Jump to content

What Is Your Opinion?


Jean

Recommended Posts

https://www.aoijapan.com/appraisal-quiz-433

 

It is an Aoe school blade, hada and dan utsuri indicate it, the fact that there is no more boshi indicates Ko Aoe but the koshi sori does not jump to the eye nor the ko kissaki. It is very difficult to understand the mei part in Tsuruta description, Aoe mei seems to have been tachi except for some smiths (opposit of Aoi Art description which seems to state the opposite).

 

http://www.nihonto.ca/aoe-tsugunao/

 

The kuri jiri nakago is what is called an Ichimonji nakago, no surprise as Aoe originated in Bizen. I would go to a Kamakura Aoe smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jean, Aoe are noted for having often signed katana-mei (contrary to what was typical at the time) but it's not an absolute and some Aoe smiths did signed tachi-mei. I own a Ko-Aoe (early Kamakura) with an illegible tachi-mei.

 

Best regards,

Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good question. It seems that the percentage is high enough (a majority is implied?) that this attribute is usually included as a known feature of Aoe swords. It does not seem surprising to me that Tsuruta-san would include that comment as a clue if he were hinting towards Aoe.

post-457-0-47238100-1491682495_thumb.jpg

post-457-0-88255900-1491683497_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I have understood from my reading Raymond but I wonder why Tsuruta san seems to say the Smith signing tachi mei is unique though there were several.

 

From Darcy:

 

"katana-mei: the Aoe smiths in the older periods tended to sign in two characters, and the character Tsugu (次) is commonly handed down through their lines going for centuries. During the Nanbokucho period many Aoe smiths began to sign on the opposite side of the blade to everyone else in Japan... this began earlier in the Heian period with one of the Yasutsugu group smiths and several other Aoe smiths signed on either side. What this means is now a subject for speculation only, but the best reason is given by one of Sato Kanzan's students in the Token Bijutsu."

 

Now Ko Aoe, Chu Aoe, sue Aoe?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jean

Dan Utsuri is an indicator of Chu and more typically Sue Aoe. Utsuri in ko-Aoe is usually described as jifu

I cant find the letter but some years ago I asked tanobe san about dan Utsuri and his reply stated it appeared late in the Kamakura period and more typically Nambokucho.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what is your answer Paul/Raymond?

 

Kamakura or Nambokucho

 

Kamakura: nakago jiri, boshi, hada

 

Nambokucho: utsuri, sugata

 

The mei question is left aside neither complete nor conclusive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kamakura, Ko-Aoe. I would like to research a bit more, but my initial feeling is Ko-Aoe Masatsune (Senoo), with a fallback to Ko-Aoe Moritsugu. I need to see if I can locate the Masatsune oshigata this reminds me of. Also note that both Moritsugu and Masatsune signed tachi-mei in contradiction to what is typical for their kei.

 

The way I understand the term Dan-utsuri refers to the utsuri being a layered combination of types, for example both bo utsuri and midare utsuri appearing in places on the same sword. While the utsuri pattern takes on more of a bo (straight) tone towards the habaki-moto, this is happening in the same area where the hamon seems to degrade and eventually fades out in a yaki-otoshi. My impression is that this was a continuous midare utsuri when the sword was healthy, and would not describe what I see as dan-utsuri. If anything that area at the habaki-moto seems have a more tsukare-utsuri as it is connected with tiredness in the sword.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing, Joe.  Gentlemen, I personally appreciate the time that you spent walking through your thought process.  During the last sword show in MSP, Chris Bowen walked be through his thought process as he picked up various blades, and I learned more in that day than I could a year on my own.

Much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Ray's description of Dan utsuri being a combination of midare and bo utsiri, more correctly suji utsuri (layers of bo-utsuri). The  pieces of information missing is whether the hamon is nie or nioi deki and whether there is a great deal of ji-nie. Both are present in ko Aoe and to a lesser extent Chu-Aoe but Sue Aoe is generally almost exclusively nioi deki and without ji-nie (always exceptions)

So based on what can be seen and incomplete information I would also go for Kamakura but later part, after 1300. Regarding Smith I would go with the most common Sadatsugu or Tsugunao but that really is getting in to guessing.

