Size and shape Answers posted

[paulb]

One of the first things we are told when starting to study Nihonto is to look at the shape. "The shape tells you the period in which the sword was made". this rather simplistic view ignores three important points:

1. Swords were often shortened during their life

2. Later schools specialised in producing copies of earlier work

3. Some schools ignored "modern trends" and carried on making swords with a much earlier shape.

 

All of these make life interesting when trying to estimate age based on sugata. Perhaps what we should say is that Original shape suggests age. and that we know that if a sword was made say with a shape that came in to being in a specific period it can be no earlier than that period.

 

When assessing shape of suriage pieces we need to try and see what the original shape would have been rather than what we are looking at now.

Just for fun below is an image of 4 swords. The earliest dates from the early Kamakura period the latest is Shinshinto from around 1860. All but one of these swords has been shortened. Have a look and see if you can judge when they were made.

[Jorgensen]

I'll take the first shot and say no. 4 is kamakura.. 3 & 4 shinto/shinshinto and no. 1 somewhere between... I of course may be totally off

 

correction edit... no. 2 could look like koto bizen however.... but not much sori (left)...

[raaay]

Hi Paul

 

 

ok just for fun and feel free to slaughter me, and better pics might be helpfull or was that the point, there is got to be a twist in this conundrum :?

 

no 1 - Shinto.

 

no 2 - Shin -Shinto.

 

no 3 - Nanbukocho.

 

no 4 - Kamakura.

 

and the suriage is !!!!

 

Ray

[paulb]

The image was a quick shot just to show shape and not much else. This wasnt intentional mainly down to incompetence on my part.

I will let this run a little while so any beginners who want have a go can join in. Not intended as a heavy intelectual exercise more a chance to think and practice a little.

I think to get closer it is important to imagine what the sword was like before being shortened, if indeed it was. Also remember that shapes werent switched on and off there was a gradual transition from one to another (as wekll as the complications previously mentioned)

[J Reid]

1. shin-shinto (ubu)

2. shinto (shortend by maybe 1.5-2 inches at machi)

3. koto (nambokucho)

4. koto( kamakura)

 

??

[Brian]

1:- Ubu, shinshinto.

2:- Kanbun Shino

3:- Nambokucho

4:- Eary Kamakura

 

Brian

[Grey Doffin]

What Brian said.

Grey

[Jean]

Coming back from Valentine celebration. Agreed with Brian.

[Alex A]

Hi Paul, later schools copying early work is a worry for me, but here goes, dont laugh :D

 

1 SHINSHINTO

2 KAMAKURA

3 MID NANBOKUCHO

4 SHINTO

 

Alex.

[Ron STL]

Interesting challenge here...I agree with Ray.

1 - shinto

2 - shinshinto

3 - Nambokucho

4 - Kamakura

 

Number 3 could be a fooler, being a shinshinto copy of Nambokucho shape, made to look old.

Ron STL

[J Reid]

Ron,

No.3 blade is clean.. (condition of ji hada is much better than No. 2 Shinto) But the nakago tells the truth. Even though the pictures are grainy, you can see that there is a lot of age in the last 3.5 inches of the nakago in comparison to the top 2 blades (youngest).

Alex,

There were often shinshinto copies of koto works, not as often in shinto times. So no 4. is definitely not shinto.. The bottom blade is obviously kamakura (using sugata, kissaki, and patina on the nakago) and the oldest of the lot with an nice patina on the nakago.

 

Of course these could all be master forgeries and we could all be way wrong!! But I'm just going to throw the idea on the table that all 4 of these swords are probably somewhat important works and authenticated as un-tampered with (age considered ie. patina etc.).

[paulb]

Dear All,

considering the quality of the image for which I apologise, I think many of you have done extremely well although looking at the variations in ideas for some of them I think we can see how difficult it can be to make age calls on blades that are not in original condition in length and shape. I will leave this for a little longer (until tomorrow am UK time) in case anyone else wants to have a go.

I hope it has been a useful execise and fun for those who have joined in

Best Regards

Paul

[bluboxer]

1) Kanbun shinto

2) Azuchi-momoyama

3) Nambokucho shortened

4) Shinshinto (copy of kamakura)

 

This is a fun exercise, thanks Paul.

[Surfson]

Good test! I will go along with Kanbun shinto for 2, Nambokucho for 3 and Kamakura for 4, but number 1 has me a bit stumped. The shinogi line appears to run close to the nakago mune as if it once had more curve in the nakago. I have a suspicion that 1 may be older than it looks.

[Peter Bleed]

This is a great exerise. Thank you Paul!

Here are some out of the groove guesses.

