Other than Sting, those are not even real photos of the UC products. The tooling is not even complete on Orcrist yet, so there is nothing to photograph. Sometime around 11/1 is the date for everything official to go out. As I understand it, prelim Hobbit specs were made up to show to a few large distributors. Some new LOTR spec sheets were also to be sent out to all dealers of the current line up. Somehow UC's sales dept mistakenly sent all of them out together.

Well, that's quite a blunder. The only thing that has me worried is the pricing.

[quote=""SmithBlades.com""]I'm sure that it was voluntary. I think we all benefit from UC not breaking a contract (otherwise supply could be limited, prices could be higher, etc).

TO THE ADMIN, SOMEONE POSTED MY EMAIL TO MY NEWSLETTER GROUP ON UCFORUMS! PLEASE TAKE IT OFF![/quote]

Yep, back on page 57. Looks like that is one of the few places they are still posted. Almost every dealer site has taken them down.

The post has been removed now.

The blade length of Orcrist is totally wrong. It is noted as being approximately 2/3 of the total length. No way is that blade only twice the length of the hilt. I've seen the Master Swordsmith versipn in the Weta Cave in Wellington, the blade is offensively wide and imposing and certainly longer than is listed on that UC page. I know they are different versions but they should be the same size.

[quote=""ElendilTheShort""]The blade length of Orcrist is totally wrong. It is noted as being approximately 2/3 of the total length. No way is that blade only twice the length of the hilt. I've seen the Master Swordsmith versipn in the Weta Cave in Wellington, the blade is offensively wide and imposing and certainly longer than is listed on that UC page. I know they are different versions but they should be the same size.[/quote]

It could be that the Orcrist in the weta cave display is the over sized version that was used by Richard Armitage during filming. United Cutlery created all the replicas in the correct scale they would be to us as humans, so the Orcrist replica they are producing will be smaller.

Possibly, but it did look about 38" and there is still no way the overall length/blade length proportions on the UC page are right.

PS the Master Swordsmith line also includes the scabbard. As they are extremely limited editions I would imagine the sword and scabbard are sold together by default and not separately. For any one who wants to see my photos of this and other weapons from The Hobbit go to TORN and under the Gaming & Collecting Thread sub heading, I started a thread called "Weta Cave Hobbit Goodies".

[quote=""ElendilTheShort""]Possibly, but it did look about 38" and there is still no way the overall length/blade length proportions on the UC page are right.

PS the Master Swordsmith line also includes the scabbard. As they are extremely limited editions I would imagine the sword and scabbard are sold together by default and not separately. For any one who wants to see my photos of this and other weapons from The Hobbit go to TORN and under the Gaming & Collecting Thread sub heading, I started a thread called "Weta Cave Hobbit Goodies".[/quote]

I did also think the measurements were wrong when the specs were released, the handle seems way to long. However, UC also published the wrong measurements when they released the Witchking's dagger, so it may be another typo

I think the point Elendil is trying to make is that even if this is the scaled down version, it should still be TO SCALE. I only took a look before at the Overall length and like the fact that it was about the size of my one handed Robin Hood sword. But now that you mention the blade length, that is crazy small! It seems to me that the blade should be about 31-32 inches with a 6-7 inch handle.

But as Kit said, the pictures aren't even right because tooling hasn't finished yet, so I would imagine the lengths are wrong too.

[quote=""ElendilTheShort""]Possibly, but it did look about 38" and there is still no way the overall length/blade length proportions on the UC page are right.

PS the Master Swordsmith line also includes the scabbard. As they are extremely limited editions I would imagine the sword and scabbard are sold together by default and not separately. For any one who wants to see my photos of this and other weapons from The Hobbit go to TORN and under the Gaming & Collecting Thread sub heading, I started a thread called "Weta Cave Hobbit Goodies".[/quote]

You still have to buy the scabbard, hombre, it doesn't come with the sword at that price point.

Fingolfin, sorry I meant the Master Swordsmith version made by Peter Lyon himself. They will sell for about US$10,000 as did the version of Anduril. The editions are limited to 10 for some but I think 25 for Sting.

