Rivkin

Dear John, If holding "in high esteem" is a matter of religion of this site - I truly apologize and have no intention to bug you further with my presence. A sword is a sword. It is an object with a utilitarian purpose - hardened steel on the outside, soft iron inside. Almost all nations made them with the same technologies, just differently "tooled" for their specific goal. Paraphrasing by memory Dr. Sato - all people went similar roads, so studying the way sword developed somewhere in India one will find parallels and answers to its development in Japan. Then each culture in the world develops its way to make it artistic. An Indian would spend his days putting "staircase" on his wootz blade. A Japanese would slave on a stunning hamon and would use a specific tamahagane because it results in better looking blade. A Russian might cover the blade with gold and bluing. A European will make an intricate pattern based on mixture of different steels. There is no magic here - just different tastes and different applications of similar technologies. But if you want to believe that Japanese swords (best in the world) live by different rules - I can not in honest faith be a part of this discussion . P.S. And I love Norishige! Sincerely yours, Kira R.

Historical metallurgy. Not Japanese swords. Except the latter are stripped, chopped and metallographied.

To a possible surprise of many on this board - almost every single well developed metallurgical culture from Central Asia to Europe by 900 AD already had folded blades, with iron for the core and steel for the edge, with differential heat treatment... Take a number of "viking" blade from XIth century - you'll find hardness going from 20 to 45, lots of martensite, twisted core, folded steel edges. Outside of Japan (a relatively backward country, overall importer when it comes to produsing steel itself, not to be mistaken with swords), already for 500 years people experimented with crucible steel and other complex steel making technologists, which modern (and XIXth century European) metallurgy holds in high esteem. So if you are looking for something really stunning - look at XIIIth century "Islamic" sword. Inserted edge, folded, crucible steel, differential tempering. Full array of stunning metallurgy. Dear Chris, I know quite well what I am talking about. And differential hardening is much simpler than it seems. Just doing it in a Japanese way (with clay) is one of a more different tricks. Any thick blade will differentially harden by itself, just because of different rates of cooling. If one goes for oil-based heat treatment, one can just dunk one edge into it - resulting in a very pronounced hamon (no nie obviously). Again if you read any articles by Williams - most European swords until say XVIth century (by memory) have drastically varying hardness and are differentially hardened. And I don't think that the flashy hamon for the sake of it is a post 1600 feature, to say mildly .

Dear Sanjuro, It has a style of its own. With its own sence of beauty. As politically correct as it sounds, I would not estimate it as "superior" or "inferior" to say Indian (as ghastly loud the Indian styles appear to me), and quite frankly I would not evaluate Japanese swords very highly on the scale of metallurgical complexity or skill, compared to, say, Indian work, especially when it comes to producing steel per se. Not like Asians were very keen on importing tamahagane. Japanese work is different, with its own set of rules of what makes a good sword, and the Japanese concept just appeals more to may more than, for example, European or Chinese. Yet I am a little perplexed every time I am out to acquire a new sword. This one has a fantastic nie work, great ratings, but it feels in hand like an axe. This one is very plain and quite, but the worksmanship is high, the balance is correct and the shape is more consistent with good cuts. But its some averaged rated Echizen smith. And I like wild, blackish nie on the third sword, with a loud gunome hamon, but the hamon work is uneven enough to question whether this thing (as stunning as it is) will cut well. Are these contradictions real, or I am missing something? Yours, Kira R.

Europeans knew how to do pretty amazing things with their steel before Japanese sword was born as it is. But they had no interest in painting a fancy looking hamon on the blade, then polish it out to perfection, and then have the picture completely ruined after couple of engagements and rough sharpening in the field. They had their own ways to do something fancy, which required no less skill by any means.

And as far as I could understand, one of his main points is that the superior grace of many Kamakura tachis is the rest of horrific overpolishing, rather than a designed occurance... And that's precisely what I am trying to ask here - are there some greatly valued Juyo level swords that certainly do not cut well, and probably never were meant to be cutters above all else, while there are very utilitarian and plain swords with very little that visually distinguishes them from hundreds of other swords, that are much better cutters?

