I apologize for the tardiness of my review. Work has been exceptionally busy, and the regional tournament schedule has rendered testing somewhat challenging. This week, I got (yet another) injury. The Arche is next on my testing schedule.

Thank you to Nexy for the opportunity to evaluate the Arche blade and Arg0 for organizing this test. I apologize for the tardiness of this review. 

Background:  I am 41 yr old with a spin-offensive FH style who uses short pips in my BH. My USATT rating at the time of testing was 2180. 

Introduction: According to Nexy’s marketing material, which can be found here ( http://nexyttstore.com/blade/534-arche.html" rel="nofollow - http://nexyttstore.com/blade/534-arche.html ) and includes high-quality images of the blade, the 7-ply Arche is described as a more powerful version of the Kim Jung Hoon blade, which is sold under the Tibhar brand name. The Nexy Arche is unusual in the sense that it is a combination blade, i.e., it has a asymmetric veneer composition. The FH side has been optimized for “power and drag” producing a long trajectory with a high arc, whereas the BH side has been optimized for “technique and control”.

Unboxing: https://youtu.be/qs4BjMAMsZ4" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/qs4BjMAMsZ4

The blade comes in Nexy’s standard black box which has red, green and white secondary colors. The packaging is simple, elegant and does a fully adequate job at protecting the blade. On one hand, the blade has a rustic ‘woody’ look to it due to the nature of the surface plies, whereas the handle - with its dark grey primary color and red and white secondary colors, silver tag on the FH side and bottom of the handle, and Nexy’s signature ‘jewel’ - gives it a more modern look. The styles mesh well together in my opinion. The brown surface wood on the FH side of the Arche appears to be of the same type that was used for Nexy’s Rubicon blade (which has been suggested to be Lati), whereas the white surface wood on the BH side looks like white ash. The ‘lati’ ply looks fragile with visible irregular channels in the vertical direction, while the BH top ply has longer and more uniform channels. Nonetheless, the playing surfaces feel smooth and the build quality of the Nexy Arche appears to be very good. The FL handle rested comfortably in my relatively large hands, but is not nearly as embracing as Rubicon’s wide straight (WST) grip . The wings have been slightly sanded for comfort.

The Nexy Arche is a 7-ply all-wood which is a blade type that I have used and tested extensively in recent months. Unfortunately, Nexy does not provide information about the composition of the individual plies, but if I were to guess I would say that the medium-thick core is burnt kiri, which is followed by thin ayous and/or limba layers, and very thin surface plies (lati and white ash for FH and BH, respectively).

The Arche has a head size of 157 x 150 mm and thickness of 5.9 mm. My specimen weighed 85 g. Bouncing a ball on either side of the naked blade produced a pitch that is lower than that of a Tibhar Samsonov Force Pro Black Edition, but higher than that of a DHS Hurricane Long 3 (1378, 1356 and 1324 Hz, respectively).

Testing procedure: I started out by sealing the Nexy Arche with two thin layers of Joola’s Blade Sealing Varnish ( https://www.megaspin.net/store/default.asp?pid=j-sealing-varnish" rel="nofollow - https://www.megaspin.net/store/default.asp?pid=j-sealing-varnish ) as I was concerned about potential splintering (I did not experience any splintering when peeling rubbers off subsequently). I attached well-used sheets of commercial DHS Hurricane 3 Neo (2.15 mm, black) and Spinlord Waran II (2.0 mm, red) short pips on the FH and BH side, respectively, using the Revolution 3 normal viscosity glue. I evaluated the set-up over ~2 sessions, playing a mix of simple drills and matches against my regular practice partners using the DHS 3* 40+ plastic balls. I also evaluated the ‘reverse setup’ in which the H3 Neo was placed on the (white) BH side and the Waran II was on the (brown) FH side around for a session.

