seeking opinion and advice

[edzo]

Hi fellow members, thought i'd post a question to expand my knowledge and learning efforts. I would be happy for more than one opinion but will be happy with any. Thank you in advance, and yes i've been bitten!

 

Mekugi-ana

 

I am studying an art blade and have a question regarding mekugi-ana and blade shortening. As I inspect the blade in whole it appears to be of intact proportion. This nakago includes two mekugi-ana approximately 1.25 inches apart. I am wondering if the latter mekugi-ana was to accommodate a subsequent hilt mounting and not for shortening of the blade, or if my thinking is off-base. The reason for my thoughts is the following:

 

1. 17th Century Katana in a Kyu-Gunto mount, likely a special order with elongated hilt.

2. I inspected a number of papered signatures and paid special note as to the location of the mekugi-ana. In the comparrisn blade studied, the mekugi-ana is located the same as the highest on the blade tang that I have, the lowest one is not.

 

Another question that I have if anyone can help is; Is there a technique or method, of acceptable practice, that would enable me to distinguish between nanban tetsu and the traditional native product?

I am equipped with high magnification equipment if necessary or helpful.

 

Respectfully,

Ed F.

[george trotter]

Hi Ed,

Interesting questions and bound to raise a number of opinions.

 

As to your first...IMO it is fairly common to see additional mekugi-ana relating to hilt mounting rather than shortening. This can be proved by seeing the occasional Showa gunto with an "original" hole with another either cutting it or within a half inch of it. As the blades were made and mounted only once in their short life, the second hole has to be for a mounting which did not "fit" to the original hole put in by the swordsmith.

 

As to your last...namban tetsu or traditional tamahagane...this has been raised a number of times and it seems reasonable to say that in the Showa era...even advanced experts could not tell the difference between the two metals when used in a well-made gendaito blade. How to tell?...I suggest you acquire access to say, a sandai Echizen Yasutsugu blade that is marked "Namban Tetsu O Motte" and compare it with a comparable blade of known tamahagane make and let us know what you find.... I once owned a blade by him and I could not tell any obvious difference to other blades...although (I was probably kidding myself) I thought it looked "whiter" than other steels. The Japanese classify these blades as nihonto so there may not be any appreciable difference.

 

Hope this helps,

George.

[edzo]

Hi Ed,

Interesting questions and bound to raise a number of opinions.

 

As to your first...IMO it is fairly common to see additional mekugi-ana relating to hilt mounting rather than shortening. This can be proved by seeing the occasional Showa gunto with an "original" hole with another either cutting it or within a half inch of it. As the blades were made and mounted only once in their short life, the second hole has to be for a mounting which did not "fit" to the original hole put in by the swordsmith.

 

As to your last...namban tetsu or traditional tamahagane...this has been raised a number of times and it seems reasonable to say that in the Showa era...even advanced experts could not tell the difference between the two metals when used in a well-made gendaito blade. How to tell?...I suggest you acquire access to say, a sandai Echizen Yasutsugu blade that is marked "Namban Tetsu O Motte" and compare it with a comparable blade of known tamahagane make and let us know what you find.... I once owned a blade by him and I could not tell any obvious difference to other blades...although (I was probably kidding myself) I thought it looked "whiter" than other steels. The Japanese classify these blades as nihonto so there may not be any appreciable difference.

 

Hope this helps,

George.

 

Hi George and thank you for your rapid response.

 

I currently have a 3rd generation nanban tetsu Yasutsugu and a 1st or second generation Kunikane and this has not been helpful and why I asked. I wondered if the Kunikane could be nanban tetsu, just a thought but cannot find a single most characteristic that would conclusively lead me in that direction.

 

Respectfully and thankfully,

Ed F.

[george trotter]

Hi Ed.,

This is uncanny...you have a sandai Yasutsugu and a I or 2 gen Kunikane...(I presume you mean the Rikuzen line), I say uncanny as a friend of mine around the corner has a Kunikane too...dated Meiji 2 tho'...much later than yours. I have looked at it a few times and although, being Meiji (poss 12 or 13 gen), and more likely than yours to have non-tamahagane iron as Japan had opened up to the West by then, I can't say I see anything that points to the iron being noticeably different from tamahagane.

This same friend has a Showa gendaito gunto by Rai Kunifusa which says specifically that it is made from sand iron from the coast of Tottori and old iron, and another friend has a nice Showa gendaito gunto Kotani Yasunori (Yasukunito) who is regarded as nihonto maker using tamahagane. As one would expect I can't see anything that is noticeably different in either... but...I also can't see any real difference between these two and a nice Showa gendaito by Osaka Okishiba Heianjo Yoshisada and a Showa gendaito by Niigata Yamgami Munetoshi which I own. These two were Army tamahagane swordmakers...my two have no stamps of any kind, are well made and look comparable to the two others just mentioned, but, to answer your query...I don't readily know if they are namban or Tamahagane made blade steels....they look the same...perhaps they evidence more similarities than differences. I too would be interested in how one tells.

Regards...Geo.

[george trotter]

Another question that I have if anyone can help is; Is there a technique or method, of acceptable practice, that would enable me to distinguish between namban tetsu and the traditional native product?

 

Ed,

I thought your question would have brought out a wealth of opinion and observations on how you tell a namban steel blade from a tamahagane blade...but nothing has happened. I suppose this is a reflection on the findings of the Japanese swordmakers and appraisers of the 1930s-1940s...like you and me, they couldn't tell either (from the steel) the difference between two well made gendaito, or even when a gendaito with gimei of an older maker was presented...this led to the insistance that some form of stamp was put on all modern swords in 1930s-1940s...so they could tell. I suppose also it is why namban tetsu swords made in the shinto-shinshinto eras are considered "nihonto"...there is essentially no difference...probably why the tosho put the inscription on the tang in the first place. So, Ed., from a practical point the evidence seems to show there seems to be no way to tell the difference between the two steels...perhaps someone knowledgeable can add to or modify this apparent finding?

Regards,

George

[edzo]

Hi again George,

 

Just to give you a slant on what my research on the Shodai Yasutsugu, the kaji for Tokugawa, I read that the use of this iron was pridefully inscribed on the blade and probably like other trends, it was rare and may have been considered ahead of the curve in a very competative trade. The qualities of it must have met a standard, at least in terms of a smith of this status to have used and signed. Just a slant on it, my resources were from either articles or links on this site, I think.

 

Hope u have a great day and fall into a treasure!

 

Respectfully,

Ed F

[John A Stuart]

Hi George, Ed, As I sit here on 700 hundred tons of steel winding up another season I have a thought about this question. Iron and steel have been in my life since entering the workforce and I have been involved in all facets of it's manufacture and use and identifying the metallurgical characteristics of carbon steel has always required varying degrees of destructive testing. Certain steel alloys outside of carbon steels are obvious, but, not useful for nihonto anyway. The observable characteristics wouldn't be conclusive, I think. I know that some schools of nihonto have defining characteristics such as colour, white, blue, black etc. but am inclined to think the forging technique is more responsible for this than the chemical make-up of the steel. S, P Si etc. all alter the physical characteristics but, not those just by visible observation (looking). My thought on this and just by what I've observed. John