Dear Chris, I appreciate your answer. However, I have no doubts that in some cases the beauty is accomponied, or even serves as an indirect measure of the sword's function. And I have no doubts that there are quite a few swords that have "peerless" artistic qualities and superior functionality. The question I am raising is that there a lot of artistic developments in Japanese sword, as well in that of any other culture, that have nothing to do with functionality. The most prized artistic swords can be mediocre cutters and very simple swords with absolutely no artistic value can still be superior cutters. And the most prized cutters can have weight/balance issues that would make their use prohibitative under certain circumstances. Regarding European use of martensite - I think every single work of Williams will show some examples. I.e.: "METHODS OF MANUFACTURE OF SWORDS IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE: ILLUSTRATED BY THE METALLOGRAPHY OF SOME EXAMPLES", (Sword Ea 92. Leiden Wapenmuseum, SWORD No. 4) etc. The use of martensite is hardly unique to Japanese, although there were cultures that (by choise) preferred to see rather different properties in their swords and therefore did not heat treated at the temperatures that would lead to the appearance of martensite. Sincerely yours, Kira R.

Well, there were not so many interested in painting pictures with specifically martensite, however every heat treated steel blade will have a picture made from martensite. There were cultures interested in painting pictures with carbides (Indians with their wootz come to mind), or in using very complex patterns, wielded from a combination of different steels (from late Roman times to everywhere in the world, i.e. "Damascus") and so on and so on. It is like saying Japanese are unique because they have sanban sugi, and Europeans - do not.

Dear Chris, Thank you very much for responding, What you are saying is printed probably in every single book on nihonto - the reason behind the beauty of Japanese sword is its functionality. I am quite sure that this is, frankly, far from truth. There is no reason for striking and valued Gassan hada to be more practical than a simple modern steel that has a very faint hada. There is no obvious reason why swords with gunome would cut better than those with suguha. In both cases, I see no reason, other than purely artistic, for an artisan to make these features. Yes, I did not recieve Zen enlightment, but certainly there is a way to prove the practicality of such solutions without - sorry for saying this, but pretty cliche road of "1000s of years before Europeans", "uniqueness of Japanese spirit and culture", "after dozens of years of studying on the mountain with Dao sages" and so on? Yours, Kira R.

If Art is purely subjective, then all my swords just got promoted to J.Tokubetsu... When I look at a number of swords with different rankings and/or prices, I can't help but notice that the preference is typically given to swords with a very pleasing, illustrous hada (which means that it is highly non-uniform, if we believe western metallurgy - not the greatest accomplishment for a piece of steel), complex hamon (there are plenty high ranking swords with nioi suguha, but that's not what people tend to proudly display) with lots and lots of repeatative nie-based activity, and the shape which is pleasing to the eye. From all of that, I can understand the abundance of nie as something that might relate to performance; regarding the shape I have troubles believing that most slender-fumbarish kamakure shapes would perform as well in test cuts as a typical "heroically proportioned" Bungo. I do understand there is a number of weapons that are excellent cutters with great balance and great artistic looks. But, can we really rely on "this sword has a lot of activity and its very artistic, so it must cut very well, since Japanese art is extremely functional"? Or there are somewhat separate criteria of practicality and artistism? P.S. Masamune swords were not tested (although there are some conflicting accounts on that if I am not mistaken), but were the swords that achieved such status during the smith's life really carried into battle, or the reason that so many survived is that besides occasional skirmish in the castle they really did not see any use? P.P.S. Regarding the Western Science not being able to explain and the uniqueness of Japanese Smiths - sorry, I am not aware of a single technical solution that is unique to Japanese swords. Folding, differential tempering, ridge construction - all were well known from almost BC times.

