paulb

Brian, God forbid I should stop people having fun. All I am trying to suggest is that to make attributions based on what was visible in the images might be considered brave at best or otherwise foolhardy. The range of the suggestions confirm that based on what's seen one can only guess and other than the joy of gambling there is not too much merit in it.

well I think the suggestions so far have pretty much covered the whole of sword making history from the 13th to the 19th century I admire everyones confidence in committing themselves on the images so far but doesnt the range of ideas suggest that there is insufficient detail visible to make any form of judgement?

Kevin, while not criticising the services you offer in any way I do not think you are the only place where this can be handled as a "one stop shop". I have had two sets of koshirae made in the UK . In both cases the manufacture and assembly was handled by 1 person, a different one in each case, (they used other specialists but I only dealt with one individual). Both produced koshirae that I have been delighted with and that have stood up to critical appraisal by visiting Japanese specialists. Best Regards Paul

Gentlemen, Thank you for the comments and ideas which help to clarify a number of points but as always stimulate more questions. Adam, I had not heard or thought of the combination of O-hada and ko-itame and ko mokume being the result of forging hard and soft steel in a monostructure blade. Now that you have mentioned it it seems a very credible point of view. Sanjo school work which is believed to be single piece construction exhibits this combination of O-hada and ko-itame. Awataguchi does so to a lesser extent from examples and illustrations seen. Jean suggests the function and performance of the blade is attributable to the jigane and quenching and not effected by the presence of a softer core ( I understand that is what you are saying but please correct me if I have misunderstood) and that the level of skill required to forge a blade with a soft core is equal to that required to make a monostructure blade. If this is the case then the only reason for using a soft core is commercial. I have no doubt that many of the different stuctures and combinations tried were an attempt to improve performance. But those such as kobuse exist in far too great a quantity to be solely the result of experimentation. I would therefore suggest that such changes in construction were an attempt to a) work faster and b) to reduce cost in time and material. The reason I am labouring this a bit is that for many years I have believed, based on what was the commonly held view in the 70s and 80s that the soft core of the blade played a major role in the Japanese swords performance, effectively absorbing impact shock when a blade struck. Because of this I could not understand how those swords which seem to be regarded as the best (Munechika, ko-ichimonji etc) could be regarded as such if they lacked this shock absorbing core. I had concluded that these blades were more a status symbol than a weapon and not intended for combat. Based on the debate here and on the earlier thread it appears this was not or at least may not have been the case. Thanks again to all who have contributed to the debate.

The current thread on Shinsakuto vs Iato has generated a number of different sub-topics. I am concerned that because of the various directions and tangents being taken in that thread that some important discussions and views as well as the opportunity to explore some of these points might be lost. Because of this I have started a new thread where I hope we the construction element begun in the Shinsakuto debate can be further explored. if the moderators would prefer to keep this in the original plaese feel free to move it. Chris Bowen said John S I think suggested that the ressilience and toughness of a blade was the result of combining hard and soft steel in the jigane and not because of the presence of a soft core (John if I have misunderstood please correct me) These are important ideas to explore further. It has been previously stated that work of the kyo smiths, Sanjo, Awataguchi and Rai together with ko-Bizen and ko-Ichimonji produced swords in single piece construction up until the mid Kamakura period. I think this is a generally accepted point of view. In the recently posted article I put together about the Awataguchi School I mentioned that I thought the sword in question was made in this manner. I have seen a number of Awataguchi blades (not many, but some) in varying states of ware. Regardless of the amount of metal lost none showed any evidence of core steel showing through. Admittedly most of these were tanto so a single piece construction might be expected. But even the few daito examples showed no tiredness. Kyo blades are regarded by many as amongst the best ever produced. One of Munchika's swords has been counted amongst the three greatest swords made for more than 450 years. When you look at early Kyo work it bears little or no resemblance to anything else. It is beautiful but so are many other works. What stands out is the incredible quality of the material, the tightness of the forging and the uniformity of the nie both ji-nie and nie within the hamon resulting from skillful hardening. Nothing else looks like it. So if it is possible to produce such high quality work in single piece construction what were the motives to change? Can I suggest the following: 1. To make acceptable swords in one piece construction requires excellent material great skill and time. The resulting work would be expensive 2. If demand outstripped supply shortcuts were required. Was it less demanding to produce a blade with a lower grade core? Is a blade made in this way more forgiving of lesser skill? 3. Was it purely a commercial decision. It would be cheaper to wrap a lower cost material with a layer of the more expensive jigane. 4. Alternatively did the change in methods of fighting expose weakness in single piece construction which resulted in experimenting with multi piece construction in an attempt to overcome identified weaknesses? Possibly it was simply a fact that there was insufficient production of high enough quality steel to meet demand and too few good smiths to meet the demand using this very difficult technique. The basic question is "does multi piece construction create a better product?" I would suggest that if a single piece blade is produced by a top smith in good material the answer is probably no. Once the quality of either mateerial or smith falls below this top tire multi piece manufature overcomes some of the resultant short comings. I would appreciate others thoughts on this Best Regards paul

