A couple of notes from my husband. The following words are all his, not mine: First, the overal shape of the model is very nice. I congratulate you. You did make one material error that is also made by a lot of antiquarians and museum curators. You made the ricasso part of the "hilt" material instead of part of the "blade" material. However, a good texture map can get around this detail. Unfortunately the model's proportions are not right for a rapier--they're more appropriate for a modern foil with an overly-short blade. I discovered this when I shrank it down to fit into the man's hand--the overall weapon was far too short, especially the blade. Furthermore, the blade is too narrow for this type of rapier. Ultra-narrow rapiers were more typical of the later Transitional era (which usually had a cup-style hilt). If you look at the diagram photo up top, a typical rapier would have the following length proportions: Section A: 12.3% Section B: 4.8% Section C: 82.9% Yes, the weapon has THAT MUCH length in its blade. The idea was to get the enemy as far away from you as you could manage. If he got in close, that was what the dagger or a good kick to the knees was for (or a slam with that stout pommel). The blade would have a width at its widest point roughly 1/2 the "B" distance. As for a "schlagger" weapon--The proper schlaeger uses a "scottish"-looking basket hilt and is used entirely for cutting, no thrusts at all. The fact that some hobbyist groups have mis-adapted it for what they call "rapier" in no way makes the practice schlaeger a good model for the rapier. Indeed, the practice schlaeger blade is actually too short and too light for accurate rapier representation. I am working on a set of poses from 16th-century rapier manuals and will have my wife make them available once I am finished. It may be a while, since they're fairly tricky to get just so. In short, a very good model, since it is only such specific fine details that I can criticize.