You know, if they would have just given it a wrapped handle like Glamdring, but left the little tooth on the pommel I wouldn't mind. Because then it would be believable that Ecthelion or whoever killed a large snake or worm and the tooth would be 3 inches longish. That would be believeable in Tolkien's world. But a tooth this large can only mean dragon. And again, no dragon was killed in that time frame.

The way Orcrist (in TH) is shaping up...or down, really....is pathetic, horribly pathetic, pathetically laughable.

If Thranduil's sword doesn't turn out well either, then I don't get either that or Orcrist , and likely nothing else from the Hobbit, at least in the way of weapons.

But if Thranduil's sword does turn out well, then I have to get Orcrist but it might just come from Fable Blades.

I think Brendan has already forged his version of Orcrist.... and... he got the runes right, besides (#18, not #20 )

It's really disappointing because i really like the whole shape of the sword now that i awe the whole thing, but that damned tooth! Maybe they will try to justify that Glaurung was killed 10 years before Gondolin falls and someone brought back a tooth.

Lol Rev. I doubt it. People on the Flame are loving up Weta like always. I'm like guys I hate to be a purist but there was no trade in and out of gondolin, nor were there dragons! Gah! It's just so wrong! It would've made perfect sense on any of the other weapons, especially since dwarves once lived in teh grey mountains and they were full of dragons! But no, they had to do it to Orcist. Gaaaaaaaaahh I want to rip my hair out.

Oh dear, oh dear....

Yup- I'm with you and Valkrist and Fin and Rev and the others, Deimos. It makes me feel kinda sad, seeing the whole sword now... Still had some hope it would turn out to be more likable to me when I saw the whole thing, but now, nah.

It almost doesn't even seem like the kind of design Elves of Gondolin would make in the first place. A big cleaver with a trophy for a handle? Just don't think they'd have done it that way.

Then again, looking at the weapon purely by itself, in a complete vacuum, I like the design. So, I don't know about purchasing the UC replica at this time.

Exactly, it makes perfect sense if the sword was made in Nargothrond where Glaurung was killed.


[quote=""Jamanticus""]
It almost doesn't even seem like the kind of design Elves of Gondolin would make in the first place. A big cleaver with a trophy for a handle? Just don't think they'd have done it that way.
[/quote]

It totally a dwarven or mannish thing to do, putting a trophy like that in the handle of a weapon. They should have done that with Thorin's original sword.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]It totally a dwarven or mannish thing to do, putting a trophy like that in the handle of a weapon. They should have done that with Thorin's original sword.[/quote]

That's exactly what I said! His original sword, or any of the other dwarves weapons, it would've been beyond cool and accurate to have a trophy like that. Just anything but Orcist!


You know what, I'll get over it. It's still cool. But why did they have to do that....argh.

Alright, so let us say that Sting specifically was the counter knife to Orcrist, you know because Orcrist was single edged. And that really it was Orcrist and Sting in a set excluding Glamdring. This is how it should have looked.



The best guess is that Orcrist is Ecthelion's sword then they had SOOOOO Many possibilities. Echtelion being the guard of the fountain was said to love all things silver and diamond. Keeping the hilt pommel and gross guard silver, they could have easily did a wood handle with "diamond" studs in the hilt. It would have been Tolkien accurate as well as historically accurate as many knights did that.

[quote=""Jamanticus""]Oh dear, oh dear....It almost doesn't even seem like the kind of design Elves of Gondolin would make in the first place. A big cleaver with a trophy for a handle? Just don't think they'd have done it that way....[L]ooking at the weapon purely by itself, in a complete vacuum, I like the design.[/quote]

'Zactly....very concisely stated, the whole objection in a nutshell.

I think, "How would a sword from Gondolin look?"
And there is no way, not in my wildest opium dreams (if I smoked opium) would I have ever imagined anything like that.

Stand-alone, "in a complete vacuum" (as you say) it works.

And this is what I think the inscription should be. The two lines would be separated on different sides of the sword.

Though this comment would get me excommunicated in some circles, I would say that in this instance, Rev could teach Peter Lyon a thing or two. Or Alan Lee and/or John Howe if they drew it, though I can't imagine those two Tolkien stalwarts dreaming up this atrocity.

The whole dragon's tooth thing is stupid beyond belief. Yes, I'll keep saying it. Now that I see Orcrist with a hilt like Sting's, I see how much better this sword could have looked, should have looked, and it would have retained not only some historical accuracy, but would have looked more culturally correct. As for the runes, Rev's idea is a 1000 times better. Unfortunately, as I pointed out before, Ecthelion is a character from the Silmarillion and PJ and Weta do not have the rights to draw on names and events from that book. So, while the real Orcrist should have an inscription like that, instead we are stuck with a silly, non-sensical invention for the sake "let's do it because we can and our fans are too stupid to know better." Think again, Einsteins.