[quote=""ElendilTheShort""]Fingolfin, sorry I meant the Master Swordsmith version made by Peter Lyon himself. They will sell for about US$10,000 as did the version of Anduril. The editions are limited to 10 for some but I think 25 for Sting.[/quote]
That sounds about right for the sword and scabbard, but I think ed209 paid $11,000 for MSSC Anduril, scabbard, & belt. So I'm thinking the price may be higher these years later.

Seems to me somewhere in this forum someone said Glamdring with both blue and white scabbards was $16,000.

Orcrist was the first one I knew of that they had done the scabbard for. Were the other scabbards also made by Weta/Peter Lyon or were they after market made by someone else?

[quote=""Thranduil""].....Seems to me somewhere in this forum someone said Glamdring with both blue and white scabbards was $16,000.[/quote]

Yes, I know the MSSC weapons are prohibitively e xp ensive for 99% of us here, but still, to see it spelled out...$16,000 for a sword and scabbard...$16,000...

(I paid about that much for my '06 Corolla....)

I know what you mean Deimos. I am green with envy of those who are in a position to buy them. It is the licensing that up's the cost. I wish the editions were bigger, they sell out in the blink of an eye, they could easily sell many more. I find it hard to justify the costs especially when I could get a historically correct sword and scabbard from arguably the worlds greatest medieval sword scholar and smith, Peter Johnsson, for less. This is not to disparge Peter Lyons, he is a world class smith in his own right and comes across as one of the nicest people I have ever traded emails with. It is only a comment on my own preference for historical swords, which Peter Lyon is also very very skilled at producing.

[quote=""ElendilTheShort""]Orcrist was the first one I knew of that they had done the scabbard for. Were the other scabbards also made by Weta/Peter Lyon or were they after market made by someone else?[/quote]

Yes, the scabbards for the MSSC line are made by Peter Lyon and Weta.

[quote=""Deimos""]Yes, I know the MSSC weapons are prohibitively e xp ensive for 99% of us here, but still, to see it spelled out...$16,000 for a sword and scabbard...$16,000...

(I paid about that much for my '06 Corolla....)[/quote]
That's for the sword, and both scabbards and belts.

[quote=""Thranduil""]That's for the sword, and both scabbards and belts.[/quote]

I am a sword lover like anyone here, but $16,000 for sword, scabbards, belts, and all, is still crazy e xp ensive for the vast majority of us and as much as I would love a MSSC sword, in the financial stage I am a I would rather spend 16,000 on a lot of things, or a car, or something along those lines than a sword.

[quote=""ElendilTheShort""]Fingolfin, sorry I meant the Master Swordsmith version made by Peter Lyon himself. They will sell for about US$10,000 as did the version of Anduril. The editions are limited to 10 for some but I think 25 for Sting.[/quote]

I know what you're talking about, the MSSC line. I'm very familiar with it. What I was saying is that the Scabbard doesn't come as part of the cost of the sword, you have to pay extra for it. And yes, scabbards and belts have been made for every MSSC sword, "by Peter Lyon himself", otherwise they wouldn't be MSSC lol.

[quote=""N2darkness""]Found a few more pics from SDCC






[/quote]

Umm, wow. I must say, I'm quite astonished. How silly of me to doubt Weta.

Orcrist is actually awesome, even though I must say the handle curves weirdly. Still not a party-pooper for me though.

I love being proven wrong in cases like this, I honestly thought that sword was going to look horrible...


I'm also very much intrigued by that dwarven sword, if you can even call it a sword. I'll be having my dirty hands all over that one if the replica looks half as authentic

EDIT: Apparantly my post was limited to 4 pictures, so I had to delete one. Suppose you could call that an near-authentic quote, hah.

EDIT(again lol): Ironically the picture I deleted was of the dwarven sword I mentioned above. I may or may not be intoxicated.

Lol nice to see you again, Darlak. I'm looking forward to Balin's sword thing as well, I just hope the prices aren't too crazy!

