Dha-Lwe average measurements please

Antonio Cejunior · 13th July 2007, 01:25 AM

Hi everyone,

I would be very grateful if some of you gentlemen could provide me with the
average measurements of a Dha-lwe blade similar to this HOS #250

I am most interested in having the measures of:
a- the width of the blade taken just about the junction with the handle
b- the width of the blade at the "tip" (which is square)
c- the blade's spine thickness

Any other comments would be very much appreciated.
The blade's length is 51 cm or 20.08 inches so if you have a similar blade shape with different lengths, I would very much appreciate your input including the blade's length as the square tip flaring width may vary.

Thank you all.

Best regards,

Antonio

Andrew · 13th July 2007, 04:58 PM

Now, I wonder why Antonio needs such measurements....

I don't currently own any of this configuration, but I do have some square-tipped examples that don't flare so much. Would you want those?

Mark · 13th July 2007, 05:44 PM

Hi Antonio,

Did you check my web site? This dha is on there, but it was an early one, so it might not have the spine widths (I changed the format of the specification section). I'll take some measurements.

I have a couple of this style that are smaller - this one is unusually large and heavy. The proportions stay generally constant, handle-to-blade ratio, spine taper, etc. The taper is very dramatic, reducing by at least half over the first third of the blade length, and reaching essentially the width of the edge at the tip of the blade. PUFF, and others of our Thai collegues, call this a "double taper," as the rate of decrease is greater near the blade than it is approaching the tip, like the profile of the Eiffel Tower. Widths at the base of the blade are typically from round 3 to around 5 mm. This one is especially broad.

The span of the tip (edge to spine, in other words), does vary. This one is at the wide end of the scale. Many reach the maximum span around the last third of the blade.

Antonio Cejunior · 13th July 2007, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Now, I wonder why Antonio needs such measurements....

I don't currently own any of this configuration, but I do have some square-tipped examples that don't flare so much. Would you want those?

Ahh, Andrew,

I would like to custom order one

And so I need the specs.
Anyones you have would be welcomed. Specially if you add a picture and length to see the flaring ratio.

Many thanks

Antonio Cejunior · 13th July 2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

Hi Antonio,

Did you check my web site? This dha is on there, but it was an early one, so it might not have the spine widths (I changed the format of the specification section). I'll take some measurements.

I have a couple of this style that are smaller - this one is unusually large and heavy. The proportions stay generally constant, handle-to-blade ratio, spine taper, etc. The taper is very dramatic, reducing by at least half over the first third of the blade length, and reaching essentially the width of the edge at the tip of the blade. PUFF, and others of our Thai collegues, call this a "double taper," as the rate of decrease is greater near the blade than it is approaching the tip, like the profile of the Eiffel Tower. Widths at the base of the blade are typically from round 3 to around 5 mm. This one is especially broad.

The span of the tip (edge to spine, in other words), does vary. This one is at the wide end of the scale. Many reach the maximum span around the last third of the blade.

Hi Mark,
No I haven't gone to your page. I felt that possibly if I could get some "custom measurements" they would be kind of more accurate.
You mean a 20 inches blade for this type of blade is long and that heavy?
Even with the long handle?
I would've have thought otherwise

Thank you for describing the taper. I follow you. I wouldn't have thought that the taper was so dramatic. I wonder it it could say almost constant as a way to reinforce the last third. You know, like a Japanese hira-zukuri section, an elongated inverted triangle.

Yup, would very much appreciate the specific measurements asked

Plan to have one custom made. And the handle measurement would be excellent if you would be so kind to add to the measurements.

Grazzie tanti

kronckew · 14th July 2007, 09:02 PM

hi antonio,

here's mine, a bit less decorative but functional. tip is not quite square at the bottom
as the tip is sharpened all the way around to the spine. the spine has decorative diagonal cuts
and brass or copper inlays for the 1st 17 cm. from the grip.

hilt is 24 cm. long, 2.9 cm dia. at the pommel,
flaring to 3.5 cm. at the blade junction

blade is 47 cm. from the grip to tip, stub tang is 9cm.
and is 2x1 cm at the junction

blade at the grip is 2.7 cm. wide, spine 1 cm.

at 10 cm from grip, blade is 2.7 cm wide, spine 8 mm

at 20 cm, blade 3 cm, spine 3 mm

at 30 cm, blade 3.3 cm, spine 2.5 mm.

at 40 cm., blade is 3.6 cm, spine 2 mm

at 47 cm. blade is 4 cm., spine 2 mm.

