Was this something good?

[Dr Fox]

Hi all

 

Today someone I knew turned up with a Gunto sword. He asked me for help to identify what he had got. The blade had suffered from rusting, and I think now its ruined. I am on here because I believe the blade is nihonto.

The Tsuka carries a mon badge, and has an 8 piece seppa and seppa die set, all the metal parts have matching numbers. Back to the blade:

Nagasa 66cms

Nakago 14-5

Nakagojiri Ha agari Kurijiri

Tachi mei

Thinking this might merit a few posts, I attach photos.

Thanks Denis.

[hxv]

Dennis,

 

It looks like a kazu uchimono uchigatana. The mei seems to read Bishu Osafune ...

 

EDIT: The tachi mei perplexes me.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[kusunokimasahige]

It is not ruined (yet).

 

It can be repolished but it should be done by an expert. The Kissaki shape will change but it can be saved.

 

The question is, will the owner be prepared to pay the price.

 

KM

[J Reid]

The Kissaki shape will change but it can be saved.

KM

 

 

Imo- that kissaki is toast.. Maybe if the boshi is wide it could be saved.. but I'm guessing that isn't the case.

[kusunokimasahige]

The kissaki can be formed into another kissaki. That is what I mean by changing the shape of it.

 

It is called reshaping the kissaki.

 

I am not talking about the boshi. That will change anyway since it is part of the hamon pattern.

 

Depending on its width it can or cannot be saved.

 

KM

[hxv]

KM,

 

Even though one can always reshape the kissaki, without the boshi, a sword is worthless unless it's a Nanbokucho or earlier tachi. This sword looks to be Muromachi, so probably best to leave as is.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[kusunokimasahige]

So am I correct that saving a sword means that it is still has to be worth money in the eyes of many ?

 

In my eyes you save the artefact. Not the monetary value, even though I understand your boshi argument.

 

I still think this is not beyond repair.

 

KM

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

It looks like a kazu uchimono uchigatana.

 

With a tachi mei ?

[hxv]

KM,

 

No, not just in terms of monetary value. The boshi is a very important part of the "art" aspect of a sword. I suppose it all depends on what one collects. If one collects historical artifacts, then one can certain choose to restore this sword. If one collects art swords, then this sword probably will not fit the bill. There is not a right or wrong answer. It just depends on what the collector in question wishes to collect.

 

Most of us are working folks with finite financial resources. So, I would say monetary values are always a concern - at least for me. This issue is always part of the equation for me.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[hxv]

Jacques,

 

With a tachi mei ?

 

I know That's why I said it perplexes me.

 

Hoanh

[mdiddy]

At first glance the blade looks like an ubu Sue Bizen blade to my eyes. However, the lower mekugi-ana looks older than the two above it and its position is puzzling if the blade is ubu. It suggests to me the blade could be older and shortened. Perhaps the crude tachi-mei were the beginnings of a gimei left incomplete before the smith name was finished. Any better photos of what is after 'Osafune'?

 

I agree with what's already been said regarding condition. The blade may have suffered, but is not ruined. It may not warrant restoration though. Besides the tip, I'd also consider likely pitting and ware surfacing.

[kusunokimasahige]

Thank you for your explanation Hoahn. I understand what you meant better now.

 

Maybe I look too much at swords as a bushi. Does it work or does it not.

 

I should look more as an art-lover.

 

KM

[Jean]

Lovely, but imagine that the bottom mekugi ana is the original one, what do you think of the mei location compare to the ana? And what do you think of this ana compare to the nakago jiri?

 

The blade is not ubu and the mei suspicious...

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Reshaping the boshi will make the mitsukado going more 2 cm back. I'm afraid the boshi will run out of the edge and makes the sword worthless.

 

 

Edit for correction: reshaping the kissaki of course :?

[Jean]

Boshi R.I.P.

 

What do we have: a probably suriage, gimei blade boshiless after restoring.

 

Still any volunteer to have it restored?

 

Edit to add: do not mistake Nihonto collecting for Salvation Army

[Dr Fox]

The tachi mei also threw me, I only thought it might be a smith that always signed tachi mei!

 

Jean the last ana has been punched halfway through from both sides, leaving a ridge of steel in the centre of the nakago, a mekugi of the punch size will not pass through.Can be seen in 05091.

 

Denis.

[J Reid]

Yeah the bottom hole looks like to be the original, the middle looks drilled (ww2?) and top looks like 2nd after suriage.

[kusunokimasahige]

Probably the difference between two very different ways of thought.

 

My way of thought : Historical artefact, could be made something of, even though the original features are lost.

 

Example :

 

The Crosby Garrett Helmet.