Playing impressions: I started with the regular setup, i.e., H3N on the brown side and the Waran II short pips on the white side. FH drives feel crisp, even with the H3N, which normally does not promote this type of feeling. Harder FH drives produce the type of cracking sensation that is consider typical of a burnt kiri core. Contrary to the marketing material (i.e., “drag”), I would characterize the dwell time on the FH side as no more than average. The blade is relatively fast (OFF/OFF- interphase) and the ball pings off relatively quickly. The feeling on BH drives was softer and dwellier, producing a rather long trajectory, which are characteristics that do not fit too well with short pips. FH looping against blocks produces a well-defined contact point, which helped me adjust the bat angle for improved consistency. For the same reason, I also found it easy to FH loop against heavy backspin. The ball has sufficient clearance over the net and a good amount of spin is produced. FH blocking is pleasant again because the contact point is felt clearly. Having played with thicker 7-ply all-wood blades in the recent months, however, it is evident that the Arche is thinner and less capable of fully absorbing incoming energy, especially on BH blocks. Given this, and the soft feeling of the surface veneer, I had difficulties producing consistent BH blocks against very high-quality loops. FH flat hits are delightful to play and rather fast, whereas the characteristics of the BH side lend themselves more towards looping than smashing. Both sides work well in the short game, on serve receives, and for serving. Nothing unusual in either direction.

The reverse setup, i.e., with H3N on the white side and the Waran II short pips on the brown side, produced results that are consistent with (but inverse relative to) my observations with the normal setup. That is, the contact point when using the H3N is softer and less well-defined, resulting in longer trajectories and slightly higher spin levels when looping. However, I prefer clearly define contact points and my consistency decreases whenever that is not the case. BH drives, flat hits and blocks, on the other hand, felt crisp and allowed for precise placement of the ball.

Hands down, I prefer the brown side of the Arche for the direct sensation that it provides and I would have loved to try out the corresponding blade with symmetric veneer composition. My guess is such a blade would feel quite similar to one of the blades from Andro’s old Temper Tech series – probably the OFF with Walnut outers – which has been a recurring favorite of mine.

So, who would enjoy this blade? I think pronounced two-winged loopers using Tenergy or ESN rubbers would enjoy it in reverse orientation (brown in FH, white in FH) as the FH side provides power and precise contact, whereas the softer feeling and longer trajectory of the white side might off-set the lower power levels that normally can be imparted on BH shots. In addition, those players who like white ash outer plies on the FH side (Nittaku Violin; ITC Premier XF/XR) and who uses lower throw rubbers or even short pips in BH, will also like this rubber. The Nexy Arche, being a Hurricane FH and short pips BH player, simply does not suit me.   

First of all, I would like to thank Nexy for giving me an opportunity to test Arche, and for providing it to me for free. Also, my apologies for taking so long to write a review - I don't want to give excuses, because they would be lame, or I'd have to lie :^)

Background on me:

I’m a “decent-level” all-round two-wing attacking player (slightly biased towards backhand), who relies mostly on ball placement and spin variation, rather than on power or heavy spin to win points. Since December 2017, my primary blade is Xiom Vega Euro, and I have Nexy Oscar as a backup blade (perhaps because my dog's name is Oscar, LOL).  Prior to switching to Vega Euro, I played with Nexy Calix II for almost two years, until I broke it last fall.  My primary BH rubber for the past two years has been Nexy Karis M. I’ve been experimenting a little bit with FH rubbers – currently using Tibhar Aurus Prime.

Specs and general characteristics:

Flared handle, 82 grams, 7-ply (outer ply on FH and BH are different)

Speed: OFF-/OFF

Flex: Average – Even though it’s a 7-ply blade, it’s relatively thin, so it has more flex than many prototypical 7-ply blades, e.g. Stiga Clipper

Superficial impression:

The blade looks nice to me, but I won’t elaborate on the look, since it’s very subjective and anyone can see it in the picture, or on the packaging, as it doesn’t matter to me that much, and it’s irrelevant to how the blade plays. The blade appears to be very well made, as is the case with all the Nexy blades I’ve had direct contact with.

FL handle is very comfortable, probably the most comfortable FL handle I’ve ever used out of the box, which is helped by the fact that the wigs are slightly rounded and don’t have sharp edges.  Please note that I prefer above average thickness of handles, so people who like very thin handles might not like it as much as I do.

Playing impressions:

I used the blade for several practice sessions with, and in practice matches against, players in 2000-2350 USATT range. Using Arche didn't noticeably improve or worsen my game and practice performance. 

