKS AND RUNS AWAY FROM MAC*

Looking forward to hearing more on this subject from you.

Take care, and good luck!

Alex

[Thomas McDonald]

Hi Alex

Originally posted by Alex McCracken
Hi Mac!

Really? That's pretty interesting, because I was under
the impression that WA made all his stuff to monumental
proportions, but it seems that if the baskets are all of
different weights that there is a pretty good chance that
each was tailored specifically for the customer ordering
the sword. I'd wondered originally if the baskets were
used to stop sword blows instead of the blades (as has
been suggested elsewhere), but given the high cost then
(as now) and high attention to detail for each sword, it
didn't seem that this ought to be the case.
But was that due to increased hand size, and thus
basket dimensions for the customer ordering the
sword? Or was it purely because of a LOT of steel
being needed, in general, for that diamond, or the
other swords in question?

I dont think a sane swordsman would use his basket to purposely stop blows as a first choice !
Targe & blade are a much safer course of action !

Walter Allan's shop supplied swords to both sides during the Rising, and no doubt he had some very wealthy clientele!
I suspect many of the finer pieces were indivdual customer orders, with approx. basket size taken in to account !
The gloved hand idea makes sense , although were really not talking monster baskets here, just ones that were a little more forgiving for a good sized hand.
The 'Diamond' hilt, although larger than some, was only about 4 5/8" inches in length ( less pommel & nut). It seems to me that the real increase in weight was more iron in the design, panels etc., and possibly in the blade itself !

I'd luv to hear an exact weight of the original oneday , but methinks Vince's version is very close!

How so? I would imagine your Stirling piece to lend
itself well to lightning-like thrusts and then back again
to a defensive angle, where-as something as big as
the diamond would be great for just scything your
way to victory. Would you say that one is better for
point attacks and the other for chopping? If not, why
do you think the diamond is better? Perhaps a better
match for your build?

There's no doubt the lighter piece is faster, and more nimble, but there's trade-offs ....

The Diamond's blade is a few inches longer, wider, and less flexible ( ie: not as thin/whippy near the tip), and would be far more devestating with cleaving cuts, given it's mass
!
The heft & basket-size feels better in my hand, so it probably has something to do with my size/strength/preference .... but I'm not out there on the battlefield for hours, so chalk that up to a 21st cen. landscaper talking !

Or he needed them bigger to accomodate his designs.

The period welding these craftsman did is simply amazing (not even getting into how imaginitive the designs were) but I dont believe the size was determined by the design, but by preference!
They obviously knew how to make things to suit , and I suspect that is exatly what we have here!

My opinion of course , Mac

[Scott Bubar]

Originally posted by Thomas McDonald
Hi Alex

Sorry for not reponding to your questions yet, things have been hectic ( just sold my house , and am in the process of buying another etc., etc.) ...

Mac, best wishes on your new abode!

The very thought of moving sends shivers down my spine.

Are you going for a bigger pumpkin patch?

[Thomas McDonald]

Hi Scott

Thank you !

After 10 years here the house that once seemed big slowly became not so big ( maybe weve all grown bigger along side my sword collecting , Marges sewing room needs, and Rachel's everything else

It's not the physical moving that's so hard it's the de-trenching of clutter that has accumulated over the years!
Our trash company cannot be happy with us *g*

The new house will have 3380 sq. ft. of living space , as opposed to 1500 here , so lots of room for armour & swords .... "What's that Margery ... quilt table what " ??

I had to do a marathon bit of repair work. painting, etc., the past 3 weeks , and figured it'd take a bit for the house to sell, but BAM , sold the first day of the Open House ! Surprise surprise !

10 years more than doubled our investment, but it's gonna be swallowed up like a minnow in a whale with this next house !
Massachusetts is unforgiving !

Not sure if I'll be able to get a patch planted this season, as the timing of everything is against it ?

I'll miss Farmer Tom :-(

Originally posted by Scott Bubar


Mac, best wishes on your new abode!

The very thought of moving sends shivers down my spine.

Are you going for a bigger pumpkin patch?

[E.B. Erickson]

Hi Thomas,
Hope your move goes well, with a minimum of hassle!

Thanks for posting the photo of the normal-sized WA basket. You notice that even though it's basic Stirling style, it's just different enough from most in it's proportions to be very pleasing?

--ElJay

[Alexander McCracken]

Hi Mac,

Thanks for the excellent post; you answered all my questions
perfectly. And I'll say that the diamond fits you perfectly. I'd hate
to be in front of you while you were beserking and wielding her.
Skinny me would only be able to try and duck and poke with my
lighter basket repeatedly, praying the birch in my targe held long
enough for the battle to be decided one way or the other.

Hope the moving ordeal is almost over. Shivers down the spine
is right! Sorry about farmer Tom. I was dusting off my old copies
of Crocket's Victory Garden books, and it made me think of you.
I used to watch the show out of WGBH, and I have many fond
memories of growing things in my Grandma's backyard. One of
these days I'll have my own house...

Take care!

Alex

[Thomas McDonald]

Hi Alex

I just recalled a post I did awhile back, with some comparison stats by Vince, that shows where some of the weight goes piece to piece!

In this case the 'Diamond' has 1lb. on the S-Hilt.

Mac

Diamond Hilt

Basket : 1 lb. 5 oz.
Pommel : 7-3/4 oz.
Blade : 1 lb.7- 1/4 oz.
Liner : 2-1/2 oz.
Grip : 2 oz.
Tang Nut : 1/4 oz.
Overall : 3 lb. 8-3/4 oz.

The blade on the Diamond hilt is 33-3/4" length x 1-5/8" wide x .222" thick with two narrow fullers.

S-Hilt

Basket : 1 lb. 1/4 oz.
Pommel : 7-1/4 oz.
Blade : 15 oz.
Liner : n/a
Grip : 1-1/2 oz.
Tang Nut : 1/4 oz.
Overall : 2 lb. 8-3/4 oz.

The S-hilt's blade is 31-1/2" length x 1-1/4"
wide x .192" thick with a single wide fuller and the face is slightly concave.



So the increase in weight on the Diamond is .....

Basket - 4 3/4oz. more
Pommel - 1/2 oz. more
Blade - 8 1/4 oz. more
Grip - 1/2 oz. more
Liner - 2 1/2 oz. more ( S-hilt has none)

Total = 1 lb. 1/2oz. heavier .