sabiji

Jean, what I wanted to say was that original koshirae, whether worn by a merchant or a samurai, are important cultural relics, windows into the past. If they are original! A (family) sword has gone through many generations with different demands or tastes, and besides, koshirae are wear items. Even if an owner in the Edo period never used it as a weapon in his life - but, as you say, had to carry it every day - all the organic components of the koshirae have to be replaced at some point. Therefore, the vast majority of surviving original koshirae are not that old and date from the late Edo period. The percentage of older koshirae becomes smaller and smaller the further back in time we go. But this is not unknown to you. And so you can deduce the cultural characteristics of a certain time from koshirae. As in the Momoyama period, we find both: extremely extroverted koshirae in bright colors and surrounding gold bands on the saya, or the simple, dark, yet elegant uchigana koshirae in the sense of wabi/sabi. The custom of wearing a daisho developed during this period and was to become the norm. In any case, the koshirae becomes a calling card for the wearer in terms of his taste, origin, education and, of course, his income. More was certainly possible here in the Momoyama and very early Edo period than the rules allowed in the course of the Edo, in order to give a little more leeway again in the late Edo. In some domains it was naturally viewed somewhat more strictly, in other domains less strictly, and the urban bourgeois culture in Edo or Osaka was a topic in itself. As for the merchants, they created their own space. It is not in the Japanese way, especially for those who consider themselves cultured, to project wealth outwards. In the Momoyama period in particular, the richest merchants - who had become rich through the wars of Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieayasu and the trade in guns, steel and leather - were also their most important tea masters and representatives of wabi/sabi. Until the tea ceremony was brought back to the samurai level in early Edo by Furuta Oribe or Kobori Enshu and there was a class separation here again. As a result, the rich merchants did not follow the Omote principle but the Ura principle. Their wealth was not for everyone to see, they decided who was allowed to see it. There are still preserved or reconstructed houses of important merchants with secret and separate entrances for important customers, including high-ranking samurai or lords, with delicate and tasteful gardens and rooms with fine works of art. And when you were in public, you could still show off expensive quality without everyone recognizing it. The lacquer of a sedan chair can be plain on the outside, but of the highest quality, and richly decorated on the inside, visible only to the passenger. Kimonos are the same, plain on the outside, but have the finest silk on the inside. The koshirae doesn't look like much from a distance, but the connoisseur recognizes the quality up close. And the blade, which you can't see anyway, will have been of excellent quality. That's actually typical Japanese understatement. At least in this respect, and even if only internally, traders could put themselves on a par with the nobility or the samurai, who they had economic control over anyway. The latter enabled some to bear family names and swords. For my daughter's host parents, it was the other way round. The ancestors gave up their samurai status in the late Edo period. They moved from Higo to Satsuma to make a better living as traders and farmers. When the Satsuma uprisings broke out, the great-grandfather of my daughter's boss, joined Saigo Takamori. Because of his origins and status as a trader, he was nicknamed "the squirrel of Higo". Unfortunately, the family no longer has any of their ancestors' swords.

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But is that important ? I can imagine that merchants in particular were an important clientele for swordsmiths, but also for Kodogu workshops, simply because they had the necessary financial means. But that's not my point at all. Especially when it comes to katana, it is very difficult to find a koshirae that already existed with ALL its components AND the blade before 1868. That's why, from my own experience, I'm less interested in who might have carried sword xy, but rather whether sword xy was carried in this constellation at all. Swords in mounts are easier to sell, and what doesn't fit is simply made to fit. And even with dealers here in Europe, who also like to buy back their sold pieces, I have experienced several times that swords known to me suddenly had different tsuka, tsuba, kozuka and kogai. A few months ago, a collector asked me to admire a particular sword. The koshirae was definitely en suite and interesting. But I was particularly pleased about the blade! It was a reunion after more than 20 years! I had imported this blade from Japan myself back then. Back then, the blade only had a shirasaya... So, to come back to the first sentences written in this thread: don't read too much into certain things (Koshirae)!

Well, Brian is not entirely wrong, even when it comes to long blades. It may be that the vast majority of merchants were not allowed to carry long swords. But they did own them. Some important merchants were sword enthusiasts and owned extensive collections of first-class swords.

Hello Dan, don't be angry with me, but this doesn't look like a Daisho set from around 1580 to me. At least the tsuka show no similarities with the type one would expect for the Tensho period. An original tensho daisho would be priceless. The menuki look like shinshu or copper.

Even if a blade is ubu, it is no guarantee that the Hi was added later. Ato = after, later, Hori = carving. What is more important is the overall concept: is the swordsmith/school known for horimono? If so, are the Horimono/Hi similar in concept and execution with different blades from the smith/school? Then you can have some certainty. With certain swordsmiths I would be rather suspicious if the blade has a Hi, especially in the Shinto period. Many koto blades have hi that are atobori. I wouldn't pay too much attention to that.