 

Edit:

Ok I have had a closer look at the images (perhaps that would have been a good start) I admit I am a bit confused by this.

IMHO the hada looks later than ko-Aoe it has a more open itame look than I have seen on the few ko-Aoe blades I have handled. It also lacks sumetetsu or at least I can only see one or two small patches. On a Ko-Aoe blade I would expect more. The slanting ashi tended to come in to Aoe work in the later part of the Kamakura and develop further in the Nambokucho. There is no boshi so the kissaki has been modified therefore does not necessarily reflect the original size or proportion. It may be the images (or my eyes) but I don't see much evidence of nie in either ji or hamon. If it were ko or chu-Aoe I would hope to see a lot more.

(BTW looking at the hada it has a lot in common with later Bizen itame rather than the examples of chirimen I have seen)

 

Based on the above I am still leaning toward nambokucho

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the start, I opted for Kamakura. I was totally on with Paul for late Kamakura. The sugata looked like one of this late period carrying on beginning of Nambokucho, the lack of fumbari and koshi sori target to this period.

 

But as Paul stated a lot of information are lacking on nie/nioi

 

Now, the pictures are very misleading. Judging a sugata you must hold the blade at arm length, the nakago perfectly vertical in order to judge the sori. Measurements given by Tsuruta san are uncomplete. The nakago has a sori and if you try to rotate the picture in order to have the nakago vertical, you will see there is a koshi sori which does not appear in Aoi Art pictures. This exercise is all the more important as the sword is ubu.

 

There is no fumbari at all. Moto haba and saki haba are almost equal.

 

BUT THE SORI is over 4 cm.

 

Few difference between moto haba and very deep sori = end of early Kamakura to Mid-Kamakura, I must revised my judgement

 

https://wiki.samurai-archives.com/images/9/91/Sugata_history2.gif

 

This blade is earlier and I would place it end of early Kamakura to mid-Kamakura

 

Should I place a name, I'll say Tsuguiye

 

But who knows ...:)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi jean

Thats an interesting analysis and may well be right. However generally I have an issue on making a judgement purely on shape. As said before shape can tell you how young it is not necessarily how old. Smiths such as Rai Kunitoshi and others were ,making blades of classic Heian sugata well in to the Kamakura and all other sword periods. The hada, hamon etc. tend to point away from earlier Aoe.

If it is early then I think it must be very early, falling alongside ko-Bizen and some early Sanjo work where the hada on all had something similar going on. But these early works all had a lot of nie and this blade doesn't seem to.

Think I may be digging myself in to a deep hole here but it is a useful exercise regardless of the end result! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How refreshing, really missed in depth debates such as this, frequently seen at one time, but I feel lacking of late.

Gives us students a chance, to research the terms used, and apply the information gained, to our own knowledge.

Gentlemen have at it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is way over my league to comment on differences on Aoe smiths I have enjoyed greatly about reading the discussions.

 

However I will have to point out that Aoi has again done the wrong unit conversion. My first thought was that the sori looks about 3 cm. Their Japanese site has measurement of 1 sun 5 rin which is c. 3,18 cm and not the stated 4,54 cm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In agreement with the comments above about the sugata. The grand shape with deep sori and the blade's width, with little difference between moto-haba and saki-haba, would point towards a date going into and during mid-Kamakura. I do feel that the moto-haba was wider originally, looking at how the hamon begins to narrow from the mid blade downwards, and the weariness to the jitetsu in that area.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeremiah,

 

For me, It is just a question of logic :)

 

Starting point: AOI Art kantei:

 

- it is interesting because:

 

- No boshi

- very big sori

- same hada all over the blade

- peculiar utsuri from the Oshigata

 

 

No boshi, special as to be the subject of Aoi Art weekly kantei session ====> big probability very old blade

 

Chirimen mentioned+The way the blade is signed====> Aoe school (3 second to check on the web)

Hada everywhere the same, old school. I have seen the first one like this on Andy Quirt's website Nihonto US - Senju'in tachi

 

After that: big sori and not a lot of difference between hamachi and mune machi, just google big sori and I got a confirmation of the period.

