Shinsakuto or iaito?

[FBJ]

Yes...Tanto usually have no separate core as well....

 

Not my quote.

[Bruno]

You are right Mike about the quote, do not know what happened.

 

I agree with you about being carefull regarding correct terminology, it is just that I am terrible for that!

[kusunokimasahige]

Mike, you completely leave out the word shinsakuto in your list.

 

KM

[FBJ]

Mike, you completely leave out the word shinsakuto in your list.

 

Suppose so, but that's potentially a whole other can of worms there. I was going for broad categories of Japanese and Japanese-styled swords regardless of their age -- traditional swords, swords intended for batto/iaido and imitation or display swords and how those definitions combine depending on how they're used (or not).

 

I'm not sure how the Japanese use the term, and whether or not they are inclined to extend it beyond the commonly accepted definition of the term being a newly created sword by traditional methods; i.e., a present day nihonto. If the term is used literally, I feel it could refer to any sword that's fresh off the press -- traditional or otherwise, possibly even Japanese or otherwise. I say "Japanese or otherwise" because I have heard some Japanese refer to western swords as shinken as long as have an edge and are capable of cutting. For example.

 

If the definition is that of a newly created nihonto, then I figure we can substitute all my nihonto entries on my list with shinsakuto, as long as I enter at least one or more other categories (gendaito, koto, shinto, etc.) to differentiate the ages of nihonto. It would become a spider's nest at that point to be sure.

[george trotter]

Bruno san,

you started a very interesting thread here...we have learned a lot (I think)...luckily for me I stop at 1945 so "only" have seki and showa stamps, mantetsuto, gunsuito?, non-tamahagane blades by Yoshichika II , Minamoto Kaneharu etc etc to weed out to be sure I have a good gendaito (thank the lord for books and star stamps haha).

Generally speaking, this thread does not relate to my collecting, except that on a number of occasions in sword shops in Japan when I asked about RJT smith swords, I occasionally got the response, "haven't got one by him, but we have one by his son/nephew" etc, etc. I am presuming that as these next generation blades were being sold in "proper Token Ya", they would be shinsakuto (if that's the agreed term)...they would not be the lesser level blades? (I know the price tag would indicate this, but as I am not into post-war swords I only gave them a polite glance and didn't register price etc).

Regards,

[Eric H]

I'm not sure how the Japanese use the term

 

The term Shinsakuto has been explained in this thread several times.

 

Swords produced after the end of the Shinshinto era are generally known as gendaito, but it seems inappropriate to group the blades of prewar and postwar smiths into the same category. Some postwar smiths have already produced masterpieces which are fully equal of Shinto and Shinshinto.

 

Sword production finally resumed in 1953 after the Agency for Cultural Affairs authorized qualified smiths. Thus the Japanese sword formally joined the field of arts and craft. This was of momentous significance for those smiths who had been unable to work in the immediate postwar years. The first swordmaking contest was held in 1955, and the blades entered were exhibited at the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum. This event is now widely known as the Shinsaku Meitoten, and is held annually in a department store in Tokyo. (The Connoisseurs book of Japanese Swords).

Generally Tanto are made by using kawagane only, i.e. muku-gitae.

 

I don‘t know if „longer swords“ have even been made in muku-gitae, but it‘s very unlikely, the great achievement of the Nihonto is its construction, a soft core iron surrounded by much harder skin steel, with a tempered edge, slightly curved and with ridge lines. It is said that this form of shape started in the latter Heian period. These are the unique features of the Nihonto which make it unrivaled in the world.