 

Top: Shinto

2nd: Kambu shinto - shortened

3rd: Shin-shinto

Bottom: Kamakura

 

Peter

[Toryu2020]

FWIW

1. Shinshinto - ubu

2. Koto - Muromachi

3. Koto - Nanboku-cho

4. Koto - Kamakura

[sanjuro]

I agree with Thomas.

Hard to nail something down to a narrow 60 year period with Number three, but it has all the look of a Nambokucho piece.

[templar44]

Ego in check and stepping out on the limb:

 

1. Nambokucho (Tegai)

2. Circa 1400

3. Nambokucho

4. Kamakura

[chrstphr]

1. Shinshinto Ubu

2. Shinto suriage

3. Nambokucho o-suriage

4. Kamakura o-suriage

 

 

 

My two cents

 

 

Chris

[paulb]

Dear All

Thank you for taking part in this exercise. I think it has demonstrated that judging age simply from shape and on swords that have been altered can be challenging. I know in this case the task was made more difficult because of the poor quality of the images. Should I do something similar in the future I will take more time with the camera.

Answers:

1. Shinshinto Ubu made around 1860

 

2. Shinto O-suriage Tensho (1578 ish)

 

3. Koto O-suriage late kamakura

 

4. Koto O-Suriage early kamakura (1220)

 

The ones that caused most challenge appear to be numbers two and three. In the case of two I think a better image would have helped. Although it has a Kanbun look as it is the blade has been shortend considerably, I am guessing around 15cm or 6" the rim of the original mekugi ana can just be seen on the end of the nakago. Following the line of the shinogi through the nakago and to an imaginary end point shows that the ubu blade had quite a deep sori, certainly more than you would expect in a Kanbun piece. It was also a lot longer than one might expect from the mid to late 17th century.

 

Had I not been told otherwise I would have also placed number three in to the Nambokucho period. Especially looking at alongside the others it is a large heavy and impressive blade. In reality we are only talking about 10 to 20 years difference. This blade being made somewhere around 1320 it is closer to the Nambokucho than the early Kamakura. The determining factor in this case is not the shape but the work, the jigane and the hamon (which you cannot see in the image) place it firmly in to the final years of the kamakura period. I think the important thing this points to and we (I) often forget is that swords didn't suddenly become big in the Nambokucho, they developed that way. There are many examples of this shape in the last years of the Kamakura which show the transition. Although the kissaki is large it isnt the O-kissaki of the later period. Likewise the proportions are larger but not what you would expect from the Nambokucho. Again this is confirmed if you try and imagine the ubu sword from what you can see of the O-suriage piece.

I think every one who took part got the majority of the placements right, although not all the same ones. I hope it was a useful exercise and stimulated the grey cells a little.

Just as a final point in case of doubt, all of the attributions are based on a combination of NBTHK papers and Sayagaki from noted authorities such as Honami Kozon and Tanobe Sensei so I am confident that they are as accurrate as they can be considering all are mumei.

If anyone has any questions I would be pleased to answer them either here or via pm

thanks for taking part.

[Alex A]

Cheers Paul, good exercise, much appreciated.

 

Alex.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

I've a doubt with the number two, (from the top) can we have a clear picture of the nakago and the 10cm after the machi ?

[sanjuro]

Jacques.

 

all of the attributions are based on a combination of NBTHK papers and Sayagaki from noted authorities such as Honami Kozon and Tanobe Sensei

 

Is there some reason to doubt these authorities????

[paulb]

Dear Jacques,

I put the comment about the authentication in the answers just for you.

As said all these swords have been attributed by either papers NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon or higher and in addition some have seperate confirmation from recognised authorities as described earlier. I am sorry but I am not able to offer additional images at present as I am away from the swords. However I am confident that the attributions are as accurate as is possible. I think any doubt may well be because the picture does not clearly show the lines of the sword.

[peter]

i might as well :-/

from oldest. 3,4,2,1,

Peter

opps bit late and still wrong

[paulb]

Dear Jacques

I managed to find an image of the nakago for the sword in question taken some while ago. I hope this is clearer for you and answers some of your questions.

[J Reid]

Thanks Paul. I thought this exercise was fun!

[Peter Bleed]

As others have said, "Thanks Paul!" This was very stimulating and a good use of the Board.

Peter

[cisco-san]

Many thanks Paul - very good exercise

[raaay]

Hi Paul

 

ahh the second and better pic of number 2 gives it away with the partial tang hole right on the end of the nakago, that's why i said was the qualty of the pics deliberate to make it a more difficult task

 

anyway thanks for the post,

 

 

Ray