Honestly, if I ever buy this disaster of a sword, this is how I will e xp lain it to someone viewing my collection: the sword belonged to Ecthelion but the hilt and crossguard were badly damaged during his fight to the death with the Balrog. The blade was recovered from the fountain during the sack of Gondolin and it moved east out of Beleriand before the War of the Wrath. At some point it fell into the hands of some dwarves who deciphered what it was and crafted a new hilt for it from a dragon's tooth and inscribed new runes upon it, retaining its name. The sword was later lost once again, finally ending in the troll-hole in Rhudaur.

When the folks who are getting paid top dollar to come up with these ideas are too uncaring to do their jobs, you just have to make stuff up on your own to cover up their lazy mistakes.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]And this is what I think the inscription should be. The two lines would be separated on different sides of the sword.

[/quote]

oooo Rev, I like that. you missed your calling....you should be doing inscriptions for JRRT inspired swords (...uhhh, provided they are accurately designed in the first place)

[quote=""Deimos""]oooo Rev, I like that. you missed your calling....you should be doing inscriptions for JRRT inspired swords (...uhhh, provided they are accurately designed in the first place)[/quote]

Thank you so much I did screw up the first rune of Ecthelion though, I accidentally type 'upper case e' which turned into the wrong rune, adjustments being made now.

[quote=""Valkrist""].... As for the runes, Rev's idea is a 1000 times better....

Honestly, if I ever buy this disaster of a sword, this is how I will e xp lain it to someone viewing my collection: ...[/quote]

Thank you so much Val, I appreciate it! That is a perfect story, I am going to have to print it out and put it next to the sword!

[quote=""Fingolfin""]Well, he did kill the biggest, nastiest Balrog that ever lived, so the idea of him killing a huge dragon is not implausible. It is, however, canonically impossible. Glaurung, more of a big worm, was the only dragon even seen until the Fall of Gondolin. The sword would've been forged long before the battle. [/quote]

Just a word on Dragons in Middle-earth - Glaurung is described as the 'father of dragons' when Morgoth first bred him. About 200 years later Morgoth sent out "dragons" (plural) in the Nírnaeth Arnoediad, not just Glaurung. Presumably he was breeding them in that 200 year span. Dragons were used again against Gondolin about 40 years after the Nírnaeth Arnoediad.

True, but Ecthelion was the warden of a hidden and isolated city, factors that did not lend themselves to going out to battle random dragons in the countryside. Not a good tactic when you are trying to keep your presence hidden from your enemies. Furthermore, Morgoth was holding his lesser dragons back as a reserve to use in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, so I doubt they were roaming about, with the exception of Glaurung. Then, during that battle, Glaurung attacked the east army, which was composed of Noldor belonging to the sons of Feanor, dwarves, and Easterlings. Turgon and Ecthelion were with the western army. Lastly, by the time Gondolin was being attacked, I highly doubt Ecthelion would have had the time to have a new sword forged or to pluck a tooth from the field of battle and have it mounted it on a new or existing blade. Very uncharacteristic and I just don't buy it.

I hope UC pick a strong material for the handle, I am always worried that a resin handle will break easily. However, my Druza sword was dropped and there was no damage done to the resin handle but the blade is wobbling in the hilt now

I wonder how they'll attach the pommel, I hope its metal and not just cast resin with the rest of the grip. The guard reminds me more of Glamdring than sting. I can't wait to see the UC pics when they are released.

I really need to read up on the histories so I can understand who all these Elves are. I read about Turgon on the lotr wikia, but apart from him there's no one else I know of.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Just a word on Dragons in Middle-earth - Glaurung is described as the 'father of dragons' when Morgoth first bred him. About 200 years later Morgoth sent out "dragons" (plural) in the Nírnaeth Arnoediad, not just Glaurung. Presumably he was breeding them in that 200 year span. Dragons were used again against Gondolin about 40 years after the Nírnaeth Arnoediad. The Elf in question was at both battles.[/quote]

Chronology as I know it:

From the time the elves get to Beleriand-FA c.60: Noldor continue to bash Morgoth, most of the times they win because only going against orcs.

c.60-c. 260: First 200 years of the siege on Angband. Birth of Glaurung
c. 260: Morgoth sends Glaurung against the besiegers for the first time, he is beaten back into the gates of Angband, for he was still "young."

c.260-455: Long "Peace" Siege of Angband continues, but Morgoth never really sends an army to meet the Noldor.

c.455 Battle of Sudden Flames: Morgoth erupts a volcano and unleashes Angband. The leading attack was Glaurung leading Balrogs, no mention of other dragons, followed by a host of orcs.

c. 473 Battle of Unnumbered Tears: First host of dragons to be fought, lead by Glaurung. Noldor practically destroyed. Turgon retreats back to Gondolin with the enemy at his back.