 

Eric

[cabowen]

I refer you to the Nihonto Koza, "Nihon-to no Oku" (Secrets of the Japanese Sword) volume, written by Sato Tomitarou, published in Showa 9:

 

「日本刀講座、日本刀の秘奥、佐藤富太郎」

 

On page 122 he states that maru-gitae (one piece construction) was used by Ko-Bizen Ichimonji at the beginning, by Awataguchi, and by Rai school. He also related information from Taikei Naotane concerning the use of maru-gitae by shinto and shinshinto smiths (was reported to be used by quite a few smiths). He states that, using san mai gitae, it could take a smith 7 or 8 days to make a blade, but as many as 20 days to a month to make one with great care. Then, he mentions that in the old days (without machines or a lot of help), it could take as long as 2 or 3 months. Using maru-gitae allowed smiths to greatly increase their production. Records indicate that Tsuda Sukehiro, for example, made 1670 swords in his working lifetime of 23 years, which averages out to a steady 6 swords per month, every month, for 23 years. The inference being it would be impossible to make that many swords unless they were made by maru-gitae.

 

He included a sectioned micrograph from a blade by Rai Kunitoshi that shows it is made of one piece....I have reproduced this below...

 

If you have any references to indicate otherwise, I would be interested in seeing them....

 

This book is a treasure trove of info on the making of swords. The first section contains experiments conducted with Horii Toshihide and has many interesting pictures of Horii and their experiments....

[Eric H]

It‘s a handicap not to have those books you refer to. The most impressive output of swords by Tsuda Sukehiro during his life time, sounds like an industrial fabrication and suspects that a large number was made by maru-gitae? Maybe. In that case, for the whole blade, tamahagane has been used, a very precious material...on one side a remarkable saving of time, maybe, on the other side the waste of the precious tamahagane.

 

A good sword should not bend or break and should cut well. This goal has been solved since old times by using a construction of to different steels, soft and hard, and despite the ultra-hard edge with a certain flexibility.

 

That said, how are the technical aspects of a long sword made of a single steel?...when used in combat...breakage, flexibility?

 

The only references I have is the convincing fact, that the Nihonto generally during centuries till today was made in the described construction, based on the experience of generations of swordsmiths.

 

In general the higher qualtiy swords have a more complicated construction.

 

Eric

[Bruno]

Very interesting Chris. Until yesterday I thought sunobeto were only showato.

 

I have been PMed by a member and he sent me interesting additional infos about the topic, I hope he will dare to share directly here what he shared with me.

[John A Stuart]

Hi Eric, differential hardening is the major criteria whether monosteel or heterogenous laminates. John

[cabowen]

There are various grades of tamahagane. A good smith knows how to make good steel through oroshigane from lesser grades....I suspect this was common. Then again, Sukehiro was a famous smith even in his day and undoubtedly had access to whatever he wanted...

 

Saying that only the better swords have a multipiece construction ignores many blades (ko-ichimonji, awataguchi, and rai) that are probably national treasures.....

 

Indeed, it is the differential hardening that gives the blade a hard edge and softer center and body...

[Clive Sinclaire]

Gentlemen

I am a bit late catching up on this thread so please forgive the sin if I am repeating anything already said.

 

I have always considered that the modern so-called "shinken", a live blade used in Iai-do, to be the equivilant of a modern kazu-uichi-mono, that is to say of inferior artistic quality but very practical as a weapon. There is rather a long and rambling article that I wrote for the British Kendo Assoc some years ago, explaining this. It is rather wordy and lengthy but the essence of it is explained in the following paragraphed quoted from it:-

 

To summarise, it is probably not a good idea to ask a Japanese sword collector his opinion on most Shinken. You have bought your Shinken, not for its artistic merits such as Hamon, Jihada, Nie etc., but for other considerations entirely such as balance, weight, length etc., which will not necessarily be appreciated by most collectors. It is also unwise to enquire about prices from sword collectors. They will only tell you what they would pay for it as an art-sword and as we have previously discussed, Shinken are seldom art-swords of great quality. I do appreciate how much Shinken cost to buy and have written several insurance valuations for Iaido practitioners that reflect a replacement value. It is, however, not within my remit to say whether these prices represent good value or not, this can only be determined by the prospective purchaser, his requirements and his personal financial situation, but they should not be under the impression, when buying a new or recently made Shinken, that they are buying good quality Japanese art-swords - it is 'only' a sword for Iaido that is being offered.