The feeling of BH and FH side is distinctly different, even with the same rubber on both sides.  FH feels harder, faster, and has more rebound, especially on harder shots.  BH feels softer and more absorbing, but still plenty fast for most players, IMO.  To me, the overall feel of the blade was more like a 5-ply (on a harder side) all-wood blade, or a thin carbon/composite blade (e.g. Calix II), than a typical 7-ply blade I’ve used in the past (e.g. Clipper, Kong Linghui Euro)

Stroke adjustments were easy for me, as the blade gave me great feedback and “feel” of the ball.

Short game -  Very predictable - easy to push, drop or flick.  BH banana flick was especially easy, perhaps because it’s a light blade with decent flex. 

Spin generation – Very easy on both sides, but especially on BH, since ball appears to “stick” to the blade a little longer.  Slower spinny shots close to the table were especially easy, as was mid-distance looping. Faster/harder loops obviously required much more effort (body rotation and weight transfer), since this blade isn’t designed to be a power/speed monster.

Blocking – FH block was slightly easier for me, probably because of the harder surface.  BH required more active blocking with some more forward motion, but once executed well it was very consistent and allowed for accurate placement, as the ball sits on the blade a little longer due to softer surface.

Power game – Looping away from the table and smashing are more than adequate for most players (assuming at least some body rotation and weight transfer), but these are not the key attributes of this blade, plus it’s a relatively light blade, so it's more suitable for mid-distance and at the table game.  If you are spending most of the time ripping the ball, it’s probably not a blade for you.

Control – Since it’s a moderately fast and predictable blade with very good feedback, most players will find it very controllable - perhaps except “short-pips hitters”.  I observed that I was able to noticeably extend the length of my rallies when using Arche.

Overall, I think that it’s a very nice blade that could be appreciated by a wide variety of offensive and all-round players at all skill levels, except those who have strong preference for very fast, powerful, heavy, or relatively stiff blades.

(For the folks who want details about playing level, here is more.  Unranked.  My serve and receive game is very weak.  

My looping and short game technique are much better than my playing level - I’m quite new to TT but my background in other racket sports has been helping me ask the right questions in improving my mechanics.

That said, my long term muscle memory for TT is weak, so the quality of my technique varies quite a bit with how much I have been playing on a given week.  I rely much more on short and mid term muscle memory than players with more experience.  So if I don’t play lots on a given week/month it needs to be built back up over a few hours. 

My background with musical instruments makes me particularly attentive to feel, sound, and very interested in blade construction.)

*****

With the blade: 40-60 hours (not sure).  

Rubbers: MX-S 1.9mm on both sides.

Weight: 83g.

*****

BOUNCE TEST OBSERVATION (And the issue of speed relative to other blades)

Frequency on bounce test: 1331hz

For reference, I get the following values on other blades:

• BBC Flashdrive (88g): 1402hz [Off-/Off 7 ply Koto outer / very thin carbon / 3 ply all-round type core.]  
• Donic OTC (84g) 1536hz   [Off/Off+ 7 ply Koto outer + ALC type blade. ]
• Xiom Offensive S (85g) 1404hz; (82g) 1293hz. [Off- 5 ply Limba/Ayous]  
• Stiga Allround Evolution (92g) 1134 [ALL+ 5 ply Limba/Ayous] 

• Sanwei Fextra (82g) 1325hz  [Off- 7 Ply Limba/Limba/Ayous-Ayous-Ayous (slight variation on Clipper style - limba under top, instead of ayous + slightly thinner (6.2mm or so))] 

On bounce test, this places it in the range of classic Off- (some would say off-/Off) 5 and 7 ply constructions.  

Among my blades - so from my own tests, with the same equipment  - that’s very close to the sanwei fextra. (Clipper style.)  Slightly above, and and slightly under my two Xiom Offensive S. (There is a broad range among these; based on my observations of similar blades, it seems like the faster 5 ply limba/ayous constructions often have a spread of as much as 100 hz to 200 hz for a same blade model.).  It’s slightly below my off-/off thin carbon outer BBC Flashdrive.  

It’s also about 200hz above the Stiga Allround Evo, and 200hz below the Donic OTC.

From tests run by others ( http://www.ttbla.de" rel="nofollow - Xiom Feel ZX3 (1335hz)

In other words, it’s a value very close to that of 

• Fast 5 ply wood blades
• Classic 7 ply wood blades
• The slower offensive carbon blades - usually inner layer carbon, but in some cases outer.

