????

[Darcy]

 

To comply with Jean's demands (haha):

 

Nagasa: 68.5 cm

Kissaki: 2.6 cm

Sori: 1.8 cm

Sakihaba: 1.7 cm

Motohaba: 2.7 cm

Nakago: 18.5 cm

Yasurime: kiri, sujikai on nakago mune, ha, and jiri

Nakago sori: 2-3 mm

Shinogi width at moto: 1.0 cm

Shinogi width at saki: 0.6 cm

 

Riddle me this one, wizards! No bias, not my sword.

[Darcy]

No takers? I'm looking for help in determining period :-). I don't know the answer for sure.

[Jean]

Darcy,

 

you have only read partially my post, you have forgotten the following :

 

Close picture of :

- The Kissaki

- Monouchi

- Nakago

- upper view from mune machi

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Unfortunately, the only picture we have is very low resolution (rather blurred)

 

The Nakago seems only slightly shortened, the suguta and sori made me think of a Shinto +/- 1700 AD blade (post kanbun).

 

Let's see what other NMB members think.

[Darcy]

Just looking for opinions on the period based on sugata...

 

You might want to look closely at the measurements :-).

[AndreasU]

Hmm, from shape and length looks like a slightly shortended kamakura period blade?

[stekemest]

I'd say mid koto, maybe kamakura or nambokucho. It seems to have a kiri nakago, so I guess it's a shortened tachi blade.

[pcfarrar]

It doesn't appear to be koto to me, I would guess shinto late 17th or 18th century.

I agree with Jean that it appears to only be very slightly suriage.

[Jean]

Yes Darcy, I did not want to stress that we are facing the first kantei step which is determine the era of the blade.

 

Now why Kamakura, why Nambokucho, why post Kanbun?

 

My answer is based on the overall vision of the blade and the feeling I have.

 

I have hesitated between two answers. The first I have given is based on gut feeling. The second I could have given is sue koto

 

- my main reason to give this answer of +/- 1700 is based on two things : the Nakago has only one mekugi ana, seems really very slightly shortened and has a shinto look. Furthermore, taking Darcy inventory sheet - (BTW that is why I insist on getting it before playing the kantei man act) you have the sori : 1,8 cm. It seems to be torii. It means that the sword has only be slightly shortened because it is too big to belong to an O suriage blade (remember there is only one mekugi ana). The sori does not match a Kamakura/Nambokucho O suriage blade, further for NMB members who have held Kamakura/Nambokucho blade please refer to the others measures given by Darcy. We are facing (despite the picture) a very slender blade with a ko kissaki (go to Aoi Art/ katana and see the measurement given (sakihaba/motohaba)) - Ko kissaki :2,6 cm !!!! for a blade of 68,5 cmm long that is really small. I have an Uchigatana (sue bizen) with 62,7 nagasa and a 3 cm kissaki and it looks very small ...

 

I am also ruling out the kamakura/nambokucho period for the fumbari, O suriage Nambokucho/Kamakura swords have little fumbari - remember I consider we are facing a slightly shortened blade -

 

Momoyama to Kanbun sori does not match, so it could be after, but before shinshinto ====> circa 1700 or a bit later.

 

Other Hypothesis : sue Koto blade, around Entoku or after Tenmon when blades length starts to increase (from 62/66 cm it goes to the 70 cm), the nakago seems to have a deep black rust (please refer to Tokugawa Art/Katana) but the Nakago should have less tapering (more stout)

 

 

Everything in this post comes, at near 3 o'clock in the morning, from a poor frog which has been banned from his bed because of snorring

 

All this is written under the label "IMHO", I am gone try to sneak back between the sheets - so long mates

[Darcy]

 

Still late Shinto sugata? :-)

 

Late shinto sword I would expect:

 

- little taper

- more curvature than a Kanbun piece but not much curvature

- chu kissaki

- length is longer than Kanbun pieces in general, about 70cm

 

Typical measurements would be something like a 3.1 or 3.2 cm motohaba going down to a 2.2 or 2.3 sakihaba. This is 2.7 down to 1.7. A Chu kissaki is around 3.5 cm. This one is 2.6 cm, which is closer to a ko-kissaki than a chu-kissaki. The Sadazane on the left has an ikubi kissaki which is middle Kamakura style, it is about 2.1 cm. Overall the style of the Sadazane is early Kamakura.