I only have experience of buying directly on site in 2022. Here, too, you should contact the store in advance and make an appointment and specify which items you would like to see. The lady (Kimura-san) was very friendly and the sale took place in a very pleasant atmosphere. Kimura-san thanked us and even said goodbye to us in German on our second visit. I won't make it back to Japan until next year at the earliest. But I will definitely visit Eirakudo again.

...and I don't think you will be disappointed! And don't be afraid to ask questions! There are very competent members here who are happy to share their knowledge with enthusiasm! I wish you lots of fun on Saturday!

And then another idea: we know Hi filled with lacquer quite often with Yari. Really old polishes are very rare on sword blades. It would be interesting to know how often in history Hi on sword blades were filled with lacquer. From time to time you can still find sword blades whose Hi still show lacquer, or at least remnants of it. A frequently held opinion is that this was done for simple and inferior blades. Or to conceal poorly cut hi or kizu in the hi. This is certainly plausible. Nevertheless, in the past I have also repeatedly seen better blades that showed lacquer or remnants of lacquer in the Hi before restoration. I was recently able to study an example of such a better blade at a friend's home. The lacquer residue was removed during polishing. The cleaned Hi was clean cut and showed no kizu. The owner decided to give the Hi a new coat of Urushi lacquer. I would therefore like to return to a point I have already made here. Blades of any quality are nowadays given the best possible "optical" polish. That's just the way the market is, because that's what the customer wants. But this will not always have been the case throughout history. And so we worry about things that weren't even visible back then...

Oh, and please make sure you have fresh socks and good shoes! There are areas, especially at Ginza traders, where you can't get in with street shoes...

The appearance in the bohi is, as Colin already wrote, an effect of the weld seam caused by the blade construction (Kawagane/Shingane). Something like this is more common in Bohi. For me, it is only cosmetic. The bohi is kaki toshi. It runs completely through the tang. The signature of Toshinaga is oriented at the edge of the hi and the makuri of the tagane move minimally into the area of the hi. Toshinaga usually places his mei in the middle of the shinogi of the nakago. If the blade is shoshin, the hi cannot be atobori. If it is Gimei, the Hi is placed first and then the signature. Such continuous hi are found much more frequently in the Shinshinto period, because utsushi were often made here. It is somewhat reminiscent of a Yamashiro utsushi. Nevertheless, the blade can of course originate from the Shinto period. I have my difficulties with the frequently held opinion that horimono and hi were applied specifically to cover or eliminate flaws. There may certainly have been, but it only makes sense if there is only one unsightly spot on an otherwise flawless blade. Removing outer layers when applying horimono or hi may remove or conceal superficial kizu, but it also risks exposing deeper flaws. And another point: Hi and Horimono were expensive! Markus Sesko once demonstrated this using the example of an original invoice for a blade from Chounsai Tsunatoshi. The horimono was more expensive than the blade itself. Well, a dragon and ken were cut on one side of Tsunatoshi's blade, but even well-made bohi will not have been cheap. The other small spot looks like there was a small charcoal or slag inclusion here. By the way: nice ji-nie!

