sc72

Yes Giordy, but I assume that "ubu" would have cost more. I concentrated the photos on the nakago part, some photos I won't upload because they are too heavy. the tang tapers towards the lower part which is cut "cleanly" with o-Suriage, without restoring the shape of the nakago, which I believe is defined as “Kiri”, also known as “ichimonji”

I bought this sword as a production of this swordmaker "X" and from this Muromachi era and as a "suriage" sword, the certificate says all this, the blade (nakago) suggests an "o-suriage" (long cut). It doesn't bother me at all to think of a craftsman who was inspired by previous blades nor that in a later era (I think Edo) the blade was shortened to make it suitable for the fashions and styles of the time. I also think that if the muromachi is famous for blades produced "on a large scale" and of poor quality, this reconstruction of my sword may instead suggest a not so poor product, for the time both for the name of the alleged creator and for the inspiration of the sword as a style-project. The observation of the presence of only one hole on the tang led us to the dissertations on suriage. There are some scratches on the polish as we noticed at the beginning, perhaps from "rubbing", otherwise it's fine for the price Stay tuned for the fotos

Thank you, could you send me this description of a sword from the same craftsman and similar to mine ...if it is online? So if I understand correctly this swordsmith produced long katanas in the muromachi inspired by the previous period, it is plausible that later (Edo?) even more so they wanted to shorten them

I wasn't laughing to make fun of the right terms that should be used but at myself for the mistake I made

Ok, I'll post photos tomorrow if the sword arrives

thanks to all for your help tomorrow I go with fotos

Ok in my Hozon paper "mumei" word end presumed smith's name ....are togheter write inside

Ok but then if it was a nakago ubu and the attribution to the smith was still plausible could the two things coexist... i.e. an ubu blade and "mumei" and attributed to someone from the Hozon? And in that case it would be even better for the evaluation of the sword instead of the suriage... as a value?

hozon paper issued in 2003 year

If the sword it were "ubu" (or almost) it would be "mumei" and therefore what is written about the attribution to the name of the alleged blacksmith on the "Hozon paper" is entirely incorrect. However, as soon as it arrives (tomorrow I think) I'll post the photos and we'll talk about it. Just to know what I bought

I don't have the sword yet and I don't know the actual length of the current nakago. Is a longsword like my estimate compatible with the Presumed style/school of this sword ? ...and what degree of curvature would it have? you started this "game"

SORRY for my pathetic drawing Assuming that the part removed with "o-suriage" had the hole about 10 cm below the "hamachi step" (the original one removed), I estimate that the sword should have been long originally with more or less double the length of the current Nakago ? i.e. about 20 cm more than now. Since now the blade alone is 67.4 then the original "nagasa" must have been perhaps 87 cm long (+20cm)?

But if I were to know the estimated original length and curvature of the blade, what would I need it for? I'm not saying this ironically... I don't know. Perhaps to confirm whether it is truly from the Muromachi era or whether from the beginning, middle or end of this era?

Ah well... I couldn't understand the meaning "behind" the rhetorical Jussi's question. Well, you (and now Jussi also) know (with the MP message) length and attribution of the (presumed) smith... I'm not able to make estimates on this thing, can you?

Or perhaps you mean that since there is no visible hole (...the initial one) on the nakago, it is not credible that the blade has been shortened? So it could be a "mumei" blade? Not even with "o-suriage" could the old hole have been completely removed with the removed part of the tang? Yes, the blade is attributed to a specific smith on the certificate

If the older tang was removed with o-suriage how do I know where the hole was and thinking about it what concerns should I have?

JUSSI I didn't understand your question, that is, what you're referring to, perhaps because I'm not very prepared. Could you be more direct in explaining to me?

yes, the sword has both: the normal scabbard with a more flamboyant grip and the simple wooden (shirasaya)

both

However, now in other photos I have noticed other horizontal scratches also in the upper part of the blade and therefore your saya thesis is plausible. It must have had some sandpaper in it

BUNGO, tenbun era I don't want to involve the seller's site and I don't know well the rules of the forum here... well, but post my photos when it arrives if I put the Smith's name here they will find it immediately.

Nagasa 67,4 cm, yes NBTHK