Darlak...Darlak....hmmmm, name is familiar....ohhh, that Darlak.
Yes, welcome back from wherever you were...thought maybe you got trampled by a herd of reindeer.

[quote=""Darlak""]Umm, wow. I must say, I'm quite astonished. How silly of me to doubt Weta.

Orcrist is actually awesome, even though I must say the handle curves weirdly. Still not a party-pooper for me though.

I love being proven wrong in cases like this, I honestly thought that sword was going to look horrible...[/quote]

It does look horrible (imo)..not going to get it (but I repeat myself ...ad nauseum )

[quote=""Darlak""] I'm also very much intrigued by that dwarven sword, if you can even call it a sword. I'll be having my dirty hands all over that one if the replica looks half as authentic

EDIT: Apparantly my post was limited to 4 pictures, so I had to delete one. Suppose you could call that an near-authentic quote, hah.

EDIT(again lol): Ironically the picture I deleted was of the dwarven sword I mentioned above. I may or may not be intoxicated.[/quote]

Darlak, can you re post that pic? I am curious about it.

[quote=""Deimos""]Darlak, can you re post that pic? I am curious about it.[/quote]

The pic is the one of Balin's sword/mace thingy-hybrid. I know you've seen it. It's farther back somewhere, along with the others he posted.

[quote=""Valkrist""]sword/mace thingy-hybrid.[/quote]
Still laughing

[quote=""Deimos""]Darlak...Darlak....hmmmm, name is familiar....ohhh, that Darlak.
Yes, welcome back from wherever you were...thought maybe you got trampled by a herd of reindeer.[/quote]

Werewolves.



As for Orcrist, the main thing that made me change my opinion was the ridge going down the flat of the blade. See, I was e xp ecting a cleaver-like flat slab of metal, but the ridge, together with the runes, brings a certain, how should I put it, finesse, to it. I'm also quite pleased with the wood on the handle and scabbard, I just hope the scabbard will make production.

Like last time, I'm slightly animated, so I apologize beforehand for any inconsistencies and grammatical errors.

[quote=""Darlak""] I'm also quite pleased with the wood on the handle and scabbard, I just hope the scabbard will make production..[/quote]

You definitely missed the part that the handle is NOT wood. It is a "Dragon's Tooth."

They moved the history around in the Silmarillion and put "Dragon's Tooth" inscription down the blade. The handle is supposed to represent some tooth of some Dragon. Plausible within the realm of the Silmarillion, but highly unlikely. So UC is making the handle out of some poly plastic/resin.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]You definitely missed the part that the handle is NOT wood. It is a "Dragon's Tooth."

They moved the history around in the Silmarillion and put "Dragon's Tooth" inscription down the blade. The handle is supposed to represent some tooth of some Dragon. Plausible within the realm of the Silmarillion, but highly unlikely. So UC is making the handle out of some poly plastic/resin.[/quote]

No, NO! aaagghhhh !!! Don't even go there, Rev, don't!
If you don't talk about it maybe it will go away....aaaggghhh!!!

[quote=""Valkrist""]The pic is the one of Balin's sword/mace thingy-hybrid. I know you've seen it. It's farther back somewhere, along with the others he posted.[/quote]

OK. Yep. After looking at the pic you posted I recognize it...
Well, I like the grip, anyway....

[quote=""Deimos""]No, NO! aaagghhhh !!! Don't even go there, Rev, don't!
If you don't talk about it maybe it will go away....aaaggghhh!!! [/quote]

The only way it is going away at this point is if we all rip off the resin and make custom wooden ones. Then we would all just have to never look at any promo pics or see the movies

I dunno, I can picture Thranduil replacing the handle on his Orcrist with mammoth tusk to get that real tooth look

[quote=""RevAnakin""]You definitely missed the part that the handle is NOT wood. It is a "Dragon's Tooth." [/quote]

Uhh whatever, Dragon's Tooth, with capital letters and everything. The point is that I like the way it looks.

[quote=""Darlak""]Uhh whatever, Dragon's Tooth, with capital letters and everything. The point is that I like the way it looks.[/quote]

Just making sure you knew. I sure as heck would have loved a regular wooden handle with a metal "spike" on the pommel and no off-the-wall runes on it. Either way, the capitalization was only included because Orcrist now has a new name "Dragon's Tooth."

