Exceptions To The Rules ?

[Alex A]

I'm looking for thoughts regarding this sword, I'm not buying, I just find it interesting.

 

Described as a Tachi, but with Katana mei.

 

Long at nearly 29", quite deep sori at 2.3cm and to look at, it reminds me of a Tachi.

 

Aoi say this sword was made Eiroku era (1558-1570),

 

I always refer back to this for a basic idea of sword shape changes over time.

http://www.yamakawadojo.com/the%20japanese%20sword%20historical%20changes%20in%20shape.pdf

 

But find it interesting when I come across something that stands out as being a bit unusual for the time.

https://www.aoijapan.com/tachi-muneyoshi

 

I often forget that Samurai still had a need for swords suitable for fighting from horseback.

 

Just thinking out loud

 

Any thoughts welcome.

[Ken-Hawaii]

If it was mounted as a tachi, then we'd call it a tachi. Otherwise, I'd call it a katana.

[vajo]

Alex the sword looks like a katana for me. The owner maybe would like to carry it as Tachi. So the mei is cut as Tachi. Maybe he was a none riding armoured Samurai who wants to carry a tachi on his side?

[Geraint]

Dear Chris.

 

"So the mei is cut as a tachi".  Not on the sword that Alex linked to.  I think we can dispense with ideas about how the owner wanted to fight and put this down to a mistake.  Aoi Art are not immune to them in their descriptions.

 

All the best.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I'm in fever so this might not be the most logical post but I'd say it is just error (or in less feasible scenario marketing but I don't believe in that as Aoi has listed several tachi as katana while the opposite makes more sense if you think business).

 

It doesn't have paper yet and I'd assume after shinsa it would just have a paper that says Katana - mei: Muneyoshi and not any further remarks on it.

 

There are of course real exceptions to the rules, I think Aoe probably being the most common one, as Aoe smiths signed on both sides but they pretty much made tachi due to the time period. Similarily here is an exception by Hōju: http://toyuukai.com/2015/10/%e5%a4%aa%e5%88%80%e5%ae%9d%e5%af%bf/

 

As far as papered mumei tachi by NBTHK, this following is just my own gut feeling and not based on anything factual information from NBTHK but I assume that if a mumei sword gets attributed as tachi it is ubu or near ubu and made as tachi around c. early-mid Muromachi at latest. Of course there will most likely be exceptions to that too.

 

If the sword has been altered and has no signature then it will paper as katana (granted it meets the length requirements). I will illustrate my thinking with these two Ayanokōji swords both about 76 cm in length.

Mumei tachi: http://world.seiyudo.com/product/ka-030617/

Mumei katana: http://taiseido.biz/cn11/cn22/pg584.html

 

Of course koshirae brings whole new ball game as Ken mentioned. But that is the whole sword + koshirae while the papers are just for the blade.

 

As I spent most of yesterday indoors in fever just surfing sword shops worldwide I encountered bunch of stuff from various sites that I'd consider misleading the customer, but as I haven't seen Aoi do that I don't go into that. Sometimes additional information in their description gives nice extra information while sometimes it is just the usual marketing mumbo-jumbo. Of course the sheer volume of their listings lets some errors pass too. Haven't done business with them yet but I always give Aoi thumbs up.

[Alex A]

Aye, briefly looking at the sword yesterday, I couldn't work out whether it was a mistake or with them having the sword in hand, they actually consider it a Tachi, due to how they think the sword was originally used and worn maybe.

 

Looking at the sugata, it reminded me of Early Muromachi, difficult from images but appears to be Saki-zori. 

 

Occasionally I see more confusing examples. More confusing not because of the mei (usually mumei), but more confusing because of the sugata and attributed date. I suppose the transition from Tachi to Katana was a slow one, and much confusion can lie in between with one thing and another. I think a lot of this confusion lies with the intended use of the sword, some swords just appear to be for cavalry use...........then I link them to Tachi and wonder why they are being described as Katana.

 

Thanks for the links and info Jussi, very interesting, get well soon.