First a disclaimer - I am a complete newbie when it comes to Japanese swords. So pardon my arrogance, but could you help me out on a little philosophical question - what is the beauty of a true nihonto? Every single book I've read says that the beauty of Japanese sword is inseparable from its functionality. Disrespectfull as I am - it's hard to believe it is so. It never works this way in other cultures - beautiful patterns on the blade, gold furniture might still accompony a greatly capable weapon, but do not add any combat characteristics, sometimes even present a liability. Similarly, I had a number of very artistic sukashi tsubas with the cuts that were uncomfortable enough to hurt when I pick up a sword. Shakudo reliefs on tsuba that probably would not last even 100 swings without starting to become dull. I had a great honor of looking at the blades of Osafune Motoshige and Nagasone Kotetsu. I am just a newbie, so I am absolutely certain I did not understand them, but generally speaking these juyo-level blades of the highest wazamono ranking smiths did not impress me as supreme works of art. The shape is graceful, but I've seen more graceful ones. Hamon is not particularly startling with activity. Motoshige's hada was quite luminating, but Kotetsu's was not out of this world. And on the other hand I've seen blades with amazingly graceful contours, with hamon literally changing from pitch black nie to milky whitish. With hada brilliantly reflecting in silky red or subtle blue. And those were highly ranking smiths, but I quite frankly don't know how highly irregular, artistic assemblies of nie are supposed to improve sword's cutting qualities. So my question is, as a newbie - what should I be looking for in a sword to call it a true work of art? Fantastic hada with lots of nicely shaped nie on a chouji hamon, with a thin, graceful blade with a deep sori and funbari? Or there is something about those thikish shapes with simplistic hamon and tight hada with wazomono ratings that is a true Art (I don't dispute the artistic properties of many wazomono blades, but some of the most highly ranking ones are kind of not what I expected) and I am just foolish enough to not recognize it? Or should I treat practicality and artistism as separate entities? And if practicality is my goal, then another question comes to mind - would I really pick a very poorly balanced, heavy sword, which supposedly cuts very well over something lighter and more balanced, which may be does not cut as many bodies lumped over each other, but can move and strike way more faster and more precise? Yours, Kira R.

May I ask another question - what's a typical situation with old mouts? I understand the lacquer offers some protection, but can one really use typical shinto mounts, or it is rather unsafe? Would one be better off, if one wishes to display the sword in mounts occasionally, to make new saya+, get old tsuba, menuki, whatever?

Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate the advice! Guess I'll dive back into books and start preparing for the next sword show .

To thy mercy I, though undeserving, apply! After spending a lot of time on books and going through a lot materials on sword, I decided to purchase my first blade. My purpose is mostly studying. I have been collecting for a while, but only recently decided to slightly expand my extremely narrow interests by learning about nihonto. My personal preferences were always - simple, very austerely decorated swords. I definitely strongly prefer sturdy, capable blades that can be effectively used today (not that I have any knowledge how to use Japanese swords). Now, I understand that it is somewhat tricky to ask for an opinion about something currently for sale, but I would greatly appreciate if you could help me to choose, between these two (or may be I am wrong in the selection alltogether and the first blade should be something else): http://www.nihontoantiques.com/fss381.htm http://www.nihontoantiques.com/fss373.htm Pardon my arrogance, but I would like to explain my reasons for thinking about these two. I like the second one: Simple, yet elegant mounts. The blade appears very healthy and usable (however I am a tad surprised that the seller does not say anything about iai-do or tameshigiri, as he does with other swords - for example http://www.nihontoantiques.com/fss387.htm). I love the curvature, which I find very gracious and overall fitting my preferences . Minus - no activity, rather simple construction, therefore not a lot of learning (?) and a lot of rumors (?) about bungo takeda being relatively low grade, very few people actually liking it (resale potential?). I like the first one:Lots of activity, like the hada, like the curvature. Minus: fatal flaw? I hate the military mounts (per se). Also, I am a huge guy, and short swords actually look a tad funny when I hold them. As you can see - not of knowledge in me yet, mostly just emotions, feelings. Again, I apologize taking your time with a such personal request, but would greatly appreciate any advice, even if it is to return to reading books.