A few better pix.

Looks great and can't wait to get mine. Question though, is the handle cast in the bone color or painted? Just asking to see how much variation there might be from run to run.

Mmmmmm....dat pommel.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]A few better pix.
[/quote]


Do you have any close ups of the scabbard? I have been trying to translate it for months.

Not that I can post. A scabbard has not officially even been announced. I have the full translation, but that will have to wait.

[quote=""N2darkness""]Looks great and can't wait to get mine. Question though, is the handle cast in the bone color or painted? Just asking to see how much variation there might be from run to run.[/quote]Cast in color and painted/weathered in the same colors as the prop.

I'm a little curious if the hilt on Orcrist is suppose to be highlighted in blue? On most of the pictures i could find they all were and I notice the UC version does not.



Kit may be able to answer this as he has seen the actual prop.

Edit: I guess there is a slight hint of it on the pictures Kit posted, but just not as pronounced as in the Weta prop.

Actually, it's more of a purple-blue hue. You can see it a bit in one of the photos I posted. It is very strong on the prop, but I backed it off a bit in the proto used for those photos. The amount of color is actually the only part of the sword yet to be finalized. I have one that is as strong as the prop color, but...TBD.

Thanks Kit! I like the more sold blue color, but an easy fix if it doesn't come out that way in production.

I think you can see it more in these shots.

I'm going with N2 on this one, 110%: the darker blue looks better, and is more accurate to the prop, which is always a massive plus for me.

Kit, if our opinions matter at all, please count our two votes.

I pre-ordered Orcrist this morning I had to get my parents to do it though as I'm having problems with my bank account. I was looking forward to being able to legally buy my first sword but at least its done and pre-ordered

Now to wait until February...

Oh and Kit i'm with Val and N2, I like the darker blue on the runes

It won't be that dark blue color you see in the pic N2Darkness posted above. That image has been color corrected so the whole image is shifted in the blue light range. I can't post pix of the prop I have, but you can see the actual color , or close to it, in the ComicCon pix.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Actually, it's more of a purple-blue hue. You can see it a bit in one of the photos I posted. It is very strong on the prop, but I backed it off a bit in the proto used for those photos. The amount of color is actually the only part of the sword yet to be finalized. I have one that is as strong as the prop color, but...TBD.[/quote]

Hi Kit, im not sure which orcrist prop you have, but I have seen some unreleased reference pictures of the orcrist and from what I can tell, the best way to describe the hilt is that it has a matte finish between the runes and the matte area has a slight grey gunmetal tone to it. It doesn't look purplish or bluish to me at all like the publicity pics showing Thorin holding the blade.

However, I have not seen the sword in person and digital pics can be deceiving due to monitor differences and colour perception differences.

My vote goes to screen accuracy whatever that may be, rather than choosing a colour scheme to fit in with what we may see in the movies or on digital photos.

We have tons of color corrected photo reference of what the actual prop color is, in addition to having an actual prop. It is like the image I posted above. My position will always be to replicate what will be seen on screen, and that's the direction UC wants as well.

They better make these things glow in the movie or I am gonna face-palm...

Hi Kit, new member here from Tennessee, near Smoky Mountain Knife Works. I have been collecting since United Cutlery first released their Lord of the Rings line- it all looked great behind the glass there at SMKW!
You may have already answered this question, but I have a Museum Collection Glamdring and Sting, and would like to know just how "functional" they are. I have tried researching their structural integrity online, and didn't find out much. Also, any plans for a Museum Collection Orcrist to complete the collection of the three blades?

Fully with you on that, Kit. After what happened with the Legolas Knives' handles, I think it is much more prudent to go with what you will see on screen rather than what the actual prop looks like in real life. People will always perceive that what is up on the screen must be what something should look like in their hand. That is often not the case and then people complain that the colour is off when it was just result of the cameras.

By the way, I'm moving a few of these posts to the Orcrist discussion thread.