 

BUT, I knew from the start by the description it was an old Aoe blade. chirimen is the key word for this. Absence of Boshi and hada everywhere the same = very old sword (coupled with no boshi)

 

From my part, no special knowledge but just a logic mind. Ray and Paul are far more advanced than myself but I have learned a few things from my research :) that's the fun

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However can I throw one more problem in

If I was looking at the hada without Aoi's description I wouldn't describe it as chirimen

According to the NBTHK and other references Chirimen = crepe silk= combination of ko-itame/mokume with ji-nie and jifu. While this blade may have jifu the hada looks a lot more like the itame you see on older blades. Without the description and just based on the image I would first guess ko-Bizen or Hoki

(it is early on a Monday morning though!)

 

BTW Although I accept your description of using logic to determine your answer but you are being too modest, don't underplay your own knowledge and understanding. You would certainly be on my team in any contest and you have helped me a lot over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Paul that this mokume itame combination is not what I understand chirimen to be (eg beautifully illustrated in Darcy's photo archive). Perhaps the blade is too tired? Also the hamon is a bit perplexing (even though ko-Bizen or Hoki have wilder hamon with more ko-nie and with more concentric swirls in the main section of the blade and then calming down to more suguha in the monouchi area vs this one with the gunome?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice example. I will throw in that the kissaki is probably mostly fabricated at this point, everything moved way back to try to put some hamon on the edge. 

 

It has slanted ashi in it which I think would make it not so old but the rest of it looks old... Kissaki condition in particular. The kissaki that is on this I think might be entirely new. Yokote may be originally from where the hamon runs right off it. 

 

The blade is long but not so wide for its length, and the typical Nanbokucho Aoe blade is large. 

 

I think they have a typo in the width at the kissaki, they put 2.85cm and it is probably supposed to be 1.85cm, and the blade is more graceful.

 

When the photo is so big like this that it doesn't fit on some people's screens it's easy to get a mistaken feeling of the width to length. So I think all of these are pointing at an older Kamakura blade than a Nanbokucho blade.

 

Dan utsuri also may be a matter of the eyes of the person looking at the blade. 

 

Masatsune is a good name to use as they (there are 7, mostly Bizen) signed tachi mei. 

 

If it is attributed to Masatsune such a blade can possibly go Juyo in spite of the fatal flaw in the kissaki. But, I wouldn't bet on it. I did check Masatsune and this one is not a Juyo Masatsune unless it is last session. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O Hada in many places, JIfu Utsuri mixed in Midare , all this  points to Ko-Aoe  of the relativ  early Kamakura. Real Dan Utsuri would  point  to al later date as well as an true Chrimen would do. The hamon looks like  Kamakura Yamashrio style. Later Aoe  are more influenced by Bizen,  Even the  pretty large sumi points to an erlier blade.

The shape of the  blade seems  to  be  a little bit later, but we  knew all that smith like  Masatsune made  this shape in the early Kamakura.

Ichimonji with Kyo-Ashi and Sujikai yasurime ?

Therefore  I would think Ko-Aoe, early Kamakura.

 

Only my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice example. I will throw in that the kissaki is probably mostly fabricated at this point, everything moved way back to try to put some hamon on the edge.

 

It has slanted ashi in it which I think would make it not so old but the rest of it looks old... Kissaki condition in particular. The kissaki that is on this I think might be entirely new. Yokote may be originally from where the hamon runs right off it.

Darcy, this is super interesting. Can you walk us through your thought process here? How can you tell the kissaki is newly fabricated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Just to add to confusion can we consider this.

Aoi have jsut posted a Ko-mihara sword (another hugely underated school that I like a lot) It looks to be a good sword. In his description as he always does when talking about Mihara, he says it has beautful hada which is very smilar to Aoe. However if you compare it to the subject blade of this post which he describes as having chirimen hada (a term used almost exclusively for Aoe work) there appears to be absolutely nothing in common between them.

As said above I find the description on the quiz blade very strange. having spent many years looking closely at Aoe blades that have been described by the NBTHK as having classic chirimen hada this one does not fit the bill. The Ko-Mihara blade (link below) looks much closer.

https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-attributed-as-komihara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...