 

 

Found as :

 

 

 

Sold for over 2.000.000 UK Pounds. From February 2014 in the British Museum for all to see.

 

We indeed are worlds apart in that respect Jean, even though I can understand the way collectors of Nihonto think about these matters.

 

And yes... I full well know that Ancient Roman Cavalry helmets are less abundant than Japanese swords.

 

KM

[Jean]

Have a look also at the hamachi, very crisp. And the nakago does not curve sognificantly inward...

[Dr Fox]

Jean

The hamachi has been deepened, the signs are there, I thought it was to close fit the new habaki, put on prior its gunto dressings.

 

Denis.

[Jean]

Denis,

 

Probably but not much as from the picture, otherwise the nakago edge would curve inward much more. I have often see blades without hamachi or very small supporting a habaki. To remake a hamachi will suppose that it has almost disappeared, in this case the nakago edge should very significantly curve inward, this does not show in the pictures, but these are only pictures.....

 

Here are examples of remaining hamachi

 

http://www.aoijapan.com/img/sword/2013/13298-3.jpg

http://www.aoijapan.com/img/sword/2013/13394-3.jpg

 

Examples of new hamachi with curved nakago inward:

http://www.aoijapan.com/img/sword/2013/13433-3.jpg

http://www.aoijapan.com/img/sword/2013/13368-3.jpg

 

It would be interesting to see the munemachi and the nakago from above as well as the hamon when it enters the nakago.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

I think it is ubu, yasurime are identical all along the nakago.

 

No trace of mei on the other side ?

[Dr Fox]

Thanks Jean

 

Yes it is evident from an examination of the specific area, I see your point. I had spotted the bright area on this sword, and put it down to the habaki point I made earlier.The photos were not over specific, but should there be a call I would oblige with further efforts.

 

Cheers Denis.

[Jean]

H-J,

 

Could you tell us a bit more about the Crosby Garret Helmet (rarety, place in history) and then compare it as an artefact with a kazu uchi mono (which is not one)

 

Restoring a kazu uchi mono as this one would be equivalent as adding arms at the Venus of Milo

 

BTW, The restoration of this helmet was just making a jig saw puzzle, nothing added or soustracted.

 

Restoration of kazu uchi mono would entail leaving the kissaki as it is. Making a new one would be betraying history.

 

Curators and collectors try not to alter the existing. A curator if interested would take the necessary steps to stop the rust but in any case will never have it polish.

[kusunokimasahige]

Yes Jean, indeed I can.

 

The Crosby Garrett helmet ( approximately late first to mid third century AD) was found in fragments by a metal detectorist and restored/reconstructed by mister Darren Bradbury. They added material to make the sections complete. It often happens that Roman artefacts like helmets are reconstructed by adding epoxy or other resin parts.

 

This is a quote of the Wiki page which was made about this helmet, and it is a fair description of the process :

 

Discovery and restoration

Side view of the helmet.

 

The helmet and visor were found in May 2010 in pastureland on a farm owned by Eric Robinson at Crosby Garrett in Cumbria. The finder, an unnamed metal detectorist in his 20s from Peterlee, County Durham, had been detecting with his father in two adjacent fields for some years but had previously only discovered some Roman coins and other small artefacts. The findspot is situated not far from a Roman road. A number of earthworks are located nearby, suggesting the presence of a previously unrecorded ancient settlement.[3] There was no known Roman garrison near the site of discovery, but the area was strategically placed on the route to the northern frontier of Roman Britain. The Roman army would have been present in the area and would certainly have used the nearly road.[5] It is expected that an archaeological examination of the findspot will be carried out in due course.[6]

 

The finder discovered the helmet and visor buried together some 25 cm (10 in) below the surface.[3] The helmet was found in 33 large fragments and 34 small fragments[5] and had apparently been folded before burial. The visor was mostly intact and had been placed face down. The griffin had become detached and was found with the helmet. No other artefacts were found. The finder did not initially realise that he had found a Roman artefact and thought at first that it was a Victorian ornament. He eventually identified it as Roman by consulting auction catalogues, searching the Internet and getting advice from dealers.[3]

 

Find Liaison Officers from the Portable Antiquities Scheme were notified of the discovery and visited the findspot along with the finder. Christie's commissioned Darren Bradbury, an independent conservator and restorer, to restore the helmet and visor for sale.[3] Although Christie's was asked to delay the restoration so that a full scientific examination could be carried out, this request was not granted and information about the helmet's burial may have been lost as a result.[6] However, the British Museum was able to inspect the find during restoration and X-ray fluorescence spectrometry was carried out to determine the composition of the headpiece, visor and griffin. Bradbury's restoration work took some 240 hours and involved the repair of cracks and holes using resin and cyanoacrylate, retouched to match the appearance of the surrounding material.[3]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_Garrett_Helmet