 

I think this might be an early Kamakura blade cut down, which is why it has lost the former mekugiana and is only showing one.

 

I can only think of one reason why an entire nakago would be refinished like this and it would be to remove a gimei. This was done a long time ago though and I think back then they'd be promoting the gimei rather than removing it heh.

 

Anyway I'm basically looking at the taper, curve, and size of kissaki and thinking it is Kamakura, possibly early or late as the late blades took the example of the early ones. Think it was just long, was polished many times, then cut down relatively late.

[Mark Green]

That graf. is just way too cool. NICE

[Darcy]

sori : 1,8 cm. It seems to be torii. It means that the sword has only be slightly shortened because it is too big to belong to an O suriage blade

 

As shown above, it's no problem at all to fit within a single 9 cm shortening from a Kamakura period tachi. The tachi in question, the Sadazane, is 77 cm. This is not a particularly large tachi. Many Kamakura blades were over 80 cm, and when you get into the Nanbokucho of course size can be almost anything.

 

I once had a Muromachi period tachi that had a sugata of 89 cm and it is arguable as to whether the blade is ubu (I think so) or very slightly shortened. It's a trap to over-generalize... people will look at this 89 cm sword and say that it must be Kamakura because Muromachi swords are all 65 cm one handed fighting blades :-).

 

This big sword is interesting too because it has incredible midare utsuri. The maker was Yasumitsu. If this sword was o-suriage people would say that it could not be Yasumitsu because there is no bo-utsuri and Muromachi period swords have bo-utsuri. We may even look down on them a bit for their bo-utsuri which is not so interesting and it looks like a loss of skill.

 

What this tachi demonstrates is that a smith like Yasumitsu didn't forget or lose the ability to make midare utsuri. He chose to make bo-utsuri. This tachi tells us that there is a reason for bo utsuri, and if he felt like making a sword that would fool you into thinking you were looking at a Nagamitsu he could.

 

So again it hammers home the lesson about over-generalizing... of course it's really dangerous to over generalize when the information is not fundamentally correct (i.e. the 1.8 cm sori thing), but things like the utsuri, we have to look at this kind of thing in the bigger picture and now realize that maybe bo utsuri will rule out Ichimonji, but midare utsuri won't rule out Yasumitsu. He comes later and it is in his repertoire.

 

Maybe it is true that the Muromachi Bizen smiths didn't lose utsuri altogether, maybe whatever reason it was made for stopped existing, or they found that it didn't really help the performance or them sell swords. So why go to the extra effort to make it? Some late Muromachi swords show utsuri: maybe a customer wanted it, and they went, "Uh, why?" And the customer said he liked it, reminds him of Grandpa's sword.

 

We don't know...

 

So there is I guess a danger in over-connecting the dots, I'm just kind of spinning these thoughts right now in context and wish I had put more of this into the book.

 

The sori does not match a Kamakura/Nambokucho O suriage blade,

 

Aside from the animation showing that it does, sori is easy to make a misjudgment on when looking at the numbers. A shinto blade may look straighter because it may not taper so much as a koto blade. This means that the cutting edge more directly emulates the sori measured on the back. If there is a lot of taper, this increases the sori of the cutting edge.

 

So if you just look at the sori without looking at the difference between moto and sakihaba you're not getting the full story.

 

And also the more a blade is shortened the more the resulting sori is effected.

 

Regardless, 1.8 cm is very common in an o-suriage Kamakura sword. The Yamashiro Gojo I once had, which is a Heian sword, had a 1.8 cm sori if I recall correctly. Ko-Osafune Kagehide (mid Kamakura) in my book is 1.3 cm. Niji Kunitoshi I had was 1.6 cm. The four Ichimonji in my book are 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9 cm. The Ryumon Nobuyoshi to the left that is currently on my website has a 1.7 cm sori. Yet it appears very graceful, and this is because of the taper of the sword enhancing the cutting edge and affecting the perception of its curves. Very small changes in these numbers have a powerful visual effect.