FA 473-511 Gondolin is sealed.

FA 511: Fall of Gondolin.

So the only way for the tooth thing to work is that Ecthelion or someone picked up the tooth at the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. This seems unlikely because as soon as the Elves were winning, they were just as quickly retreating. Then he forged the sword in 28 years? Seems unlikely to forge a new sword after most of the host of Gondolin was slain.

heres a funny thing. Sting could be earendil's sword when he was a kid in gondolin, and orcrist was ecthelions given to Earendil When he was older due to his fascination with ecthelion.

My comments were in response to Glaurung being "the only dragon even seen until the Fall of Gondolin". He wasn't. But for the sake of discussion, if you want to invent a history for a sword that is clearly outside of Tolkien's works, but still falling within that realm, you are still inventing.

In my opinion only one scenario could have happened. It is written that both swords (Glamdring and Orcrist) were made in Gondolin, so we only have a 600 year time frame to work with, pretty narrow actually. Now, the only way for it to work is if some noble, possibly Ecthelion, fought with this sword during the battle of unnumbered tears. Stuck the sword in the dragons mouth, killed the dragon and while retrieving the sword, burnt the handle and pulled out a tooth. Otherwise there wasn't enough time to go pulling dragon's teeth.

The whole refitting the handle with the tooth later only makes sense if the inscription was added later too. It is just a huge stretch, further than Hadhafang and really any other weapon in the series thus far.

All fair points, Kit, but I did come up with a similar, though shorter, synopsis in a post just a few up as to how the sword could have feasibly belonged to Ecthelion yet still had the dragon tooth added later. I guess you missed that, but it does illustrate that we understand what you're saying and that we can connect the dots on our own, even if we are "inventing."

I think the main source of contention is that the sword is already quite a departure from what was e xp ected and this is not helped by the addition of a very random and not easily e xp lained element like a dragon's tooth hilt. You have to admit that's probably the last thing people thought they would see in connection with Orcrist. Nothing wrong with creating a history for something that barely features in Tolkien's history, but is it really necessary to overly complicate things for the sake of the 'wow' factor? I think not.

The name is Orcrist. Goblin Cleaver. Not dragon slayer, dats what I say!

There are a lot of things I "see" or imagined differently from the movies, but they never really made my blood boil. This to me is as Val says, a stretch to hope that the rest of us aren't smart enough, but just think, "Wow that is awesome!"

[quote=""Valkrist""]You have to admit that's probably the last thing people thought they would see in connection with Orcrist.[/quote]
I could admit certain things were I allowed to talk about it

[quote=""Nasnandos""]
I could admit certain things were I allowed to talk about it [/quote]

Gah! Curse you warner brothers contract!

My worry now is that the other side of the blade is going to have more invented inscriptions of the same level.

I'm no e xp ert on middle earth law so dont shoot me but my thoughts are orcrist was named goblin clever because that was its intended purpose at the time of forging...later in its use it was used in slaying a dragon and to mark the victory runes were added and the tooth.

I have a feeling we will see the runes on sting being added at some point in the film once bilbo has had his encounter with the spiders.

We have seen presidence for runes being added for special ocasion when narsil was reforged.

In the misty mountain the orcs knick named orcrist bitter because of the the dragons tooth.

these are just rambling to alot of you hardcore tolkien e xp erts but it my 2 cents

cheers

Slightly OT, but thoughts on Thorin's Dwarven sword, now that people have seen them? Or Dwalin's axes? I'm not saying UC is making them, just curious what people think of the designs.

I like them as they have there own stile. I am curious though, are Weta and UC going to be making the same prop replicas or do there licences differ on what each can make?

Well Weta made Sting, Anduril, Glamdring, and Strider sword, all of which were UC made too. I don't see why they wouldn't Only 10 people can even afford $10000 swords.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Slightly OT, but thoughts on Thorin's Dwarven sword, now that people have seen them? Or Dwalin's axes? I'm not saying UC is making them, just curious what people think of the designs.



[/quote]

I'm really interested in Thorin's Dwarven sword Kit, I love the design of it. It would be cool if it could come with that little half scabbard he has (should UC produce it). Dwalin's axes would be cool too. Also Balin's mace/sword

[quote=""N2darkness""]I like them as they have there own stile. I am curious though, are Weta and UC going to be making the same prop replicas or do there licences differ on what each can make?[/quote]I can't answer that without saying what UC is making, which I am not allowed to say at this point, so I'll just direct you to this.
http://www.unitedcutlery.com/Info.aspx?id=28

The PR states the range of products, and it covers just about any type of weapon, but of course the film company has approval over what UC chooses to make. Specific ones are mentioned, and more are being worked on obviously. I know which ones we want to see get made, but I always like to ask the collectors directly, as I did for LOTR.