 

The helmet shape is indeed rare because in Cavalry Sports helmets (a typology devised by H.Russel Robinson) while there have been slighly comparable Phrygian cap style helmets none were as pronounced as this one. Most of the masked types are found without the outer shell, so mostly the mask is all that survives, but occasionally we find a full helmet, like for instance this one (which does however miss its decorated brow band :

 

 

More detailed images and various types here :

 

http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... masks.html

 

The importance of its place in history, just like other Cavalry helmets which were used from at least the first century AD untill the late fourth century, is that it can give us several clues about whether these helmets were purely ceremonial, battle ready, what the spread was around the Empire, if there were various styles specific to various regions, what the regional spread was (for instance Batavian cavalry units at Hadrian's wall, Syrian units in Germania Inferior, Belgian units in Africa) et cetera, even though the context of the find is murky at best in this case. A more thorough excavation of the area it was found in would be best to shed more light on that.

 

In archaeological reconstructions as well as restorations it is not uncommon to add material where material was lost, to at least come to the most likely shape of the artefact when it was in use.

 

Of course if the sword depicted was a kazu uchimono the tip would likely be left as it is and the rust deterioration would be stopped by encasing the tip in some kind of material which prevents oxygen from reaching it and which prevents the blade from deteriorating any further. The same happens with ancient swords which are found in the ground, here an example of Roman swords in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. :

 

 

However, Classical Japanese swords kept in Musea and shrines, like Chokuto as well as Tachi have been polished by proficient polishers and even heavily rusted ones, as is not only stated in the article by Carlo Guiseppe Tacchini about the origins of Nihon-to but was also recently shown with a photograph on this board in a topic on a Tachi. :

 

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17240

 

Of course the Tachi in this image still had the basic shape in its kissaki. But, as with all polishing, metal will be lost.

I therefore wonder how many of the treasured swords in Musea in Japan still contain their original kissaki and boshi.

also, suriage is sometimes performed or was at some time in the past for various reasons.

 

When Archaeologists find tens of thousands of pottery shards, for example from Terra Sigillata, some shards will be cast out and dumped eventually. Not all of them, and even bowls or drinking cups might be restored at times by adding material to it or by just glueing the matching shards together. This does not detract (in scholarly or archaeological sense) from the value.

 

 

So the question then is, does an object warrant preservation, conservation and in some cases restoration ?

 

In the case of Nihon-to that is partly up to the owner of any sword. When we speak about Musea, in general they will find the saving of an artefact (if it merits their scholarly interest, adds to the collection or in the case of National importance) a good thing. Even though not all musea take as good care of their collection as we would like them to.

 

For collectors of Japanese swords the decision is more personal and more in lieu with what the collector wants.

Some see the sword as being handed to us to keep and save for/hand over to posterity, some see it as a commodity or investment and some see it as something they can hold onto, enjoy, study and sell when needed or when interested in something new.

 

In my view the question is not: Does saving this sword by conserving it or repolishing it make it more or less valuable in the sense of a commodity, but rather a more substantial one of which artefacts should we save and which ones should we chuck away.

 

For instance:. I saw a set of many nakago (cut off) for sale. The owner stated on his page that they were worth keeping and formed an important collection which gave an insight into various ways of sword-making.

 

I am convinced there are more than a few Nihonto Collectors who would have chucked those away because they were "Beyond restoration" or "dead" or "junk".

 

This debate is of course highly subjective.

 

Does something warrant any artefact/item to be saved ? In my view, yes in most cases it does.

 

But that is just my opinion.

 

 

KM

 

PS : About the reconstruction of the Garrett Helmet a book will come out soon by my friend and Archaeologist Mike Bishop

http://www.academia.edu/4878360/The_Cro ... ett_Helmet

 

It is not certain yet whether its available through Amazon but I will let you know if you are interested.

[Dr Fox]

Henk-Jen/Jean

 

I was about to scream this post was being robbed/diverted/stolen, but then the discussion points you both were making came through.

HJ. The theory you champion, is why I started this post, I saw a blade which I felt has had a better pedigree, than had been appreciated by the people who had the care and custody of it. Should it be junked without at least someone knowing what it had been! To call it an artefact suits me at this time, because to me it will never be a sword again!

Never the less from its noble beginnings, it is now only the link that keeps all the parts of its koshirae together.

Jean.

I hope I understand what you are saying, simply put, there are items which in life represent what they are, deviate from that and they are no longer recognisable as original. These items will never be artefacts, because then, they can never represent in truth, the art form that they were intended to portray.

A rose that has faded is no longer a rose, but at an earlier time it was a Rose.

Denis