 

To me though the most powerful argument is simply the size of the kissaki. If this kissaki was not ground down to nothing from a chu kissaki, I have trouble seeing it standing in the Shinto era. It's not right, a chu kissaki will completely outperform a small kissaki, and small kissaki like this were just not made ever since the Kamakura period for the reason that they were basically a design flaw.

 

They break more easily, and once broken, have less chance of being repaired. So they vanish at the end of the middle Kamakura, you start seeing Chu kissaki and then the concept is dramatized into the O-kissaki and then there is a return to Chu-kissaki which becomes the status quo for the rest of the history of the sword. You get O-kissaki in the peace of the Momoyama period when smiths are deliberately copying Nambokucho swords and then again in the Shinshinto period for the same reason... but you never get the ko or ikubi kissaki again.

 

I am also ruling out the kamakura/nambokucho period for the fumbari, O suriage Nambokucho/Kamakura swords have little fumbari - remember I consider we are facing a slightly shortened blade -

 

I would be ruling out middle Nanbokucho for the same reason...

 

Momoyama to Kanbun sori does not match, so it could be after, but before shinshinto ====> circa 1700 or a bit later.

 

Ok, I see how you got there then... process of elimination. But the analysis part should continue and you should examine it against the typical 1700s sword.

 

Sori stereotype chart VVV

 

http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/images ... story2.gif

[Jean]

In fact, you are right about my process, I have proceeded by elimination.

 

Considering the tapering a post kanbun sword has roughly 0,8/0,9 cm tapering between the Motohaba and the Sakihaba. The blade being slighltly shortened (machi Okuri?) it could have fitted.

 

As I have mentioned already I had totally ruled out late kamakura/nambokucho sword because all the swords I have seen from this area are rather stout.

 

Putting aside a possible Utsushi blade, I have an Eisho uchigatana with this measurement : Nagasa : 62,7 cm

Sori : 2,1cm

Hamachi : largeur : 2,9 cm

Yokote : largeur) : 1,84 cm

 

But I have ruled out thsi period because of the Nakago pattern.

 

From the measurement given by Darcy, the only other option available could have been Late Heian/early Kamakura. I have eliminated this solution because I have not seen such blades and I thought the shortening was affecting the sori which was more like Koshi.

 

But above all I have eliminate this possibility because it would have been really an incredible piece of luck to encounter such a blade in such state of conservation and healthy.

 

Please note that the picture is giving a very wrong idea of the blade which looks like much more stout, that is why Darcy has given the inventory sheet otherwise no discussion should have been possible.

 

About reasonning on Generalities about Nihonto, without any other information at end on thousands of exception (That's what Nihonto is all about) we have to manage with what we have.

 

Question remains opened on the Era

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/images/thumb/9/91/Sugata_history2.gif/600px-Sugata_history2.gif

 

With the hundreds of similar charts available you've choosen the

one made by me and my estonian friend Valdek Laur for my Samuraiwiki

article ?

 

Hope you've not read the article, it's just a needed small note I was

requested to write for an essentially genealogy-related site...

 

Anyway, great exercise of kantei this thread.

[stekemest]

In my opinion, it has too much sori for a shinto sword. If not kamakura/nambokucho, I would have suspected sue-koto, but I still think the first assumption is the most likely one.

 

Darcy, please look at your private messages.

[Jean]

Peter,

 

concerning sori of Shinto post Kanbun swords, have a look at this one :

 

http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/katana/07272.html

 

The sori is 1,9 cm for a 69,3 cm nagasa

[pcfarrar]

Anyone like to guess this one of mine. (it's papered)

 

nagasa: 62.5cm

nakago: 14cm

Sori: 1.8cm

motohaba: 3cm

sakihaba: 1.9cm

kissaki: 2.3cm

 

 

[Tokaido]

Hi folks,

shape is commonly called the *key* to place a sword in time.