Antonio Cejunior · 15th July 2007, 01:18 AM

Hello Kronckew,

Thank you very much for your most valuable help. It is most kind of you

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

hi antonio,

here's mine, a bit less decorative but functional. tip is not quite square at the bottom
as the tip is sharpened all the way around to the spine. the spine has decorative diagonal cuts
and brass or copper inlays for the 1st 17 cm. from the grip.

hilt is 24 cm. long, 2.9 cm dia. at the pommel,
flaring to 3.5 cm. at the blade junction

blade is 47 cm. from the grip to tip, stub tang is 9cm.
and is 2x1 cm at the junction

blade at the grip is 2.7 cm. wide, spine 1 cm.

at 10 cm from grip, blade is 2.7 cm wide, spine 8 mm

at 20 cm, blade 3 cm, spine 3 mm

at 30 cm, blade 3.3 cm, spine 2.5 mm.

at 40 cm., blade is 3.6 cm, spine 2 mm

at 47 cm. blade is 4 cm., spine 2 mm.

Jens Nordlunde · 18th July 2007, 09:43 PM

Antonio, when we measure in centimetres, they, at least in India, measured in fingers with, being an index finger. An index finger was eight barleycorns, at one place I have seen six corns mentioned. Did they also measure the blades you mention in fingers widh?

Jens

Mark · 20th July 2007, 03:00 AM

I finally took detailed measurements of two of my dha of this style. The first is the one in your first post (DRI #0049; HOS #250).

Blade length: 50 cm
Handle length: 31 cm
Blade Width (height)
at base: 10 mm
at narrowest point (about 8 cm from base): 26 mm
at widest point (essentially at the tip): 40 mm
Spine thickness
at base: 10 mm
at 1/3 length: 4 mm
at 2/3 length: 2.4 mm
1 cm from tip: 1.5 mm

As you can see, the blade taper is very dramatic at first, going from 10 mm to 4 mm over the first 1/3 of the blade, then quite gradual for the rest of the blade.

Then I went kind of crazy and made detailed measurements of the handle sections, noted in the photo below (all measurements are in millimeters).

Mark · 20th July 2007, 03:09 AM

Here are the measurements of the second one (DRI #0066; HOS #248). Another one I have (DRI #0067; HOS #249) has very similar dimensions.

Blade length: 44.7 cm
Handle length: 26.5 cm
Blade width (height)
at base: 26 mm
at narrowest point (about 6.5 cm from base): 22 mm
at widest point (about 34 cm from base): 32
Spine width
at base: 9 mm
at 1/3 length: 4 mm
at 2/3 length: 3 mm
1 cm from tip: 1.5 mm

Again you see very dramatic tapering at first, decreasing by over 50% over the first 1/3 of the blade length, then a much more gradual taper to the very thin tip.

Here are the details of the handle, all measurements in millimeters. NB, the two wider rings within the two silver sections have a triangular cross-section; the 8 mm measurement is of the base.

Antonio Cejunior · 21st July 2007, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Antonio, when we measure in centimetres, they, at least in India, measured in fingers with, being an index finger. An index finger was eight barleycorns, at one place I have seen six corns mentioned. Did they also measure the blades you mention in fingers widh?

Jens

Hi Jens,

I was offline until my apartment move started yesterday.
I'm on my laptop only.

I don't really know if they have a special kind of measurement in Thailand. Probably yes because of the connections with China and India, but I wouldn't think the system would be the same.

This blade I have planed for is not to be made in Thailand, however.
That is also why I have asked for measurements to compare with mine.

Antonio Cejunior · 21st July 2007, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

Here are the measurements of the second one (DRI #0066; HOS #248). Another one I have (DRI #0067; HOS #249) has very similar dimensions.