Kit, you may not be able to answer this, but if UC were to produce Balin's mace/sword, would it be made of steel or would it be that resin material you spoke about a few months back? I'm really interested in seeing a replica of Balin's weapon, its pretty cool.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]Well Weta made Sting, Anduril, Glamdring, and Strider sword, all of which were UC made too. I don't see why they wouldn't Only 10 people can even afford $10000 swords. [/quote]

I was referring to the new prop replica line Weta is going to being doing for the Hobbit not the ultra high end MSSC line.

Woah, I missed something. Weta is going to do a replica line? I thought those all said MSSC

They are painted Urethane props, the same as what they used on set.

Well, this is going to get tricky with 2 companies doing props. I was kind of hoping Weta would only do props such as maps, books, rings, etc and let UC do the weapons. I guess we'll all have to wait and see who produces what and sort out the rest with our wallets.

[quote=""N2darkness""]Well, this is going to get tricky with 2 companies doing props. I was kind of hoping Weta would only do props such as maps, books, rings, etc and let UC do the weapons. I guess we'll all have to wait and see who produces what and sort out the rest with our wallets.[/quote]

They could still do those things. I e xp ect that the Weta replicas will be more e xp ensive than UCs. still, I look forward to seeing what both companies have to offer, but I'll probably buy more from UC.

Whoa! This is news to me too, and I don't necessarily consider it good news, to be honest.

Unless Weta only puts out prop replicas of weapons that they don't license to UC, we are going to start seeing quite a few doubles of stuff. It will almost be like the old days when UC and Noble were making the same swords. I would much rather Weta stick to what they do currently: sculptures and the MSSC line. This is only going to muddy the waters and undercut much of UC's business, which is never a good thing.

The main issue is that most collectors would lean toward UC's replicas first because they will be (mostly) made from more solid materials. However, many of the past UC LOTR replicas had some small changes made to them for a variety of reasons which ultimately resulted in a final product that was not 100% faithful to the original. With Weta being the source and casting these things from urethane, you can bet they will be just like the originals. Therefore, those of us who are sticklers for detail and don't care about whether something hanging on the wall is metal or plastic might just give their money to Weta instead of UC.

I totally agree with you Val, it's all going to depend on how much money and space you have. I'm mostly after swords and Gandalf's staff. Some of the hammers and axes look pretty big, but if Sauron's mace gets made it there somewhere I'm definitely in.

For me, if retail price is similar, I'll probably go with Weta because they actually have everything there at their finger tips. I would assume their reproductions will be closer. Now, if they start making the swords out of aluminum and then charging $500+ each, then UC is more my cup of tea!

if they have the nerve to pall that garbage ill personally fly to new zealand and beat them with it myself. But i do have faith that they will be good.

I wonder if the urethane replicas could be used? They should be usable as its the stuff they make their stunt swords from in the movies. But yeh like I said, i'll probably buy more stuff from UC than Weta. Not that I don't like Weta's stuff, its beautiful. But I prefer actual metals or more solid materials like Val said.

Again if you want that grade of stuff pm me and ill give you the guys name and info that i use hes awesome and there functional whether its steel or resin.

I didnt even know WETA was considering making prop replicas... guess I dont pay enough attention around here!

[quote=""BladeCollector""]I didnt even know WETA was considering making prop replicas... guess I dont pay enough attention around here![/quote]

I think it caught all of us by surprise. I must confess I'm really aprehensive about this. More choice isn't necessarily a good thing sometimes.

Are the replicas announced pertaining to mass-produced items or the limited items produced by Peter Lyon? (I assume they're mass-produced but wanted to be sure.)

[quote=""MorgulMike""]Are the replicas announced pertaining to mass-produced items or the limited items produced by Peter Lyon? (I assume they're mass-produced but wanted to be sure.)[/quote]

Kit seems to be implying that these are not the limited items we've seen so far (the MSSC line,) otherwise why would they be made out of urethane???

It's been on there web page for a while now I wasn't sure what all it entailed. Here is link to the official announcement.

http://www.wetanz.com/the-hobbit-an-une xp ected-journey-collectibles-partnership-announcement/

I guess we know now. This would be great for those things that are not in UC's field of e xp ertise, but I'm not so keen on having two companies suddenly producing the same items.

Hopefully it is only going to be replicas that UC doesn't make so there won't be any doubles, etc.