I did think so until recently, too.

But then I looked at two swords:

Sword #1:

nagasa: 724 mm

sori: 13 mm

sakihaba: 19,5 mm

motohaba 30 mm

kissaki nagasa 28 mm

sakikasane: 6mm

motokasane: 7mm

 

Sword#2:

nagasa: 707 mm

sori: 13 mm

sakihaba: 18,5 mm

motohaba 30,8 mm

kissaki nagasa 27 mm

sakikasane: 4,8mm

motokasane: 7mm

 

The width of the shinogi is similar too.

 

These swords both look like slender blades because of the tapering

and the rather short looking kissaki. The kissaki looks short, but

it isn't, if you take a look at the measurements: perfect

chu-kissaki = sakihaba / kissaki nagasa = 18,5 mm/ 27 mm

 

If you hold them in your hand and look at the steel and hamon (and nakago ), the difference becomes obvious:

#1 is a Kanei period katana (ubu)

#2 is a late Kamakura o-suriage katana

 

Most important: shape of the ko-shinogi and fukura of the kissaki (if not altered due to polishing)

 

Greetings

[Darcy]

Discussion on sugata:

 

As mentioned, Sori is deceptive... you can't go by the measurement alone to judge the period. You need to look to the sugata instead, one component of which is sori.

 

Also, never bundle together late Kamakura swords with Nanbokucho period swords. It's not quite correct to think of even Nanbokucho period swords by themselves as a group because there are distinctive styles within the period.

 

The evolution of swords from the Kamakura period goes like this:

 

Early Kamakura pieces have a graceful style that is based on the Heian style but it is more robust and larger with center of curvature closer to the machi. The Heian swords tend to be very gentle. That said, when you look at at a sword like the O-Kanehira, these break the stereotype of the Heian sword very nicely.

 

The O-Kanehira is a famous Heian period blade with wide mihaba and ikubi kissaki. It looks like it belongs to the middle Kamakura.

 

I am using "stereotype" because I want to convey the thought of it being a generalization that is based on something observed, but not necessarily fair to apply as a rule.

 

Anyway, once you get to the middle Kamakura, the swords become thicker in mihaba and more robust, curvature moves up, with ikubi kissaki, and maybe the smiths are looking at the O-Kanehira or others made like this in earlier periods and using them as a model for construction.

 

The ikubi kissaki ends up being a loser, and it gets replaced with a chu kissaki, and then the middle Kamakura sugata is thrown out and it is replaced with a recall of the Early Kamakura sugata. With the chu-kissaki instead of a ko-kissaki.

 

As the Kamakura wanes, this enhancement of the sugata continues and the swords get broader and longer and the kissaki increases. Not all swords comply! You still have the gentle form, and this form also continues in a slightly more robust shape.

 

In the Nanbokucho the stereotype of the era becomes the Soshu pioneered shape of the O-kissaki and the wide mihaba. You don't see this everywhere though or in all swords! Again, not all comply, some stick to the late Kamakura form.

 

Towards the end, you don't see the o-kissaki anymore and the big sugata is thrown away for a return to dimensions like the late Kamakura sugata. This then shrinks and becomes the uchikatana. Again, not all swords conform! Biggest tachi I've ever seen that wasn't made deliberately as a freak is the 89 cm Yasumitsu.

 

A Late Kamakura sword is going to look (in general) like an Early Kamakura sword, or it will look similar to the middle Nambokucho period swords. Those kinds of swords that are halfway inbetween, I will refer to as late Kamakura / early Nambokucho period styling.

 

A pure late Kamakura blade doesn't look like this but is affected by the old, rather than the new.

