Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I was reading the article on Rich Stein's site on the cut testing of nihonto in the shinto/shinshinto era....can't seem to get it to link...go to Links : Information 1: Japanese Sword Index : Judging Sharpness (tameshigiri).

 

Very interesting that 200 makers were ranked in the 1815 Kaiho Kenjaku as being in the following classes of excellence

Saijo O-wazamono (best cutters)

O-Wazamono (excellent)

Ryo wazamono (very good)

Wazamono (good)

The Yamada family of testers found 8 makers of the shinto/shinshinto era were consistently good cutters of bodies.

 

In view of our recent discussion on RJT made blades' cut testing of straw mats and iron plates and Tom Kishida's research on the same testing of Yasukunito, do you think it would be fair to say that RJTosho and Yasukunitosho made nihonto blades can be considered in the same standing to the above portion of smiths in the Wazamono class?

Just wondering what the members think?

Regards,

Posted

Hi Geroge,

 

would you kindly point me to the "recent discussion" and "Tom Kishida's research" please?

 

Back to the topic. Well, many RJT smiths' works have been praised by experts. I remember reading about a Nagamitsu blade on JSI that cut a helmet in an official test. So I think it is safe to say the quality of the blades is very high. But it might be difficult to compare "modern tests" (straw and steel) to "traditional tests" (bodies).

 

:lol: How about taking some RJT blades and test cutting a couple of pigs halves. I'm not really being serious here but this might be the only way to get a reliable comparison to the testing methods used on wazamono blades.

 

Although I have to admit, if it was possible to find a reliable comparison/translation, I'd more than welcome it.

Posted

There had been many problems with older blades and poorly made showa-to failing during the war and thus the driving forces behind the RJT program was the creation of a "standardized" sword that had passed various tests and inspections in order to provide a consistent blade with known performance to officers.

 

During the war there were many tests of blades, old and new, done on bodies (living and otherwise). Some of these tests are documented in various books by Naruse, Nakamura, and others.

 

There have been several tests post war of various blades, including WWII era gendaito, showa-to, Mantetsu-to, etc.

 

The upshot, from the results I have seen, is that WWII era blades of different types (gendaito, Mantetsu-to, etc.) have performed as well as older blades. The testing regimen that RJT blades were subjected to were very rigorous and difficult. There is no doubt they will cut very well.

Posted

Drago san,

I referred to the original documents concerning RJT regulations (which include testing and inspection) and extracts from similar docs from Ohmura's site posted by Chris and myself on the thread "Gendaito by Katsukiyo" (Brian may have put this doc in the "Articles" by now?). Also if you check "Yasukuni Swords" by Tom Kishida pp.72-73 it gives details of tameshigiri and inspection. This Yasukunito testing and inspection may have been even more rigorous than the RJT swords.

 

I'm no swordsman so I wont be buying any pig halves (haha) but I saw a press release in the last few years which showed an American swordsman had cut 1000? straw mat bundles in 85? minutes using a blade by RJT Nakata Kanehide of Seki. Not a bad test.

 

As Chris says, the failure of swords of all eras in battle (the Japanese were in close combat from 1931-1945) led to the establishment of this blade research and the forming of the gendaito schemes I mentioned. It is relevant to say also that as the war progressed and the blade quality was stabilised with the Yasukuni, RJT and quality independent makers schemes the focus turned to koshirae. Although the popular Type 98 continued, experience of broken tsuka led to the Type 3 . This required a slightly longer nakago, two ana and a katatemaki binding of hard lacquer, in fact a direct throwback to the uchigatana style of the Sengoku (makes sense). I suppose it would not be too outrageous to state that the good quality Type 3 mounts and the Yasukuni/RJT blade combination is the apex of ground combat sword development.

I suppose it is academic whether these blades are also officially Wazamono or not, but they are a distinct group of proven cutters...pretty unique.

Regards,

Posted

Maybe this gets a little off topic but does anybody has a transcription of the "Kaihô-kenjaku" mentioned by George?

I ask because I translated an article about the setsudan-mei of the Yamano family recently and therein the bakufu

tameshigiri accounts (御様一件) were mentioned. It is stated that all cutting tests ordered by the bakufu were just

of the so-called "ichinodô" cut, the "first body cut", which was a rather "easy" cut going horizontally across the belly just

below of the lowermost ribs, cutting through no major bones except the spine.

 

I am now curious what exact cutting tests Yamada Asaemon performed to come up with the wazamono ranking. So if we

know what standards Yamada had for his list, we might be able to make a better comparison to the RJT testings.

 

Just my 2c.

Posted

Hi Markus,

Knowing the Japanese, there will probably be testing records kept somewhere, and knowing the scholarship standards of some of our members I wouldn't be surprised if someone here has them or knows of them....so, I too would be interested if there is some way to know the swordsmiths who were tested and what the test was.

I think it probable that a sword was tested on a straw bundle at time of making , just as art swords are today, with maybe the more prominent owners of prominent swords later having their favourite sword tested on a body. I think the really extravagant claims for two, three and more bodies at a single stroke are questionable...and wonder if the west is sometimes misreading the number of the stroke (on the body chart) as being the number of bodies cut?

It will be interesting if we can see a comparison for sword testing then and WWII testing.

Regards,

Posted

Markus,

I found this site which lists the smith names in the wazamono categories...it includes other sources also...maybe it is what you are looking for?

http://www.jp-sword.com/files/wazamono/wazamono.html

 

Also, here is a site that mentions a world record tameshigiri session with a Nakata Kanehide gendaito that I mentioned earlier (1000 straw bundles in 1 hr 25 mins).

http://www.flikr.com/photos/hofhine/3723428513/

 

These wazamono lists would help our discussion more if the tests were specifically described here like the documents giving the WWII tests which included straw bundles and iron plates with their specific dimensions.

I'd like to know more about the tests done in these lists and whether this refers only to individual blades tested or the smith's work quality overall from multiple tests of a smiths work over time. Either way names on the lists can be regarded as "tested" and "assessed as good work" and thus, blades by them are enhanced as good work.

 

These lists as they stand DO relate to the RJTosho and Yasukunitosho by the very fact that their names too are on the moderm "excellent work" lists...in the form of the Meibo lists and Yasukuni register lists. Because of the regular testing and inspection program it can be seen also that any one of the RJTosho/Yasukunitosho blades existing today can be regarded as "tested for excellence and cutting"...each one was passed through the system based on either actual testing or based on the constant testing of samples from the smith's production to monitor and ensure the smith's quality of work. In this sense the RJT/Yaukunitosho blades can be regarded as very good tested swords, perhaps on a par with Wazamono.

Regards,

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...