This style of bounce test doesn’t give a very thorough picture of what’s going on, and has notorious flaws.  But it’s generally thought to give helpful clues about what to expect about a blade’s speed, especially compared to other blades of a similar speed class, and roughly similar construction.  (There are quirks comparing 1 ply wood blades and 5+2 wood/carbon.  Likewise for defensive, spin reversal blades vs offense oriented blades.  There are also some outliers.  But in many cases there’s quite a bit of overlap in the speed of blades that have very close values on the bounce test.)

I’m going into details about the bounce test to highlight the following: going through the above reviews, and based on my experience, it seems to me like other people quite consistently rate the blade’s speed in the territory of fast 5-7 ply wood blades (fast, but not the absolute fastest); and slower offensive carbon blades.  Which is exactly what the bounce test suggests.  

Make of this what you will, but if you are looking for something significantly faster or slower than the blades I just listed, you should probably stay away from Arche.

*****

Overall play impressions:

I found the blade extremely easy to adjust to coming from Off-/Off blades, some with hard outer plies and carbon underneath (BBC Flashdrive), some all wood with softish outer plies (Xiom OFF S, Fextra, etc.)

To me, the sweet spot feels wider than the classic 5 ply wood blades I’ve used, but not quite as wide as my outer layer carbon blades. But unlike some of the faster blades I have used, (Donic OTC especially, to a lesser extent BBC Flashdrive) the speed of the Arche never seems to cause issues with control.

It also has great stability under pressure, and very predictable behavior at different speeds. (For me, the BH side seems a little bit better than the forehand on these points.  But both are great.) 

 IMO that’s a very, very nice spot for a blade.

******

Feel Vs Other Blades:

Very vivid feel.  I seem to get as much information on ball impact (location and depth) as with my most responsive 5 ply wood blades (Allround Evo and Offensive S).  Much, much more than with my more muted feeling blades (Donic OTC and Fextra).  Still more than my BBC Flashdrive, which is extremely vivid and responsive for a 5 + 2 blade.

To get as good a feel as responsive 5 ply wood blades, but with a wider sweet spot is very impressive.

To me, blades with soft feeling outer plies tend to grab the ball better than very crisp, hard feeling outer plies.  But high grab, soft feeling outer ply blades can sometimes feel a bit cushy/pillowy to me: giving less information about contact depth and location than I prefer, and feeling like there is sometimes a looser connection between what I’m doing with my body, how the ball feels on the blade, and what the ball does upon leaving the blade.  To me the high grab, but very crisp feel of Arche sits in a fantastic spot on this issue too.

******

Feel differences between the two sides.  

As many have pointed out, there is a noticeable difference in feel between the two sides.  You can tell from the first shots you make with the blade.  And having let others play with the blade, it doesn’t seem to take any special effort or skillset to notice.  Feel-wise, it’s a lot like using two slightly different rubbers on each side of a symmetric blade. (In terms of behavior, I find the two sides of the Arche to be closer than many rubber combos people feel happy to use, while still being noticeably different.)

To me the biggest feel difference between the two sides can be put in terms of ball grab and crispness.  The FH side feels like it embraces the ball a bit more, so more grab, but it also feels a tiny bit more cushy.  The BH side feels like it has a bit less grab, while being less cushy.  To be honest, Mr. Moon’s description in the designer notes seems like the best way to describe the difference in feel to me: there is a bit more of a point feel to the way the bh grabs the ball, and a bit more of a plane feel to the way the fh grabs the ball.  (Where the point gives a bit more info on location, but the plane embraces the ball a bit more.)  However, both sides still grab the ball very well while having more than enough crispness.  

I tried flipping the blade around (I use the same rubber on both sides), but for my money it works best as designed.  Unlike some other reviewers, I can’t say I would prefer the blade with either 2x ash sides, or 2x lati/wenge/mystery wood sides.  I am sure I would still love those too, but the asymmetric design works great for me.

As noted in previous reviews, thanks to Nexy for providing the test blade and ArGo for organising the test rota.

I received the blade two weeks ago and have been using it since, totaling about 6 hours play. 

I’ll skip the composition details as they’ve been covered in other reviews and skip straight to the review of the playing characteristics.