Blade length: 44.7 cm
Handle length: 26.5 cm
Blade width (height)
at base: 26 mm
at narrowest point (about 6.5 cm from base): 22 mm
at widest point (about 34 cm from base): 32
Spine width
at base: 9 mm
at 1/3 length: 4 mm
at 2/3 length: 3 mm
1 cm from tip: 1.5 mm

Again you see very dramatic tapering at first, decreasing by over 50% over the first 1/3 of the blade length, then a much more gradual taper to the very thin tip.

Here are the details of the handle, all measurements in millimeters. NB, the two wider rings within the two silver sections have a triangular cross-section; the 8 mm measurement is of the base.

Wow Mark

You went overboard with those measurements, both on the blade and on the handle.
Thank you very much

I have in the meantime decided to design my own specs while waiting:

I based it on my Japanese blades experience and then adapted it. Guess that for a 25 inches long blade these specs would be for a very sturdy blade without being too heavy. I would want the handle to be even longer than the 14 inches of the tang.
Would you care to comment on these specs of mine considering it will be receiving a differential heat treatment for a very strong edge and a flexible spine? Thanks

Let me not only thank you once more for the super detailed information but it would be interesting if you folks started to compile this type of information for a couple of different blades of each style of mountings so that maybe we can have some data on a possible standard of proportions of the main parts, such as the handle's pommel (so to speak) and the other end. Same should apply for the scabbards.

I think that perhaps we could find out if there is a pattern in there, some kind of proportion rule. Or if the rules belong to different ethnic groups.

There must be something there...

Edit: Ooops, I did post the 800 pixels size thumbnail. I don't understand why it is showing the 1400 px size

ariel · 21st July 2007, 06:21 AM

Antonio,
Why do you want to custom make one, when for half the price ( I guess) you can get an old and authentic one from e-bay? Most likely, it will even take you less time.

Antonio Cejunior · 21st July 2007, 07:38 AM

Thanks for your concern Ariel.

The reason is simple. I want do use this foreign made dha-lwe and the fact that it has my specifications means I always like to have an active participation on something that will then be mounted the way I want it. It is a designer thing here.
There are many, say... frequencies. One is the collector of Continental South East Asian weaponry, who focuses on Antiques.

That's not my case. That's why

PUFF · 22nd July 2007, 05:35 PM

May I have a couple comments?

Firstly, its tang 's totally wrong (unless it 's designed for practice) The traditional tang should be thick,triangle and not so long tang. It should also be upward to match with blade 's curvature.

Second, Blade's thickness 's quite fatal for its balance. Most of well balance blades of this type are thicker at their base and taper to almost nothing at the point. You can also find proper spine width in Mark's measurement.

Just my 2c

Antonio Cejunior · 23rd July 2007, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PUFF

May I have a couple comments?

Firstly, its tang 's totally wrong (unless it 's designed for practice) The traditional tang should be thick,triangle and not so long tang. It should also be upward to match with blade 's curvature.

Thanks for your comments PUFF

I am not making a total replica, but a dha-lwe based sword.
Indeed I should have curved more the tang. But I'm sure with the instructions it will obviously get there.

Quote:

Second, Blade's thickness 's quite fatal for its balance. Most of well balance blades of this type are thicker at their base and taper to almost nothing at the point. You can also find proper spine width in Mark's measurement.

Just my 2c

I see... darn, how could I have not seen the weight problem and had such a long tang? Thanks

Mark · 23rd July 2007, 03:35 PM

Dear Antonio,

That is a great design!

I can't wait to see how you treat the fittings.

I echo PUFF's comments about the tang, but I see why you want to make it a full tang. I do suggest making it clear to the maker that the tang needs to continue the curve of the blade, at least somewhat (usually the curve of the sword is not uniform, but increasing a bit toward the tip, so it does not need to be an arch of a circle). It might be possible to taper it a little both in width and span without weakening the handle, too. Though it is traditional, I don't recommend the small triangular tang unless you really want to copy an old blade. Though it has a function (it makes the handle vibrate less, makes it easier to tighten the blade in the handle when it loosens with use, and makes it easier to change the handle), it makes a pretty unstable grip overall if you are not using the sword in the traditional way(s). I think the proportion of the tang to the blade is good (assuming a full tang).

