In the (silly) news: Excalibur FOUND! (Or not) :-P
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:12 am
Here is some cheerful (though frankly unbelievable) news... it's a little old (about 6 weeks old), but I just found it! 
Little girl finds King Arthur's sword in a lake *BWG*
Frankly, I find the whole thing rather implausible. First, the sword is four feet long, which is serious for a sword... I've seen swords this size for real and tried lifting them, and they are seriously heavy. However... this girl is just 7, but both she and her dad can lift the sword with no trouble. Er, what?!?
Secondly, she found the sword because (in her words) she noticed it "shining" under the water. Um... the real King Arthur, presuming that he existed, died at some point between 550 and 600 AD, so the sword (if it still exists) is a little over 1400 years old - so I doubt it would still be shiny, especially underwater.
Finally, that sword has no groove (i.e. this) or sharp edge. Swordsmiths would normally always introduce a groove in the sword to make it between 25% to 30% lighter, but without sacrificing its sharpness - and would always do so on both sides of the blade. I suppose that perhaps 1400 years underwater would have worn the groove away, but I don't know for sure.
So, to sum up: I'm not sure what that sword is doing there, but I really, REALLY doubt that it's Excalibur... sorry! What do you reckon?
Little girl finds King Arthur's sword in a lake *BWG*
Frankly, I find the whole thing rather implausible. First, the sword is four feet long, which is serious for a sword... I've seen swords this size for real and tried lifting them, and they are seriously heavy. However... this girl is just 7, but both she and her dad can lift the sword with no trouble. Er, what?!?
Secondly, she found the sword because (in her words) she noticed it "shining" under the water. Um... the real King Arthur, presuming that he existed, died at some point between 550 and 600 AD, so the sword (if it still exists) is a little over 1400 years old - so I doubt it would still be shiny, especially underwater.
Finally, that sword has no groove (i.e. this) or sharp edge. Swordsmiths would normally always introduce a groove in the sword to make it between 25% to 30% lighter, but without sacrificing its sharpness - and would always do so on both sides of the blade. I suppose that perhaps 1400 years underwater would have worn the groove away, but I don't know for sure.
So, to sum up: I'm not sure what that sword is doing there, but I really, REALLY doubt that it's Excalibur... sorry!
What do you reckon?