Firstly, a word about my style and current setup. I have returned to using—after using the Dr. N Matador for 2 yrs—a Nexy Labyrinthos Combo blade with Tibhar Grass DTecs OX on the BH and Tenergy 05 max on the FH. I play a close to the table long pips blocking, FH attacking game. I play in the 1^st Div. of the Dublin regional league where I win roughly 50% of my matches. This sounds better, likely, than it is as we rotate our team’s players based on who we’re playing etc. and I’ve had the same drop in form when using the ABS balls as every other pips/anti user but hey, them’s the breaks…  

So, with that out of the way, I was eager to give the Arche a try as a combo blade user and a lover of Nexy blades generally. I also thought that my perspective might be somewhat unique in that I would be testing the blade with LPs on the BH side.

The FH:

Pros: The FH side of the Arche is a close-to-the-table looper’s dream and reminded me very much of my memories of the Stiga Offensive Classic I used for many years though with maybe a bit faster, bigger, truer, sweetspot. The throw angle with Tenergy is medium high/high—T05 having a high throw itself—and the dwell is lovely and long. There is a real sense of high spin-control about this set-up and a real feeling of ‘this is a top end all-wood blade’ about the Arche FH. The speed is in the All+/Off- level, I would say, but the FH of the Arche is noteworthy for its linear control. You feel you can put the ball exactly where you want no matter how hard you swing, provided you’re relatively close to the table. You get loads of control and spin on serves, much more than with something as hard and crisp and carbony as the Labyrinthos I use now. It’s no speed demon but if you win the bulk of your points with spin, Arche is ideal.

Cons: No real cons, though you won’t be playing massive counter loops from 20 feet off the table with the Arche. It has decent power close up and from medium distance but after that, you’re gonna want something heavier or with carbon. This ain’t no con, man, it just is what it is! The headsize is somewhat smaller than I’m used to, and might do with being a tad bigger if Nexy intends to tap into the LP/anti user market—which I highly recommend, more anon—but that’s probably just me, used to the Labyrinthos.

Oh yeah, there is a major con, to do with the handle—and the ST handle is brilliant in the hand as you’d expect of a Nexy which makes this all the more…connish!  What is up with that stupid, plastic, pale blue diamond thingy on the bottom of the FH side of the handle just under the lens? I mean really… It’s bothersome when you feel it—which is not often, admittedly—when you are playing standard FH shots etc. but when you do feel it, twiddling or on certain serves? Totally annoying. Like a bad tooth. It also looks like someone robbed it from a Barbie vajazzle set and stuck it on with Gorilla glue for laughs. If the blade was mine and not a tester, it’d be plucked out like an unopened mussel from a plate of pasta pescatore!

And now back to the love-in that this review is meant to be…

The BH:

Pros: This is where the Arche really shined for me. The backhand had a lovely soft yet stiff, crisp—you get me?—feeling under the OX LPs, giving blocks a nice, linear trajectory. Again, the DTecs is known for this but the blade has a bearing on it too, and the Arche delivers really good backspin off incoming loops. But what’s more, and what makes this the ideal blade for LP users, is how, despite the crisp feel, there is a dampening effect to the Arche BH which I normally associate with balsa. Now, the Arche does not feel like a balsa blocking blade at all. It has far more control and lacks the punch balsa gives when it is engaged offensively. But I would really recommend this blade to the LP user who does not like balsa and prefers controlled blocking and pushing over offensive pip use. I would imagine it would be great under frictionless antispin as well which does not work at all under balsa. It is a light-ish/mid-weight blade—around 80-85 grams—so again, perfect for close to the table blocking. Some other reviews have mentioned the Arche feeling head-heavy but with the LPs it was not the case at all and felt perfectly balanced.

Cons: Can’t really come up with any. Again, if you’re used to balsa, as I am, it won’t feel/be quite as dangerous as a snappy/full-blown-balsa-blocker-blade but you will land a hell of a lot more of your blocks.  

Overall: The Arche works really well as a Combo blade. The FH loops lovely and the BH blocks with great control and feeling. Topnotch construction and performance. Highly recommended for LP/Antispin users who also attack with their FHs and for those needing a tiny blue plastic diamond for...something? Anything?

And now for some of that pasta pescatera…