 

Two swords by Yukimitsu made in the late Kamakura:

 

"Late Kamakura / Early Nanbokucho Sugata" <- still a late Kamakura sword!

nagasa: 70.2cm

sori: 1.6cm

motohaba: 3.0cm

sakihaba: 2.4cm

kissaki: 4.6cm

nakago: 18.7cm

 

"Late Kamakura Sugata" <- definitely late Kamakura sword

nagasa: 69.4cm

sori: 1.5cm

motohaba: 2.8cm

sakihaba: 2.0cm

kissaki: 3.3cm

nakago: 20.8cm

 

Just from the numbers you can detect the difference in architecture. #1 taper ratio is 1.25. #2 is 1.4. The monouchi on #1 is 20% wider than #2, while the motohaba is only 7% wider. The kissaki is 40% longer.

 

Altogether, #1 is a much more massive sword, one that looks forward to the Nambokucho, where #2 is the graceful type that looks back to the early Kamakura.

 

These two pictures should be to the same scale. You can see the large differences in construction easily, though they were made by the same smith probably within 10-20 years of each other.

 

 

 

It's either Kanzan or Kunzan who wrote that the shape of swords does not come from the period. It comes from the dominant tradition of the time. So when we say a Nanbokucho period sword looks like this on the far left (Hasebe, Soshu den tachi), what we're saying is that the dominant tradition of this time is the Soshu den. The popular swords of the time were Soshu den. Smiths elsewhere in the country were trying to emulate the popular style as a result. So you get this shape, pioneered in Sagami, spreading through the country. Now we look back and say this is the shape of the period, but this is not just a simple organic change that sweeps through everywhere.

 

That's why some swords do not change, because some smiths ignore the trend or their customers do. Yamato swords tend to stick to tried and true and don't get swayed by changes like this. I'm still waiting to see a Naotsuna with an O-kissaki, though this smith worked half in Soshu den I haven't seen any yet (not like I have huge experience). Most Nambokucho period swords don't have an o-kissaki, most will have a chu or elongated chu kissaki. Even this Kanemitsu on the right, the prototypical sword of the Soden Bizen in the middle Nanbokucho, has only an elongated chu kissaki.

 

What we get over time then is a series of generalizations.

 

Always remember, the Gokaden does *not* exist in reality... these sugata generalizations are not hard and fast rules... they're just tools of convenience given to us by the Honami that help us nudge a particular decision one way or another. You take the sum of the results of your observations, and see where the best match is. Some rules are harder than others, some softer.

 

Through the discussion on this sword I think we have collectively been able to conclude that the measurement of sori is meaningless without the additional context of sugata and other measurements of the sword. I didn't quite realize this going in either.

 

The conclusion is that we can't put blinders on when classifying by shape, we have to be aware of the subtle changes in sugata, and that the stereotype of the period is not the only shape of the period, and what the influences are and why a sword looks like it does. Emphasis has to be placed on the elements of the sugata that are less likely to be used in other periods vs. things like the sori measurement in which a reading of 1.8 may be found over swords made for the last 1,000 years.

 

When we know why a shape is how it is, it helps us understand what we're looking at. I brought a Kamakura sword to kantei once and a guy who knows a lot said it was Muromachi. His rationale was that it had saki sori.

 

Muromachi swords take their shape from the upper part of late Kamakura blades as the model. The curvature they emphasize as "saki sori" (which is another big generalization) is found in late Kamakura blades, where the curvature continues through the monouchi. To get tied up in this part of the curve brings you down the wrong path. Knowing there is a relationship between the two periods, that Muromachi is a rejection of the excess of the Nanbokucho and an attempt to apply some of the late Kamakura goodness to the current time, helps you realize that the distinction is not so black and white. Then you don't feel so bad when a 62 cm o-suriage Norishige is mistaken for a Muromachi katate-uchi because of the curvature and the size. Basically, the muromachi katate-uchi is trying to emulate that sword, so that makes the kantei pretty good (outside of the matsukawa hada .

[Darcy]

Peter: late shinto? . Sounds like a trick question now! I would think from the look of the sword it is a Muromachi uchigatana.

 

Can you give the rest of the measurements? Ko-kissaki should be 2 cm or less I think.

[pcfarrar]

Peter: late shinto? . Sounds like a trick question now! I would think from the look of the sword it is a Muromachi uchigatana.