Perhaps you first ask yourself the following question: what makes a good weapon? The adjective "good" as a collective term for various characteristics. And that doesn't require complicated thinking. In relation to a sword: it has to do its job, of course. It should be as sharp as possible and hold its edge for a long time. It should be robust and not bend or break. If it is damaged, it should be easy to repair and the blade should be easy to resharpen. Overall, the weapon should be balanced and easy to handle. But what good is all this if the weapon is too expensive, the production is complicated and takes a long time, and it is difficult to get hold of the required raw materials? That's why the sword must also be cheap and quick to produce. As a warlord, larger quantities must be available in a short space of time. The raw materials for production should be available to me or be cheap to buy. All these points, and certainly more, are what make a good weapon in the first place. I can afford it, I can handle it well, it does what it is supposed to do. Everything that goes beyond that: that my own wishes and ideas are incorporated into the weapon, that higher quality raw materials are used, that more complex technologies and manufacturing processes are used, which in turn require better trained and experienced craftsmen and much more - here we come to arts and crafts, yes, even to real works of art! Of course, these swords are then more expensive. They are no longer available to the masses of warriors, but to elites. Yes, they even deliberately set themselves apart with these artfully crafted weapons. They appreciate and admire the visible qualities associated with the high-quality materials and elaborate production. The weapons became status symbols, became family possessions and were passed down through the generations. Although they basically only stab and cut, can get nicks and rust, like any simple sword. But the latter are lost over time because their focus is as a tool, which eventually wears out and is replaced accordingly. Just one example: some Americans will be surprised, but here in Germany it is not at all common to own a firearm. There are only a few exceptions, which are associated with high requirements. One of these is being a hunter (here, too, extensive tests are necessary and required). Be that as it may, I am currently looking for a hunting rifle. Should it be an inexpensive, international product, uncomplicated, robust, with a synthetic stock? Or would I prefer a rifle from a small German manufacturer, with a few extra features and a beautiful wooden stock? Well - what I can definitely rule out is going to a gunsmith to have a custom-made gun made for me. The latter is simply too expensive for me and is disproportionate to my hunting needs. All three rifles go "bang!" and make holes with the required precision at huntable distances. But the factory rifle will no longer exist in 30 years. The rifle from the small manufactory will certainly still find enthusiasts and be used from time to time. The rifle from the gunsmith will certainly become part of a collection in mint condition. Ironically, the best gun will probably be used the least. But stop! Is it really the best gun? Or was it the factory rifle that has been used many times and has many thousands of rounds behind it? Nobody will argue about which of the three guns is the most beautiful and artistic. And one more thing: it doesn't make sense to approach Japanese art with the Western understanding of art. The Western understanding of art has a completely different evolution. There is also no real distinction between "arts and crafts" and "art" in Japan. In Japan, an object that has been reduced to its plain and functional simplicity can be considered beautiful and artistic. Functionality is a basic requirement. In Japan, art has much more to do with aesthetic perception, which is why Japanese art terms such as mono no aware, yugen, wabi, iki are linked to sensations. On the other hand, many Japanese swords today are polished to a level that they were not polished at all a few hundred years ago because they were simply weapons. No one thought about any properties of the steel or the hardening because they were not visible. I don't mean to disparage certain blades that are often posted here for identification. But it should perhaps be kept in mind. The Japanese sword is a very subtle arts and crafts. You have to get very close to see and judge the quality. You can't see everything at the same time like with a sculpture. You have to tilt a blade to the light at different angles in order to be able to see and judge even very small areas. So it's an art to be able to see, understand and judge a Japanese blade. Everything else follows from this...

If you look closely at the time, there were two major migratory movements of swordsmiths. The first begins around the time of Go Daigo's accession to the throne in the 1320s. Go Daigo formed the center of court opposition to the Kamakura bakufu and it seems that the rather subtle migration of swordsmiths to areas of families that supported Go Daigo was already part of a long-term planned overthrow in Japan. The second, much more extensive exodus then begins with the Nanbokucho conflicts, particularly of swordsmiths from the Kyoto/Yamashiro region and of course Yamato. In the latter case, the mixture of Yamato styles and the Soshu influence under the figureheads Kaneuji and Kinju led to the formation of Mino-Den in the longer term. I think the Masamune Jutetsu are symbolic of the rapid spread of the Soshu style in Japan, which would hardly have been possible without the particular political situation at the time. After the fall of the Hojo, Kamakura played only a minor role as a swordsmithing location and center of Sosu-Den. This is quite special when you consider that before 1320, swordsmithing traditions spread mainly through the Kotobunji system.

@ Lewis B, regarding the high ratings (whether NBTHK or Tanobe-Sensei's Sayagaki) of obviously tired blades, I can only give one example: At the beginning of my passion for nihonto, I was able to see a ko-mihara that had some kizu and was otherwise already very tired. The owner assured me that some very well-known experts (who have unfortunately already passed away) had praised this blade very highly. I didn't understand this and found the blade rather unattractive, even ugly, because of the Kizu. This year, after more than 30 years, I saw the blade again and I was extremely impressed by the quality of the blade. The flaws, no doubt caused by age and many polishes, were completely insignificant to me! A wonderful textbook example of a Ko-Mihara, which can also show Namazu-Hada-like appearances due to the close influence of the Aoe school. I have nothing more to say on the topic. Alex A has included a good link to the Usagiya articles.

Just as an aside, but still relevant to the original topic: A few weeks ago, I bought an Osaka Shinto Waki from a blacksmith who is considered a student of Inoue Shinkai. Not only the style of the work is strikingly similar to Shinkai's, but also the shape of the tang, the kurijiri, the yasurime and finally the character of the signature. This can be found in many blacksmiths of this period who were students of well-known masters. Well, I have difficulty finding the style of Nakagawachi Kunisuke in this work, whose student this Sukekane is supposed to be. Yes, the style is Osaka in the broadest sense, the yakidashi fits Osaka quite well, but it does not look like a typical work from Kunisuke's circle. If you do some research, Kozuke Kami Sukekane, who is said to have been a pupil of Kunisuke, is also said to have signed Yamato kami Kunitake. He was based in Yamato Koriyama and came from the Tegai tradition, hence the typical spelling of “Kane”. The character of the signature of this Kunisuke student (but also the kurijiri and tapering of the Nakago) differs significantly from “our Sukekane”. The signature of “our Sukekane” is very self-confidently written in large kanji and somewhat semi-cursive. The tagane look very sharp and clear. The yasurime also look very clear, and in the lower area it appears as if a rough higaki has been applied (which does not fit Kunisuke as a master at all). Therefore, I wonder if “our Sukekane” was not rather a blacksmith of the late Shinto/early Shinshinto and thus a disciple of the 6th generation Owari Nobutaka and later also of Ozaki Suketaka. The later generations of Nobutaka liked to copy Osaka Shinto, and Suketaka in particular Sukehiro anyway. The reference to “Settsu” in the Hozon could also fit the Nobutaka/Suketaka student, as the Kunisuke student was based in Yamato.sword forging The fact that there is no reference to “Shinshinto” could be due to the fact that this Sukekane worked during the Shinto/Shinshinto transition period and died in 1798 according to Markus Sesko's lapanese sword smiths records... So as you can see, even if this naginata is completely uninteresting to some, it can still be discussed objectively.