 

I am sure they paid little heed to my words.

Regards

Clive Sinclaire

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Saying that only the better swords have a multipiece construction ignores many blades (ko-ichimonji, awataguchi, and rai) that are probably national treasures.....

 

I fully agree, i would add that it's the contrary, construction such Kobuse or Makuri were generalised during the mid Muromachi because there was a great need in weapons due to the Sengoku-jidai. That was a practical and economic purpose.

[Eric H]

Blade lamination methods: "Of these methods of construction the "maru" or non-laminated is the poorest" - it's the same as muku-gitae.

 

http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/d ... sword.html

 

Eric

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

The famous sword smith Masamune used the "Soshu" seven layer construction method.

 

 

 

Eric you are free to believe what you want, but if i were you i would seek for serious references.

[Jean]

Have you serious references of the opposite, Jacques, and if yes, which?

[runagmc]

I think it would be interesting to know if a modern swordsmith had access to as much high carbon tamahagane as he wanted, would he choose to construct swords in marugitae out of only higher carbon tamahagane, or would he choose a multi-piece construction using the combination of low and high carbon steels? and if the later, why? Would the lower carbon less refined steel be tougher/more shock absorbant than higher carbon more refined steel, and therefore better to use for the core?

[Jacques D.]

Jean,

 

I've have in my references some polishers like ZVD or Kokan Nagayama; i can quote also Yoshikawa Koen and Albert Yamanaka.

 

About Masamune , he never use "Soshue kitae" which brings nothing more about efectiveness. Nevertheless if you can provide me a text (written by an expert) saying the contrary i will be happy to correct my opinion.

[sanjuro]

A sword is only as good as the person who wields it.

 

True, only in as much as it presupposes that all swords are equal. However, like men, not all swords are equal. One is tempted to modify the quote to read, "A sword is only as effective as the person who wields it, and only as good as the person who made it". :D

[Ken-Hawaii]

I'll agree to that, Sanjuro!

 

Ken

[Jean]

Jacques, I ask you to provide evidence and you did not provide any. Please no shortcut, It is up to you to provide the evidence as you are the Challenger so please provide either the extracts you mentioned or the pages where members can find the related texts for the Nagayama Kokan or Albert Yamanaka letters. It is not an issue as you said you could provide them. Please, when you are challenging an opinion, do it thoroughly.

 

Reminder, for people questionning other's posts, please provide your references so that each member can make up his mind, otherwise the post shall be deleted as useless.

 

We are here not only to discuss but to be educated. Apart some outstanding posts from some members, it is often challenged opinions without any evidence.

 

If anyone wants to challenge an opinion or states one, provide evidence or begin by IMHO or refrain from posting.

 

This will avoid useless debates and shall prevent me from locking the topic.

 

For anyone wanting to know how to contest an opinion, please look at the way it is done by Ford in the kodogu section.

[Jacques D.]

Jean,

 

Kokan Nagayama, the connoissor's book page 39 Yoshikawa Koen Sue Koto volume1 page 3

 

 

http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_147.htm

[Eric H]

Kokan Nagayama, the connoissor's book page 39

 

Page 39 is a listing of Wazamono?

 

 

Tsuda Sukehiro is a very interesting example in an other aspect, namely the different judging of his blades when performed tameshigiri.

 

According to the „Token no Wazamono Ichiran“ by Yamada Asaemon, Tsuda Sukehiro is listed under Owazamono with swords bearing his mei in „square style“, whilst his swords with mei chiseled in „Sosho“ style are in the group of Wazamono sharpness.

 

First generation Sukehiro -Soboro Sukehiro- is ranked Saijo Owazamono.

 

Sukehiro II started his mei in the square style „Kakutsuda“ in February 1667 and changed it to Sosho „Marutsuda“ in August 1674.