worked for me too. I now have probably the smallest collection of swords in Europe but wouldnt go back to what I had before!

Hi Alex, sounds like a different blade to the one I was talking about (that means there are a number of them kicking around!!)

Sorry George, you now know as much as I do. I dont think I actually even saw the nakago at the time and certainly havent seen the sword since. My impression, and it is only that, was that the mei had no resemblance to any form of Japanese title or name.

I think that is a very reasonable position. creating an environemt to allow the natural evolution of the materials has a poetic feel to it. What is interesting is how consistantly some makers were able to achieve this activity while others demonstrated great variation.

Hi Chris, My turn to be less than clear. I think the nie was not frequent and in small random patches, it gave the appearance of being accidental. On more richly covered blades I think the pattern looks to be more intentional. I guess it comes back to the old argument repeated in "Modern Swordsmiths" about whether Nie was planned and created or just happenned. Whole different debate

Reffering to Alex's story regarding a Shinsa panel describing a sword as a Chinese fake. I am not sure if it is the same sword but certainly one seems to have achieved fame and even some years later continues to raise it's head, usually quoted as an example of a shinsa panel getting it wrong (in the mind of the owner). I think I may have been present when this sword was submitted and party to the discussion that followed. I am not sure if it is the same sword but it does share many common features Alex describes owned by a collector with more than 20 years experience, seen by a well known and respected dealer and signed. The sword fooled me. From what I could see it was a fairly standard shape WWII gendaito. Little to see in the hada but with some sporadic nie running through the hamon. Not in the best of polish but not the worst blade we had seen on that day by a long way. The comment from the shinsa team was that it was oil quenched and made in China. I queried the oil quenched because of the presence of nie, I was told that nie can be seen in oil quenched blades but it is sporadic and unintentional. This blade was certainly sporadically populated. It is true it was signed, but it was signed in Chinese. The owner was of the belief that it had been made in China by a transplanted swordsmith but I am not sure what evidence he had to support this beleif . I do not think he disputed that the mei was Chinese caligraphy not Japanese. I think based on the view that it was oil quenched signed in Chinese and without any supporting evidence regarding the origin of the smith the panels conclusion was not unreasonable. However if I had seen the blade at an arms fair, based on what was visible I would have been confident it wasnt a fake and reasonably so that it was hand made and water quenched. If it was Chinese I have not seen a better example.

thanks Chris, Just wanted to make sure I hadn't been working on misinformation over the years (wouldnt be the first time ) your comments confirm my understanding

Chris, just for my own clarification I want to be sure I understand what you are saying about martensite. My understanding is that it is formed when Iron is heated in the presence of carbon to a temp of between700-800 degrees centigrade. If allowed to cool naturally it decomposes back to the original pearlite form. Rapid cooling does not create martensite but it does arrest its decomposition and retains it within the steel structure. Is this your understanding also or have I misunderstood? Regards Paul