I think that some of the balance problem of the blade can be remediated by using a "double taper," with the taper more dramatic near the base of the blade. As you will note from the measurements of the antiques, the spine at the base is very wide (generally a half cm, or a bit more), and it tapers quickly to about half that over the first quarter or third of the blade, with a more gradual and uniform taper after that. It makes for a graceful sweep when viewed from above, and adds greatly, in my opinion, to the grace and beauty of the sword. I suggest 6/3.5/3/2.5 rather than your 6/6/5/3.5 (I am assuming those are the measurements at the start of each section), with the final taper going at the tip to essentially the width of the blade edge as you have it in your design.

To further help balance, I think that you may have to counter the weight of the tang with a heavier ferrule section next to the blade. It would add to the overall weight of the piece, but I think the balance and feel of the blade would be close overall to that of a dha/daab. The point of balance should only be around 7-8 cm,a t most, from the base of the blade (they are very light at the tip). Oh, and the square tip itself has an edge, the spine width at the tip being essentially that of the bottom edge, making for only a very, very slight taper from the spine to the bottom edge at the very tip, rather than a typical triangular cross-section. It looks like from the design that you have incorporated this feature, but I thought I would point it out, has I didn't mention it before.

Finally, I don't know how closely you want to match the side-view profile of the blade, but if you look closely at the profiles of mine, and at the blade width/span (edge-to-spine) measurements, you will note that there is a slight "waist" or narrowing of the blade at the beginning, the narrowest point being near the point of balance (I think this would also help balance, by the way), than the gentle flare toward the tip. This is characterist of Tai blades (Tai, Lao, Shan, etc.), and it adds a further touch of feminine beauty and grace.

Mark

PS: regarding fittings, the wide bell-shaped ferrule at the base is often polygonal in cross-section (I forget the number, but I can check), though sometimes it is circular.

PPS: I have been tabulating these various measurements to see if I can detect a pattern, but I have let most of my research idle this last year, unfortunately, so it is not yet complete.

Antonio Cejunior · 24th July 2007, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

Dear Antonio,

That is a great design!

I can't wait to see how you treat the fittings.

Thanks my dear Mark, but it's really just a variation. I will be planning to do a hybrid design respecting all the fundamentals though.

Quote:

I echo PUFF's comments about the tang, but I see why you want to make it a full tang. I do suggest making it clear to the maker that the tang needs to continue the curve of the blade, at least somewhat (usually the curve of the sword is not uniform, but increasing a bit toward the tip, so it does not need to be an arch of a circle). It might be possible to taper it a little both in width and span without weakening the handle, too. Though it is traditional, I don't recommend the small triangular tang unless you really want to copy an old blade. Though it has a function (it makes the handle vibrate less, makes it easier to tighten the blade in the handle when it loosens with use, and makes it easier to change the handle), it makes a pretty unstable grip overall if you are not using the sword in the traditional way(s). I think the proportion of the tang to the blade is good (assuming a full tang).

This one blade is destined for cutting hard targets so I place security first, hence the construction having two pin holes and a long tang.
I did increase the tip curve upwards in the spine, but I want a harmonious curve in the edge side. When you see an outline design like this it may fail to show, but using Illustrator CS2 I usually draw an elipse for the blade curve and then define the curve approximately how I want it.
Then I drag a guideline and cut the curve at the tang and move the cut area down so, although it doesn't look like, it is curved, not so much visually but it is curved. I guess anyway I will draw it again.
For a contemporary inspired blade I would prefer to have a strong blade.

Quote:

I think that some of the balance problem of the blade can be remediated by using a "double taper," with the taper more dramatic near the base of the blade. As you will note from the measurements of the antiques, the spine at the base is very wide (generally a half cm, or a bit more), and it tapers quickly to about half that over the first quarter or third of the blade, with a more gradual and uniform taper after that. It makes for a graceful sweep when viewed from above, and adds greatly, in my opinion, to the grace and beauty of the sword. I suggest 6/3.5/3/2.5 rather than your 6/6/5/3.5 (I am assuming those are the measurements at the start of each section), with the final taper going at the tip to essentially the width of the blade edge as you have it in your design.