 

Swords made by the same smith with the only difference in the chiseling style of his mei are classified differently in regard to their cutting ability!

 

I‘m wondering if someone is able to give a conclusive answer to this phenomenon.

 

Eric

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

 

Page 39 is a listing of Wazamono?

 

 

Oups, sorry it's page 33.

[Brian]

Is this the quote you are refering to?

There is no question that steel manufacturing processes were much better developed in shinto times than previously, and that Shinto smiths were able to obtain steel of far better quality. During the late Muromachi period, older methods of sword production were abandoned amid the increasing reliance on mass production of low-quality swords. At the same time,new methods of sword production were invented, such as kobuse and makuri, which have been handed down to the present day.

 

Or:

 

The difference between Koto and Shinto blades is best determined by examining the

steel of a blade and its surface -gra in pattern. The quality and character of the steel are based on both the quality of raw materials and the smith's forg ing skill.

One historical record states that advanced steelmaking processes were employed on a large scale beginning in the Oei era (1394-1428) The large number of swords produced in late Muromachi allows us to estimate roughly the quality of that era's steel production.

Improved methods of steel manufacture led not only to increased production, but also to more uniform quality. Mass production of kazu-uchi mono blades, which were not markedly inferior to custom-made swords in their effectiveness, could never have occu rred without this new steel.

 

Brian

[Jean]

Jacques,

 

I don't see anything in the references you provided that Masamune did not used the "Soshu" seven layer construction method thus challenging what Dr Stein states in his article

 

Nagayama Kokan: Nothing is said about the lamination/construction of a blade even in page 33

Yoshikawa Koen book is referring to Sue Muromachi blades and don't talk about the Kamakura/Nambokucho "Soshu" seven layer construction method

 

I did not find any references neither in the Nakahara book or Robinson's ones nor in the Nihonto Koza.

[runagmc]

From what I can gather from the Nagayama article, he does make the argument that multi-piece construction doesn't necessarily mean a better sword, which would go against Dr Stein's site, which implies that marugitae is the worst method and that the "best swordsmith in history" (Masamune) used the most complex multi-piece construction.

 

Does anyone know where the idea of the 7 piece "Soshu construction" came from originally? I'm pretty certain Dr. Stein didn't just make it up.

 

In the middle of the Edo period, the still harder Tamahagane of mass production appeared in improvement of a Tatara.

Did these mass-production Tamahaganes contribute to improvement in arms performance and blade beauty?

Reality was reverse rather. Compared with the Ko-to, it was proved from testimony of a polisher and a martial artist, and verification in a battle that the performance of a sword and the beauty of a blade were retreating clearly

"Iron and a man worsen as a time falls" is truth. A sword is still less than the level of a Ko-to.

I wonder how some can claim that Koto are so functionally superior when probably very few have been tested in a controlled setting...and even less in modern times. I would think it would take some serious destructive testing of many, many examples to make that claim with any kind of certainty... yet it is made on a regular basis.

[Jacques D.]

Jean,

 

What can be the advantage of such a construction ? None. On the other hand how many Masamune blades were destroyed to see how they were made ?

 

I would say that Soshue Kitae is a modern invention... until someone provides the proof of the contrary.

[Jean]

In fact, Jacques, I don't know and I have not enough litterature to see where it comes from. What is the initial source of this seven layer construction and from which blades was it observed. It seems very complicated and I wonder how many blades could be produced by a Soshu smith in a month uding this technique.

 

It seems that the initial English source could be a Hawley's book, but I am sure the primary source is Japanese.

 

Guido, Reinhard, any idea about this?

 

Meanwhile, until further evidence, the non-existence of this 7 layer construction is only an opinion.

[sanjuro]

Jean and Jacques

 

You are both aware of course that it is impossible to prove a negative theory such as the non existence of something, since the possibility of an exception that refutes it will always exist.