Tulwar lite

archer · 9th December 2013, 04:11 PM

Hi, Does anyone recognize the Stamp on this blade? This Tulwar despite having a 29.5 blade length weighs in at 650 GM or just less than 1 ½ pounds the hilt style may be Dungarpuri, according to D.N.Pants illustration. The pommel is small 2- 1/8 inches in diameter and interferes less with changes in wrist movement angles. The blade edge and tip are razor thin would still cut. The comparable tulwar I in the photos weighs just about one kilo.

The E Bay seller’s photo with all the edges of darkened scotch tape had me thinking it could be a heavier fighting sword. It came in coated with sooty grease and blade tip damage from shipping the light weight and appearance had me thinking tourist trade and I would next find made in India stamped on the blade. It instead has Eye lash markings and a stamp that is new to me the bent tip returned to less than 90 degrees it was with a crease or two.

Tulwar Demonstrations on U Tube provided information that a feather light sword was preferred by the more skilled sword men. Also mentioned was that blade on blade contact is always avoided. There’s a slice laid back on its pommel that appears to have been made by another sword blade. So, is this an example of the feather weight blade mentioned or simply a lighter tulwar than my other example??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLTcVJGMBkQ

Rick · 9th December 2013, 04:52 PM

I have a feeling that 1.4 - 1.8 pounds would be an average weight for swords of this type .

It looks like it picked up some ink from a publication of some sort; probably from storage wrapped in newspaper .
A shame about the point .

Timo Nieminen · 10th December 2013, 01:14 AM

I wouldn't call it featherweight. It's on the light side; I'd estimate about 800g to be average (to be more precise, the median weight to be about 800g), with plenty from 700-800g.

The lightest I've heard of is "just over a pound". I'd call that featherweight!

Rick · 10th December 2013, 02:00 AM

I would too .

Timo Nieminen · 10th December 2013, 09:05 PM

Having just played with some lightweight tulwars, I'll change my previous answer. I'm willing to say this is "featherweight". IM(revised)O, a 640g tulwar is sufficiently light so as be qualitatively different, not just quantitatively.

archer · 10th December 2013, 10:21 PM

I now have four Tulwars not enough to really know enough about their normal weights turns out one is atypical wispy blade also about the same 1.5 pound weight. Seems having two at 640 gms is at least one too many to very rare. Maybe the plain iron disk pommel was a personal weigh balancing preference. I can see that more skilled swordsmen could accurately find soft targets on an armored foe.

9th December 2013, 04:11 PM	#1
archer Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 373	Tulwar lite Hi, Does anyone recognize the Stamp on this blade? This Tulwar despite having a 29.5 blade length weighs in at 650 GM or just less than 1 ½ pounds the hilt style may be Dungarpuri, according to D.N.Pants illustration. The pommel is small 2- 1/8 inches in diameter and interferes less with changes in wrist movement angles. The blade edge and tip are razor thin would still cut. The comparable tulwar I in the photos weighs just about one kilo. The E Bay seller’s photo with all the edges of darkened scotch tape had me thinking it could be a heavier fighting sword. It came in coated with sooty grease and blade tip damage from shipping the light weight and appearance had me thinking tourist trade and I would next find made in India stamped on the blade. It instead has Eye lash markings and a stamp that is new to me the bent tip returned to less than 90 degrees it was with a crease or two. Tulwar Demonstrations on U Tube provided information that a feather light sword was preferred by the more skilled sword men. Also mentioned was that blade on blade contact is always avoided. There’s a slice laid back on its pommel that appears to have been made by another sword blade. So, is this an example of the feather weight blade mentioned or simply a lighter tulwar than my other example?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLTcVJGMBkQ Attached Images

10th December 2013, 10:21 PM	#6
archer Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 373	Comparisons I now have four Tulwars not enough to really know enough about their normal weights turns out one is atypical wispy blade also about the same 1.5 pound weight. Seems having two at 640 gms is at least one too many to very rare. Maybe the plain iron disk pommel was a personal weigh balancing preference. I can see that more skilled swordsmen could accurately find soft targets on an armored foe. Attached Images Last edited by archer; 10th December 2013 at 10:23 PM. Reason: spelliing

9th December 2013, 04:52 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	I have a feeling that 1.4 - 1.8 pounds would be an average weight for swords of this type . It looks like it picked up some ink from a publication of some sort; probably from storage wrapped in newspaper . A shame about the point .

10th December 2013, 01:14 AM	#3
Timo Nieminen Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 422	I wouldn't call it featherweight. It's on the light side; I'd estimate about 800g to be average (to be more precise, the median weight to be about 800g), with plenty from 700-800g. The lightest I've heard of is "just over a pound". I'd call that featherweight!

10th December 2013, 02:00 AM	#4
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	I would too .

10th December 2013, 09:05 PM	#5
Timo Nieminen Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 422	Having just played with some lightweight tulwars, I'll change my previous answer. I'm willing to say this is "featherweight". IM(revised)O, a 640g tulwar is sufficiently light so as be qualitatively different, not just quantitatively.