To further help balance, I think that you may have to counter the weight of the tang with a heavier ferrule section next to the blade. It would add to the overall weight of the piece, but I think the balance and feel of the blade would be close overall to that of a dha/daab. The point of balance should only be around 7-8 cm,a t most, from the base of the blade (they are very light at the tip). Oh, and the square tip itself has an edge, the spine width at the tip being essentially that of the bottom edge, making for only a very, very slight taper from the spine to the bottom edge at the very tip, rather than a typical triangular cross-section. It looks like from the design that you have incorporated this feature, but I thought I would point it out, has I didn't mention it before.

Finally, I don't know how closely you want to match the side-view profile of the blade, but if you look closely at the profiles of mine, and at the blade width/span (edge-to-spine) measurements, you will note that there is a slight "waist" or narrowing of the blade at the beginning, the narrowest point being near the point of balance (I think this would also help balance, by the way), than the gentle flare toward the tip. This is characterist of Tai blades (Tai, Lao, Shan, etc.), and it adds a further touch of feminine beauty and grace.

Mark

PS: regarding fittings, the wide bell-shaped ferrule at the base is often polygonal in cross-section (I forget the number, but I can check), though sometimes it is circular.

PPS: I have been tabulating these various measurements to see if I can detect a pattern, but I have let most of my research idle this last year, unfortunately, so it is not yet complete.

Thanks Bro, I guess I will be designing it again, just to be sure its quite clear.

Grazzie tanti

Antonio Cejunior · 24th July 2007, 05:06 PM

Mark,
As promised here are some print screens of the Illustrator works.

This is the first step, two parallel curves with red guidelines. See the red vertical line where the tang begins? See how the tang is curved?

Now here is a close up of how I cut the lines at the tang guidelines and moved the tang lines closer.

Now from the parallel lines at the tip of the blade I first move up from A to B the blade width at the tip. Then I will twist is to get the proper overall shape.

In the overall shape little details of the blade's profile have been added. Now the tang doesn't look as curved as the original first drawing, but nothing has changed.

Hope I have cleared this

Thank you and everyone else.
BTW, I'm on a laptop and don't have your present email. Care to send one just to add it to the address book? Thanks

Mark · 25th July 2007, 03:52 PM

Ah, yes, I can see the curve now. I think the size of the first picture made it hard to see the curve of the tang in relation to the rest of the blade. It is funny that such a subtle feature can affect the look of the blade when its mounted up - it only has to be very slight. You immediately spot something odd about it if it is perfectly straight. I think this one will mount up nicely.

Antonio Cejunior · 25th July 2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

Ah, yes, I can see the curve now. I think the size of the first picture made it hard to see the curve of the tang in relation to the rest of the blade.

Tru, the size can play games with our vision. But actually the first drawing whas exactly done the same way

Quote:

It is funny that such a subtle feature can affect the look of the blade when its mounted up - it only has to be very slight. You immediately spot something odd about it if it is perfectly straight. I think this one will mount up nicely.

Oh definitely. But when making the handle it is always a must to carve the tang channel and then define the curve with a flare. I hope to find some time to make the handle myself. I feel like I should do this one.

Buona notte

13th July 2007, 01:25 AM	#1
Antonio Cejunior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Macau Posts: 294	Dha-Lwe average measurements please Hi everyone, I would be very grateful if some of you gentlemen could provide me with the average measurements of a Dha-lwe blade similar to this HOS #250 I am most interested in having the measures of: a- the width of the blade taken just about the junction with the handle b- the width of the blade at the "tip" (which is square) c- the blade's spine thickness Any other comments would be very much appreciated. The blade's length is 51 cm or 20.08 inches so if you have a similar blade shape with different lengths, I would very much appreciate your input including the blade's length as the square tip flaring width may vary. Thank you all. Best regards, Antonio

20th July 2007, 03:00 AM	#9
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	I finally took detailed measurements of two of my dha of this style. The first is the one in your first post (DRI #0049; HOS #250). Blade length: 50 cm Handle length: 31 cm Blade Width (height) at base: 10 mm at narrowest point (about 8 cm from base): 26 mm at widest point (essentially at the tip): 40 mm Spine thickness at base: 10 mm at 1/3 length: 4 mm at 2/3 length: 2.4 mm 1 cm from tip: 1.5 mm As you can see, the blade taper is very dramatic at first, going from 10 mm to 4 mm over the first 1/3 of the blade, then quite gradual for the rest of the blade. Then I went kind of crazy and made detailed measurements of the handle sections, noted in the photo below (all measurements are in millimeters). Attached Images Last edited by Mark; 20th July 2007 at 03:23 AM.

