Edo Period Wakizashi in full Shirosaya I bought today.

[Tcat]

If the guy sent me the sword without de-registering it first in Japan, that is on him, not me, as I have done nothing wrong, nor have I done anything illegal.

 

Correct - don't sweat it. Also, keep posting pics of your blades, Im enjoying seeing the details of your collecting

 

The problem we face here is the Edo period definition of a wakizashi as opposed to merely a shorter bladed weapon than a katana as defined in the Edo period classifications that we use fairly widely today. Those longer wakizashi of the Momoyama period I dont think were defined as wakizashi at the time, they were merely a sword of a convenient length. They really border on being uchigatana.

 

This is interesting. I have a 59 point something cm ubu blade from around mid 1500s and I dont really consider it a wakizashi...more of a smallish longsword. "Technically" speaking it is a wakizashi, but should I really consider it a smaller uchigatana...or, dare I say it...a "katateuchi"?? (http://www.shibuiswords.com/katateuchi.htm)

 

KATATE-UCHI: "One Handed Fighting Sword" were long swords, like Katana. The Japanese produced this long sword style from the period of Bun-mei (1469) through Ten-mon (1532).

 

If a sword was 59cm and made AFTER 1532, would this then not be a Katate-Uchi?

[sanjuro]

Alex.

 

Good question..... I've seen a number of blades from the mid sixteenth century that fall into this size category, and yes, I guess they are Katate uchi. I dont think however that a sword of this length made after that period (lets say a shinto blade for example), would be classified as such. O wakizashi perhaps?

Its all semantics anyhow. Edo period definitions of length are exactly that... They refer only to swords of that period as far as I'm concerned, and can be quite misleading when applied to swords of earlier periods. Western use of Japanese terms is also quite corrupted by misuse particularly on the part of collectors.

[Tcat]

Hi Keith,

 

Its all semantics anyhow. Edo period definitions of length are exactly that... They refer only to swords of that period as far as I'm concerned, and can be quite misleading when applied to swords of earlier periods.

 

I agree...I think it could be misleading when people talk about all Japanese swords around this length referring to them as "wakizashi", irrespective of the period they came from - perhaps they were not intended to be "wakizashi" as we understand the terminology today; they could instead have been the *first* sidearm (as in "main" sword), rather than a secondary sidearm. Would this be correct?

 

Also worth noting...I have heard advice from several collectors stating things like "stay well away from swords of this length" citing reasons like they were likely for merchants (spit) rather than 'true samurai'. I ask, is it not possible that a 'true samurai' at some point in time (mid 1500s) carried a sword with a blade just under 2 shaku?

 

PS. Should probably continue this in the other thread....

[bmoore1322]

I do have another couple of Wakizashi's coming at me from Japan, I guess those are taking extra time to clear being de-registered and such.

 

Of course one of them does have NBTHK papers.

 

As soon as they show up, I will be posting pics of them, one had a valid signature, and the other do not.

 

Thanks

Brian