 

Can you give the rest of the measurements? Ko-kissaki should be 2 cm or less I think.

 

Sorry updated the measurements. It's a Jiro Taro Naokatsu

[Darcy]

NTHK or NBTHK papers on it? I would never have gotten to Naokatsu. Very unusual sword. Looks like he was making a copy of a Muromachi sword I'd guess... the dimensions and deep curvature don't seem right for a wakizashi.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Another great thread.

[pcfarrar]

It has NTHK papers. It's quite a nice blade has masame in the cutting edge and above the gunome peaks little tempered half moons. Lots of activity in it, but when you see the steel its clear its shin-shinto.

 

[Darcy]

Ah man, I have some nice pictures of a Naohide (Naokatsu student), I'm finding more and more broken links on my website. I'll have to see if I can't put these up. I had the "reference" link pointing to the wrong spot too, so the set of swords wasn't visible.

 

The Naohide I have looks unrelated to this, it looks quite like a Norishige.

 

Which NTHK issued the papers? To me it seems older than Shinshinto. How's the difference in kasane passing through the machi? Also, what is the kasane of the sword?

 

I didn't mention it on my sample blade above because I didn't want to pervert the process. It's quite thin showing a lot of polishes, which is another thing that rules out the later ages. Also seems to have vivid utsuri but I'm not sure if it's that or some other artifact just yet.

[pcfarrar]

 

Which NTHK issued the papers? To me it seems older than Shinshinto. How's the difference in kasane passing through the machi? Also, what is the kasane of the sword?

 

It was papered by the Yoshikawa group in 2003. They said the sword was tenpo period. The kasane is 0.6cm at the hamachi, 0.4cm at the kissaki and 0.7cm at the nakago.

[Darcy]

Curious, doesn't that seem a bit thin for a Shinshinto kasane? Also, it seems to show signs of a fair number of polishes.

 

Is it possible to put up an up close picture of the nakago? I'm interested in looking at the yasurime on both sides. Learning experience if anything.

[pcfarrar]

It's certainly had a fair few polishes and the nakago shows some age.

 

[paulb]

Darcy and Peter,

Just to add to the Naokatsu discussion I have recently looked at as many Naokatsu as I could find in an attempt to tie down a sword I had recently purchased.

I alos own a mumei wakazashi papered to him by the NBTHK. If it wasnt for the papers I wouold have gone with an O-suriage osafune blade everytime. The nakago looks ancient and the workmanship spot on.

As you know Naotane and Naokatsu were masters of copying koto work, particularly Bizen and Soshu and they went to great trouble, even, it appears regarding relative thickness of Nakago and blade to give their clients what they wanted.

Peter I was interested in yout comment regarding seeing the steel and knowing it was shin-shinto,- how?

regards

Paul

[pcfarrar]

Peter I was interested in yout comment regarding seeing the steel and knowing it was shin-shinto,- how?

 

The jigane just isn't very visible (apart from the masame in the hamon which is quite clear). I could be completely wrong of course.

[Jean]

Darcy, my friend, oustanding material as usual. I hope Brian shall keep it as he kept your precedent mei analysis.

 

I have spent sometimes last night on your Bizen book. I was studying sori and suguta of the blades pictured. It gives a lot of information, not only on the Bizen blades but on sori and suguta.

 

For NMB members who have this book, study it carefully in line with the original Darcy's post.

 

I have reached the conclusion that nothing can be generalized as well in the suguta as in the sori. So I reconsider my answer on post Kanbun sword but even if it can fit an early Kamakura blade, I won't give this answer withou having other elements for the following reasons : we have no data on the hamon, jihada .... and, though it exists, you had one, there is only one mekugi ana.

 

In your Bizen book, you featured only one suriage blade with one mekugi ana, all the others have at least 2 mekugi ana. What are the chances to have a suriage early Kamakura tachi with one mekugi ana? I do not know but it exists. So it's difficult to rule it out.

 

In brief, I do not know the era ...