Jump to content

Koto sword

Steffieeee

By Steffieeee
in Nihonto

 Share

Recommended Posts

Steffieeee Collaborator

Steffieeee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That's cool, so it could be any of those mentioned smiths? It's an education for me especially in regards to what I'm told on a subject I don't know much about, especially from the seller... Is there anything I can tell about the sword itself from the condition? As I mentioned the hamon? Is this typical for this period? This smith? Can anyone suggest a good book which covers early swords .. that isn't in Japanese...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ooitame Mentor

Ooitame

Posted
Posted

Interesting piece and good advice from all. Congratulations. I would have guessed 1450s easily from the start. But I am still learning. The photo ending in wa0006, is it possible to get a photo of the same (tip/kissaki) just a bit more focused if possible. Trying to get a good look at the boshi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rivkin Mentor

Rivkin

Posted
Posted

The curvature is very uniform, which is sort of weird for Oei swords, and also not too common in late Nambokucho, especially as there is no o-kissaki. And the length is unusually small for the early swords.

Both however do fit Sengaku.

At the same time the ha is thin suguha. Again, not something that was done in Oei period (very wide), there were some earlier examples like that, but it was done now and then in Sengaku.

 

A personal and erroneous guess.

 

Kirill R.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
paulb Grand Master

paulb

Posted
Posted

 Kirill

you may be right but I don't agree with your comments re: Oei Bizen, thin Suguha small kissaki. If you take a look at the link below which describes in some detail an Oei period Bizen blade with ko-kissaki and thin(ish) suguha hamon). The top Oei Bizen smiths were aiming to return to the quieter sugata and of the early Kamakura period following the excesses seen in the earlier Nambokucho.  

http://www.militaria.co.za/articles/Yasumitsu.pdf

 

I don't know what this is and the shape and condition are not offering too many clues. I agree it could be interesting but stress "could" I think there is a long way to go before it can be properly evaluated.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jussi Ekholm Veteran

Jussi Ekholm

Posted
Posted

This is a quote from NBTHK kantei for ubu Masamitsu tachi of 66 cm.

 

 

The blade has a normal mihaba, tapers noticeably, has a relative thick kasane, a deep koshizori which increases again towards the tip, and a chū-kissaki, That means we have a sugata which is typical for the late Nanbokuchō period, from about Eiwa (永和, 1375-1379) onwards.

 

Here are some dated short tachi (ubu or very near it) that I have recorded that show that it was indeed bit typical for some certain late Nanbokuchō Bizen smiths to make these small slender tachi. This trend was particulary strong in Kozori school. Of course these smiths also produced longer tachi of over 70 cm during the exactly same time. But the sudden emergence of these small tachi in large numbers supports the above quote.

 

Masamitsu - 1390 - 66,8 cm

Masamitsu - 1391 - 66,4 cm

Masamitsu - 1382 - 66,1 cm

Masamitsu - 1389 - 63,2 cm

Hidemitsu - 1383 - 65,0 cm

Hidemitsu - 1371 - 63,3 cm

Hidemitsu - 1386 - 62,8 cm

Nariie - 1381 - 66,6 cm

Nariie - 1381 - 60,4 cm

Sukeyoshi - 1391 - 62,4 cm

Moromitsu - 1401 - 67,0 cm

Moromitsu - 1394 - 67,0 cm

Moromitsu - 1394 - 66,3 cm

Moromitsu - 1392 - 65,6 cm

Moromitsu - 1387 - 65,5 cm

Moromitsu - 1399 - 62,6 cm

Moromitsu - 1381 - 61,3 cm

Moromitsu - 1385 - 60,3 cm

Yorimitsu - 1382 - 58,3 cm

Sadasue - 1381 - 65,4 cm

Iemori - 1404 - 63,4 cm

Iemori - 1377 - 62,0 cm

Ieshige - 1399 - 60,7 cm

 

Here is a link to a Kozori group tachi of 64,8 cm signed but not dated: https://www.e-sword.jp/katana/1910-1012.htm

Hidemitsu of 63,8 cm (not dated): https://www.aoijapan.net/katanabisyu-osa%e2%96%a1-hidemitsu/

 

