cabowen

I think what he is saying is that in Rai work the quenching is done at a high(er) temperature and this is the reason they show yubashiri in the mune while the two other groups do not. Yubashiri is a structure formed by quenching and when it appears on the mune, it is muneyaki. He seems to be trying to make a distinction between the type of muneyaki that appears in the mune of Rai blades (yubashiri which is nie based) and the muneyaki that appears in other blades (usually nioi based).

Not much to say that hasn't been said already....bravo! I was a bit disappointed though Ford to see that you are making cast tsuba.... :lol:

Nice hasuike!

I don't think anyone has said that ALL muneyaki is unintentional or that ALL muneyaki is "bad"- I know I haven't. I quite agree Brian that there are no hard and fast rules and that there is much that is ambiguous. I have pointed this out as well.

My guess: Top: 雷除 Top Left column: 文珠四郎 Right column: 南部三笠山　？　？　菊一 Bottom left column: 包重 (smith) That should be enough for you to find the smith....

Would be great on so many levels to have more of these museum shows of private collections, complete with educational content. There are suitable museum sites all over the US, for example, and many collectors with quality items- putting the two together for short term exhibits would expose a much greater part of the populace to the art and culture surrounding our treasures. What a great way to stimulate interest and potentially nurture new collectors....

It may not have been registered after the war and that may have been the reason it went lost. Or, it may have been registered, but no one realized what it was- the registration document only contains the physical description. One is suppose to contact the government and provide updated info when a sword changes hands but not everyone does and there aren't apparently any serious efforts made to track and/or punish those that fail to do this...

Indeed, though more correctly, Jinbōchō, properly known as Kanda-Jinbōchō (神田神保町), and is part of the former ward of Kanda. Kanda was a ward of Tokyo until they were reorganized and consolidated after the war.

Sorry, I dropped the translation when I pasted the quote which was posted originally on page 4 of this thread...Here it is: “If we speak frankly, every famous smith when performing yaki-ire will have the clay come off here and there and thus there will be muneyaki more or less on occasion. After yaki-ire, the smith touches up the blade (correcting the sori to fit the parameters of the order, etc.) and the muneyaki will be gotten rid of in many cases (as a part of this “rework” -Translator). Because of this, we rarely see muneyaki in the work of first class smiths, and likewise, it is very common in the work of country smiths and second rate craftsman.”

I don't think they were issuing them in Showa 22. I think it is Showa 24, which is when they began issuing them I believe. In any case, I agree with Peter that it is interesting...

No doubt you will find Juyo and Tokuju Yamato blades with kitae-ware as well....Data is good. As in a "good" starting point, not the end....without the knowledge and experience to know how to interpret it, it is nothing but empty calories... Quite a data dump! You think maybe Nakahara sensei isn't aware of those smiths? :lol: Nakahara sensei’s statement, repeated below, is just a recounting of the traditionally held opinion...No doubt he would also agree that there are some high quality blades with muneyaki....It would seem he is able to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. Fitzgerald calls that the test of a first rate mind. I would call it typical Japanese ambiguity which we see quite often in all fields of Japanese study. Ambiguity tolerance is a prerequisite for moving along the learning curve. 　"端的にいえば、どんな名工が刃文を焼いても土落ちによって日本刀に棟焼は大なり小なり入るのである。 そうであるから、焼入した後で修正(注文通りの寸法の反に調整)する際に、棟焼を消し去ってしまう ケースが多いのである。従って一流名工の作にはこの棟焼は殆どないに等しく、地方や二流刀工には、 よく棟焼があるという事につながっていくとされている。"

Here are a few hints: There is a zodiac kanji in the date. Look those up. Next to the date it says Oite Edo Kanda saku kore (made in Kanda district of Tokyo)　於江戸神田作之 The other side mentions Nanban Tetsu　南蛮鉄 The smith's name is Yasunori 保則 See if you can fill in the blanks....

What gives me pause is the fact that he is attributing the yubashiri muneyaki to Rai's "strong yaki". Which to me, seems that he is talking about a characteristic of the process itself, not the appearance... a cause and effect. I understand the effect, I just don't follow his explanation of the cause.... Like I said, perhaps something lost in translation....

