Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

not sure I understand. I see one mark on the tang that someone might think is ICHI so may assume Ichimonji but I do not know if the nakago is ubu, do not know length etc. Maybe someone is more experienced than me but I would not try and kantei a sword based on this nakago alone.

Posted

Thank you Mark!

(kind from you to reply)

 

It´s an Tachi blade.

Yamato is certain,Koto is equally certain.

 

The sword is intact and in very healthy condition.

Iori Mune,Kasane 5 mm,Motohaba 2.8,Sakihaba 1.7,there´s no Fumbari,Ko-Kissaki

 

Mine question is based purely on shape of Nakago here.

Nakago is Ubu-blade´s nagasa was but shortened aprox 2.5 cm towards the Ha,and 2.4 towards Mune they did let the length of Nakago(at least obviously)

 

Yasurime indistinct-(based on actual observation)

 

The "general" form/shape of Nakago is reminding me strong to Tegai...

precision of mine question:

"Is an enlongated Mune wandering into the Nakago equally known from Shizu"?

 

This is all i actually would like to know...no more,no less...

:thanks:

Christian

Posted

Christian,

some general information you probably already know but just in case.

founder of Mino tradition Kanuji was originally a tegai smith. he moved to Mino and his work is known as Yamato Shizu. later students work labelled either Shizu or naoe Shizu.

The point is that Shizu work has its origins in Yamato Tegai and then took on some Soshu influence following Kaneuji's time as one of Masamunes 10 imortant students. Therefore trying to distinguish between Tegai and Yamato Shizu based only on an altered nakago is I would suggest near to impossible

BTW it is even more complicated than above because teagi students of kaneuji who remained in Yamato are also known as Yamato Shizu

Posted

The problem Uwe is that you can't compare osuriage or even suriage nakago to ubu examples. You can surmise what they looked like originally by extrapolation, but, you still are reliant on data from ubu examples either by photos or oshigata; or by descriptive paragraphs in books describing the features to look for. For example in Nagayama, Tegai nakago are described; "A common pattern for filing marks is takanoha yasurime." Not much to go on and yasurime are hard to distinguish on older swords for the most part. We can assume from further reading of the Yamato tradition and other sources that the nakagogiri could be iriyamagata. Yamato Shizu; "Kurijiri,...Yasurime are kiri or shallow katte sagari." Naoe Shizu is mostly similar. Even though Tegai shows iriyamagata often and Shizu kurijiri, I would expect that if we were to be given an unsigned ubu blade of the Tegai school or one of Kaneuji (Shizu) and were only allowed to see the nakago of each we would see comparably similar work and would be unable to distinguish one from the other. John

Posted

Hi John,

 

you are right. And as far as I know there are only 2 Tegai Kanenaga left that are ubu. And one is a saiha. But I already wrote: it is a little bit mean. :)

 

Uwe G.

Posted

Look for koi-guchi-gaiba near the mono uchi. If you find it you have a Tegai blade.

Koi-guchi-gaiba is when the hamon acts like 2 parallel and opposing dead end streets. Coming from one direction and stops; coming from the other direction, passes the stop of the other, and stops itself a few paces beyond. This is the classic tell for Tegai work. The pictures, from Nihonto Zuikan, explain it better than I can.

Grey

post-23-14196873326203_thumb.jpg

post-23-14196873328012_thumb.jpg

post-23-14196873329169_thumb.jpg

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...