Now to be clear I am not saying Kozori and the approx. age are correct but given the signature & size and shape that would be my first potential guess. I'd try to get into a meeting of UK based sword group where some people could see it in hand. Unfortunately condition is what it is. Depending on what the experienced folks think you might get it professionally restored.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steffieeee Collaborator

Steffieeee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Regardless of opinions on age and style my main interest is; is this a genuine blade from the period it's from. Is this not fake, or pretending to be something it's not.? I realise even this statement is not straight forward but coming from a background of non Japanese swords it should be meaningful

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paulb Grand Master

paulb

Posted
Posted

Steff,

Your blade is an authentic work. From what can be seen in it's current condition it is an older piece. I dont believe it is from the 1200s as you originally thought but I do think it is likely to be koto and pre 1450 (but without being able to see more detail that is still a bit of a guess) As suggested by Jussi I think your next best step is to come along to one of the meetings in the UK and let some people look at it with you (we can also explain some of the terminology a bit as well) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ken-Hawaii Grand Master

Ken-Hawaii

Posted
Posted

Hate to repeat what I & others have said, but if you don't understand the terminology, you should be spending a few dollars on reference books. If you're visually oriented, "The Sword of Japan," by Joseph Bott, is $16 well-spent on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Sword-Japan-Joseph-Bott/dp/1304242404/).

 

As Paul says, there are too many oddities to be precise, but your blade is more-likely early Muromachi than any earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
paulb Grand Master

paulb

Posted
Posted

As a basic guide the original shape is and indicator of age, the hada(grain pattern) indicates tradition and the hamon (hardenned edge) school and possibly smith.

As always it isnt quite that staightforward but it is a good starting point.

You are right to learn much more about your blade you would need to have it polished so the hada and hamon become more clearly visible. As a first step it might be worth having a "window" polished on a small section of the blade before committing to a full polish. It might give you an indication of both condition and origin. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rivkin Mentor

Rivkin

Posted
Posted

 Kirill

you may be right but I don't agree with your comments re: Oei Bizen, thin Suguha small kissaki. If you take a look at the link below which describes in some detail an Oei period Bizen blade with ko-kissaki and thin(ish) suguha hamon). The top Oei Bizen smiths were aiming to return to the quieter sugata and of the early Kamakura period following the excesses seen in the earlier Nambokucho.  

http://www.militaria.co.za/articles/Yasumitsu.pdf

 

I don't know what this is and the shape and condition are not offering too many clues. I agree it could be interesting but stress "could" I think there is a long way to go before it can be properly evaluated.

 

Paul, my comment on o-kissaki was with respect to late Nambokucho, with regards to Oei yes you are right - there were thin suguha blades, thank you for the correction, though I personally would be more comfortable with a slightly earlier date this being the case, but that's all highly secondary in nature.

My main concern here is that lets say there is no signature. Lets say one just looks at the overall shape. Does Oei or late Nambokucho come to mind? To me what comes to mind is a classic late Muromachi profile. A great fit for the period. If its Nambokucho to Oei - there are questions. For Oei - Its not koshizori, it has absolutely NO fumbari. And so on.

Yes, late Nambokucho short tachi is a possibility here, Mr. Ekholm did great work digging out the numbers.

Do I personally like the shape for it? Not particularly. Maybe some of it is due to photography angle.

 

Kirill R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steffieeee Collaborator

Steffieeee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So if it's late muromachi is there a problem with that? Wouldn't the signature support that? Or is there some fakery going on? As I said before I was sold it as a 13th century sword so I have my own axe to grind with a dealer, but if it's a 15th /16th century sword that's fair enough. Here are some hopefully clearer pics of the shape, pretty much directly overhead. Another discovery from these pictures is that my phone camera is clearly appalling

post-5171-0-47510800-1574712137_thumb.jpg

post-5171-0-77241300-1574712155_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steffieeee Collaborator

Steffieeee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So if the signature is 'mitsuhisa'.. I found 8 guys with that name from 1342-1469... 120 years span. Is there no better way of dating it? Although when I look again at ones in Bizen? That's 1342-68

 

Another question (please bear with me for being annoying) . Where can I get really good quality handle wrapping. The one I have is clearly some polyester hideous fabric and I would like to redo it with traditional natural fabric.

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...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...