I know of only one museum in Europe that has 3 TJs in its own collections...

Books are nice. But at best they only have a supporting effect alongside the knowledge you acquire. Really effective are experts who show you good blades and also explain them and you can ask specific questions. You have to learn to see. And then see and study blades. As much as possible, as often as possible. So the first money is best invested in tickets or gasoline to collectors' meetings or collections. Only with a practical background do the specialist books open up.

The Sayagaki describes it as a "Kuroda masamune". It is probably an Odawara Soshu blade from the late Muromachi.

From memory, there are two Tokubetsu Juyo, the Rai Kunimitsu and the Shodai Nobukuni in the permanent exhibition. The father Niji Kunitoshi can be seen next to the son Kunimitsu. His other son (or pupil) Ryokai is also on display. There is also a Unji and a Ko-Ichimonji. Among the Shinto blades, I can think of Shodai Tadayoshi, Shodai Yukihiro and Nidai Masahiro. The Shinshinto representative is Koyama Munetsugu. I won't be able to say more until Friday, when I'll be discussing a blade with the museum team. But on the other hand, just let yourself be surprised! And as Micheal S already wrote, the museum focuses on outstanding armor and helmets.

Everything is correct, nobody knows for sure. We can only put forward theories. Ultimately, it is we ourselves who make a religion out of it, because we like to pigeonhole everything. We don't feel comfortable if we can't do this. The best example is Shoami. Defining a Shoami style is like squaring the circle. They seem to have been extremely broad in terms of the realization of designs, but also manufacturing techniques. In the early period, they seem to have moved somewhere between the styles that we think can be relatively safely described as owari or kyo-sukashi. At least as far as sukashi tsuba are concerned. We know next to nothing about the shoami before 1600, except that they were doboshu and silversmiths in the service of the ashikaga bakufu. In comparison to the early goto, there were also no genealogies of shoami masters. Well, they were obviously not of noble origin. And yet, from the early Edo period onwards, Shoami branches spread throughout Japan, developing their own characteristic styles. The Shoami therefore seem to have had an importance in Kyoto even before this development, which "we" possibly underestimate - precisely because we don't know it. But why should we, the "non-experts", not think about possible backgrounds or question things? That's what makes our hobby interesting.

I don't see a problem with the different attributions. Especially in the late Muromachi, Momoyama and early Edo periods, the different workshops in Kyoto will have influenced each other strongly anyway. The tsuba combines characteristics that speak for (Ko) Shoami as well as for the Kyo-Sukashi type. The hitsu ana, which are formed from extremely slender-looking myoga, are typically very wide for shoami. However, the elongated and slender seppadai and the symmetrical basic concept of the design make the pendulum swing more towards the kyo sukashi type.

Is this the same exhibition that was recently on display at the NBTHK Museum in Ryogoku in January/February 2024?

Hi Ray, many thanks and best regards!

The Juyo Token nado Zufu of the 25th Juyo session should describe a wakizashi from Kinju's son Kaneyuki. Could someone help me out with a photo of the setsumei and the oshigata? I would really appreciate it!

If this is correct and if I have calculated correctly (and have not mixed up the previous percentages), then this would be the highest failure rate to date at 93.23%.

I see it the same way as Florian. On the one hand, there are koshirae who show or have to show kamon/futsuumeishi on formal and official occasions. On the other hand, we have the fashions of "urban bourgeois culture", or even those who follow these fashions. These are purely decorative aspects without any deeper meaning. It's just meant to please. You can see certain identical designs on tsuba in different qualities in order to be able to serve a broad clientele. Of course, some tsuba may have a direct connection to a clan. But often people simply wore what they liked - which is the main purpose of an uchigatana koshirae in civilian life. It is a calling card of the wearer's status, aesthetic taste, education or simply certain preferences within the social rules of the time. At least that's my opinion.