Jean- I agree that the subjective quantifiers make it difficult to grasp, but in this case, in addition to the subjective issues, is the issue of appropriate descriptors. From a metallurgical standpoint, characterizing Rai yaki as "strong" contains no meaning....it is not a valid descriptor for any physical characteristic of hardening . Like saying "ice cream is creative".....

But what does "strong" mean in terms of hardening? Or in comparison to those early schools? I fail to grasp how hardening can be characterized as "strong"....It's like saying the hardening is "powerful"...in the context of this discussion, it makes little sense to me...Perhaps something lost in translation???

Well, if he is claiming that it is not muneyaki, then he isn't saying anything explicitly about muneyaki, positively or negatively, so I am unsure how you can say that he doesn't see muneyaki as a negative. Most consider any expression of hardening on the mune to be muneyaki- after all, that is what the term literally means. So perhaps this author is trying to distance himself from the negative connotation muneyaki has in many cases by saying that for some reason, what we see in Rai blades is not muneyaki, but somehow something different. Yubashiri is an artifact of the hardening process and is a martensitic/perlitic/etc. structure, so it is indeed technically a form of muneyaki, semantics aside. Finally, what exactly does "Rai yaki is just so strong" mean? I think it is clear from the links I posted that muneyaki, when unintentional, is looked down upon most of the time as the work of second class smiths. As I have said, some think the muneyaki on Rai blades is intentionally left (though most upper level smiths remove it per Nakahara) others think it was done purposely (as a byproduct of their hardening program) and left possibly because they thought it improved the performance of the blade. Some think they didn't give it much thought either way...Regardless, when it comes to Rai blades (and others as well), it isn't looked down upon the way it is in other blades. Ambiguous? Perhaps. Such is the world of Japanese swords, and Japan in general, for that matter.

Good choice. He will take good care of you....

Thanks....Something to ask him sometime...

Usually one piece, acid etched hamon. Occasionally you will see one with a real hamon...This one looks to be the first variety.

This is a souvenir piece. It is signed "Gassan Sadakazu", and is without a second look, fake. These were made in large quantities in Seki for tourists, etc.

Did he explain why? I have seen rehardened blades with utsuri-like effects before. Not sure why a blade that is annealed, then rehardened, couldn't produce the same type of steel structures a blade that hasn't been through the cycle once already...There is no metallurgical reason as far as I know....

Late shinto or shinshinto Kaga to me is reasonable....

They are indeed much scarcer so it is hard to make a fair comparison but the best Minatogawa blades I have seen were certainly on par with the better Yasukuni blades. I haven't seen a Minatogawa blade that is the equal of the best Yasukuni blades, but that may be due to a small sample size. The two head smiths at the MInatogawa Jinja were very good smiths. In particular, I have always been a fan of Moriwaki Masataka. In the Kobe area, there are many sword collectors who covet Minatogawa blades.

Kotani san made relatively few blades outside the Jinja with the Takenori mei and thus they are quite rare. I have seen several and they have all been first rate. I have one, done as a Rai utsushi, that is unlike any other gendai-to I have seen. When I showed it to him, he got a big smile on his face and said it was like meeting an old friend after 60 years. He said he only made a few blades like it; he couldn't spend the time at the Jinja that this type of blade required. Better? Surely they are better than the late war work from what I have seen, but I think they are comparable to the early war work. The main difference is he had time and the freedom to make them as he wanted, rather than have to conform to the style requirements of the Jinja.

Mizu-kage (literally Water shadow) usually forms along the line of the air/water boundary when the sword is quenched, at the angle the blade is inserted into the water. If the blade is placed deeper into the water tank so that the air/water interface is into the nakago, then it won't be visible in the polished blade. It has nothing to do with tempering, which is a different process, called yaki-modoshi, done after the original hardening, at a much lower temperature, to primarily relieve residual stress from the quench. Mizu-kage can be a sign of saiha (rehardening) but it doesn't necessarily indicate saiha. As mentioned, some smiths are known to have a visible mizu-kage. When it is visible, you must consider it along with other characteristics to determine if it is original or due to saiha.