There are always grey areas in definitions and when certain features transform in to something else. basically all of them (with some exceptions) are created by the same material (martensite) in varying forms. One could argue that this feature is a strange form of sunagashi although I tend to expect to see this formed in several layers and over shorter lengths. Yubashiri are formed by grouped patches of nie within the jigane and appear above the hamon in the Jihada.As you move the blade though a single light source they become dark giving rise to the name which I understand translates as "footprints in snow". Inazuma and kinsuji are seen as thin bright sol;id lines within the hamon or running from just outlside into it. This just appears to be a continueous line of nie and is probably best described as such. It is an interesting thought that the clarity of this may be the result of polishing effect below the line of nie, creating an opaque border with the rest of the hamon.

Hi I dont think I have ever seen such activity within a hamon appearing so prominently. How the smith did it (assuming it was intentional and not chance) could occupy a lot of word space. My shorterned first guess would be it is the result of differential hardenning on different qualities of iron within the jigane, i.e. some of the material forms nie more readily than others and therefore the martensite grows larger more quickly. Personal view is that this would be regarded as activity within the hamon rather than a double hamon (Nijuba) where you typically see a second seperated line of nioi or nie above the original. As with all definitions in this area others interpretations may be different. It is an intersting piece. Regards Paul

Dave you are absolutely right it is a Chinese fake and not a very good one.

Hi Jacques, sorry to disagree with you but in the image you have posted the apparent fumbari appears to be more the result of the polisher removing a damaged section in the ha near the ha-machi than the smiths intention to narrow the blade.

Dear Mike, thank you very much for the update. Let's hope that the negative rumour mongering which has plagued this organisation in recent times will finally be stopped. Best Regards Paul

Dear Edward, The following is personal opinion rather than fact. The blade looks more likely shinto than koto. The shape is wrong for an earlier sword and the condition and shape of the nakago and the style of the mei all look much later. If i had to guess iwould say mid Edo. Regarding the fittings I have heard but never tried to confirm it that these smaller tanto or kaikan in black aikuchi mounts were given as gifts to brides by their fathers on their wedding day. I am not sure if this is true or a fanciful tale but I have heard it repeatd often enough to believe it may be valid. Interested in others opinions as to age of the sword. best Regards Paul

Markus, Please keep us informed as to when th English version is available. Thank you and well done!

I am coming late to the topic which opens a range of interesting subjects none of which can have a definitive answer. I am also a great admirer of Ford's work and have had the privilege of seeing many of his pieces first hand. However I have never bought one. Likewise I have never bought a modern sword. This is not a quality issue, I believe Ford's work to be amongst the best I have seen, nor some misplaced affection for the romantic past, it is based on the opinion (and thats all it is) that art has its place and time. Subsequent work in a style using the same material and technique is out of time and context. It is therefore at best a copy or a pastiche of the original form. This is true of painting (a modern work in the style of a 16th century master is not the same or regarded with the same esteem) modern made flint and percussion lock firearms or Japanese swords and fittings. basically they are made out of their time. Art and technology progress by addressing or reflecting the needs and issues of their time. While one must learn from history and benefit from that knowledge it is important that modern artisans make things that are relevent to the here and now. There will always be a place and affection for those with the great skill and commitment who keep older traditions alive but I think it unlikely, with few exceptions, that they would ever be held in the same regard or their work valued as highly as those who produced the original work. I am not saying it is right or fair but just reflects the reality of the market.

Dear Jean, Sounds a really great deal It could even make this old Englishman wish he was French!!

Thanks Grey not sure I have ever been called smart ( either sartorially or intelectually) but I am now a member of the JSSUS

Thank you Andreas, Yes I am aware of these translations. I have been a member since 2006 so have all the later copies. The others I have start in the 1960's so I doubt there will be English translations but as you say it is worth asking. I will write to the AB branch and see if they have anything Much appreiate your help, thank you Best Regards Paul

Hi Stan thanks for getting back to me. Lets keep in touch and we can share information and progress (or lack of it) if you dont mind please pm me your email address we can then commuicate without taking up bandwidth on the board. Thanks and best regards Paul