20th July 2007, 03:09 AM	#10
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Here are the measurements of the second one (DRI #0066; HOS #248). Another one I have (DRI #0067; HOS #249) has very similar dimensions. Blade length: 44.7 cm Handle length: 26.5 cm Blade width (height) at base: 26 mm at narrowest point (about 6.5 cm from base): 22 mm at widest point (about 34 cm from base): 32 Spine width at base: 9 mm at 1/3 length: 4 mm at 2/3 length: 3 mm 1 cm from tip: 1.5 mm Again you see very dramatic tapering at first, decreasing by over 50% over the first 1/3 of the blade length, then a much more gradual taper to the very thin tip. Here are the details of the handle, all measurements in millimeters. NB, the two wider rings within the two silver sections have a triangular cross-section; the 8 mm measurement is of the base. Attached Images Last edited by Mark; 20th July 2007 at 03:22 AM.

24th July 2007, 05:06 PM	#19
Antonio Cejunior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Macau Posts: 294	It's all here although it may not look like so Mark, As promised here are some print screens of the Illustrator works. This is the first step, two parallel curves with red guidelines. See the red vertical line where the tang begins? See how the tang is curved? Now here is a close up of how I cut the lines at the tang guidelines and moved the tang lines closer. Now from the parallel lines at the tip of the blade I first move up from A to B the blade width at the tip. Then I will twist is to get the proper overall shape. In the overall shape little details of the blade's profile have been added. Now the tang doesn't look as curved as the original first drawing, but nothing has changed. Hope I have cleared this Thank you and everyone else. BTW, I'm on a laptop and don't have your present email. Care to send one just to add it to the address book? Thanks

13th July 2007, 04:58 PM	#2
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Now, I wonder why Antonio needs such measurements.... I don't currently own any of this configuration, but I do have some square-tipped examples that don't flare so much. Would you want those?

13th July 2007, 05:44 PM	#3
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Hi Antonio, Did you check my web site? This dha is on there, but it was an early one, so it might not have the spine widths (I changed the format of the specification section). I'll take some measurements. I have a couple of this style that are smaller - this one is unusually large and heavy. The proportions stay generally constant, handle-to-blade ratio, spine taper, etc. The taper is very dramatic, reducing by at least half over the first third of the blade length, and reaching essentially the width of the edge at the tip of the blade. PUFF, and others of our Thai collegues, call this a "double taper," as the rate of decrease is greater near the blade than it is approaching the tip, like the profile of the Eiffel Tower. Widths at the base of the blade are typically from round 3 to around 5 mm. This one is especially broad. The span of the tip (edge to spine, in other words), does vary. This one is at the wide end of the scale. Many reach the maximum span around the last third of the blade.

14th July 2007, 09:02 PM	#6
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,150	hi antonio, here's mine, a bit less decorative but functional. tip is not quite square at the bottom as the tip is sharpened all the way around to the spine. the spine has decorative diagonal cuts and brass or copper inlays for the 1st 17 cm. from the grip. hilt is 24 cm. long, 2.9 cm dia. at the pommel, flaring to 3.5 cm. at the blade junction blade is 47 cm. from the grip to tip, stub tang is 9cm. and is 2x1 cm at the junction blade at the grip is 2.7 cm. wide, spine 1 cm. at 10 cm from grip, blade is 2.7 cm wide, spine 8 mm at 20 cm, blade 3 cm, spine 3 mm at 30 cm, blade 3.3 cm, spine 2.5 mm. at 40 cm., blade is 3.6 cm, spine 2 mm at 47 cm. blade is 4 cm., spine 2 mm.

18th July 2007, 09:43 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Antonio, when we measure in centimetres, they, at least in India, measured in fingers with, being an index finger. An index finger was eight barleycorns, at one place I have seen six corns mentioned. Did they also measure the blades you mention in fingers widh? Jens

21st July 2007, 06:21 AM	#13
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Antonio, Why do you want to custom make one, when for half the price ( I guess) you can get an old and authentic one from e-bay? Most likely, it will even take you less time.

21st July 2007, 07:38 AM	#14
Antonio Cejunior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Macau Posts: 294	Thanks for your concern Ariel. The reason is simple. I want do use this foreign made dha-lwe and the fact that it has my specifications means I always like to have an active participation on something that will then be mounted the way I want it. It is a designer thing here. There are many, say... frequencies. One is the collector of Continental South East Asian weaponry, who focuses on Antiques. That's not my case. That's why

22nd July 2007, 05:35 PM	#15
PUFF Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 30 miles north of Bangkok, 20 miles south of Ayuthaya, Thailand Posts: 224	May I have a couple comments? Firstly, its tang 's totally wrong (unless it 's designed for practice) The traditional tang should be thick,triangle and not so long tang. It should also be upward to match with blade 's curvature. Second, Blade's thickness 's quite fatal for its balance. Most of well balance blades of this type are thicker at their base and taper to almost nothing at the point. You can also find proper spine width in Mark's measurement. Just my 2c

23rd July 2007, 03:35 PM	#17
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Dear Antonio, That is a great design! I can't wait to see how you treat the fittings. I echo PUFF's comments about the tang, but I see why you want to make it a full tang. I do suggest making it clear to the maker that the tang needs to continue the curve of the blade, at least somewhat (usually the curve of the sword is not uniform, but increasing a bit toward the tip, so it does not need to be an arch of a circle). It might be possible to taper it a little both in width and span without weakening the handle, too. Though it is traditional, I don't recommend the small triangular tang unless you really want to copy an old blade. Though it has a function (it makes the handle vibrate less, makes it easier to tighten the blade in the handle when it loosens with use, and makes it easier to change the handle), it makes a pretty unstable grip overall if you are not using the sword in the traditional way(s). I think the proportion of the tang to the blade is good (assuming a full tang). I think that some of the balance problem of the blade can be remediated by using a "double taper," with the taper more dramatic near the base of the blade. As you will note from the measurements of the antiques, the spine at the base is very wide (generally a half cm, or a bit more), and it tapers quickly to about half that over the first quarter or third of the blade, with a more gradual and uniform taper after that. It makes for a graceful sweep when viewed from above, and adds greatly, in my opinion, to the grace and beauty of the sword. I suggest 6/3.5/3/2.5 rather than your 6/6/5/3.5 (I am assuming those are the measurements at the start of each section), with the final taper going at the tip to essentially the width of the blade edge as you have it in your design. To further help balance, I think that you may have to counter the weight of the tang with a heavier ferrule section next to the blade. It would add to the overall weight of the piece, but I think the balance and feel of the blade would be close overall to that of a dha/daab. The point of balance should only be around 7-8 cm,a t most, from the base of the blade (they are very light at the tip). Oh, and the square tip itself has an edge, the spine width at the tip being essentially that of the bottom edge, making for only a very, very slight taper from the spine to the bottom edge at the very tip, rather than a typical triangular cross-section. It looks like from the design that you have incorporated this feature, but I thought I would point it out, has I didn't mention it before. Finally, I don't know how closely you want to match the side-view profile of the blade, but if you look closely at the profiles of mine, and at the blade width/span (edge-to-spine) measurements, you will note that there is a slight "waist" or narrowing of the blade at the beginning, the narrowest point being near the point of balance (I think this would also help balance, by the way), than the gentle flare toward the tip. This is characterist of Tai blades (Tai, Lao, Shan, etc.), and it adds a further touch of feminine beauty and grace. Mark PS: regarding fittings, the wide bell-shaped ferrule at the base is often polygonal in cross-section (I forget the number, but I can check), though sometimes it is circular. PPS: I have been tabulating these various measurements to see if I can detect a pattern, but I have let most of my research idle this last year, unfortunately, so it is not yet complete.

25th July 2007, 03:52 PM	#20
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Ah, yes, I can see the curve now. I think the size of the first picture made it hard to see the curve of the tang in relation to the rest of the blade. It is funny that such a subtle feature can affect the look of the blade when its mounted up - it only has to be very slight. You immediately spot something odd about it if it is perfectly straight. I think this one will mount up nicely.