Tachi signed Uchigatana mei

[Alexander Smith]

I came across a Tachi recently that has the sugata of a Kamakura era piece but is signed Uchigatana mei. It was signed "Masanobu" (正信 ). It was badly damaged so any metalurgical features of the blade itself are almost impossible to decipher and are effectively unhelpful. Has anyone known a maker of a Tachi to sign Uchigatana mei? Perhaps an indicator of gimei? I certainly haven't encountered this situation in my experience.

 

[raaay]

Hi Alexander is an uchikatana sword, not more to do with the length of the sword blade  ! more than what side of the tang it is signed on ?? or i have got this all wrong !

[Stephen]

18 minutes ago, raaay said:

or i have got this all wrong !

Nope

[Shugyosha]

Could it not be a younger blade that is polished down and lost its original sugata? Is there a ha machi left? 

[Ed]

There is Katana mei and Tachi mei. Your sword is signed katana mei. Uchigatana relates to a shorter sword such as an o-tanto or ko-wakizashi.  They were in mounted in various fashion, katana or tachi koshirae, with or without tsuba, etc.

 

Is this sword mounted? What is the nagasa? 

[Stephen]

38 minutes ago, Ed said:

What is the nagasa? 

I think, not sure, what you see is what you get....cut off nakago?

[Ed]

14 minutes ago, Stephen said:

I think, not sure, what you see is what you get....cut off nakago?

Stephen, That is what I was wondering, looks cut-off??  If so, how could it be called an uchigatana? He did mention the blade being "badly damaged".

[Stephen]

Think he's just learning 

[Jacques D.]

About uchigatana, some should read Nagayama's book page 28, 29.

[Alexander Smith]

The nagasa is 2.61 shaku, sori of 2cm. It’s clearly a tachi.

 

The question is whether a tachi being signed katana mei is an indicator if it being gimei. 

 

I apologize in advance for image quality but it should do the sugata justice. 

[Alexander Smith]

 

5 hours ago, Ed said:

Uchigatana relates to a shorter sword such as an o-tanto or ko-wakizashi.

Actually, “katana” refers to Japanese swords in general whereas “uchigatana” implies a blade over 2 shaku that is not a tachi and is shorter than a nodachi. 

 

In this case, we know it’s a tachi from the sori and sugata. Length can imply it to be a tachi but doesn’t dictate it to be one. 

[Alexander Smith]

4 hours ago, Ed said:

how could it be called an uchigatana?

To clarify on this point, it’s not an uchigatana but it’s signed like one. Katana mei instead of tachi mei.  

 

Does the occurrence of the mei on the wrong side of the blade imply it to be gimei?

[Shugyosha]

No - I think that you’re hearing hooves and thinking zebras rather than ponies. If it’s signed katana mei, it’s a katana. 
 

Why would someone add a katana gimei to a kamakura era tachi and devalue it? It’s probably a later blade that has been messed with or polished down and now has a similar sugata, but without it being in polish it’s not possible to know much more. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Looks like this is currently up for auction the condition is unfortunate.

 

I would think Muromachi more than Kamakura, there were long katana of c. 80 cm that were made during Muromachi too. There are some things that I find bit puzzling and it seems to be common to find blades in rough condition from this seller.

[Ed]

15 hours ago, Alexander Smith said:

Actually, “katana” refers to Japanese swords in general whereas “uchigatana” implies a blade over 2 shaku that is not a tachi and is shorter than a nodachi. 

Not necessarily. While katana is the common and currently used term for uchigatana, they were not all long.

uchigatana (打ち刀) 

The blade length measures somewhere between 1 shaku and 1 shaku 3 sun (30.3 ~ 39.4 cm). That means an early uchigatana was more like

a later sunnobi-tantō or ko-wakizashi.

 

15 hours ago, Alexander Smith said:

it’s not an uchigatana but it’s signed like one. Katana mei instead of tachi mei.

If it is signed katana mei then it is not a Tachi but a Katana. 

 

 

 

[Ed]

14 hours ago, Stephen said:

Think he's just learning 

 

Going about it the hard way, eh. 

[Jacques D.]

Ed ,

 

Quote

 

uchigatana (打ち刀) 

he blade length measures somewhere between 1 shaku and 1 shaku 3 sun (30.3 ~ 39.4 cm). That means an early uchigatana was more like

a later sunnobi-tantō or ko-wakizashi.

 

 

Source please ?

[Alexander Smith]

11 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I would think Muromachi more than Kamakura, there were long katana of c. 80 cm that were made during Muromachi too

I’d agree it’s most likely muromachi. Sword smiths named masanobu come up a lot in that era as well. Could you give examples of such a piece (a katana of such length from that era)? I’ve known some very long katana but don’t recollect ones from that era that were so long. Usually they’re just tachi or nodachi. It’s also worth noting that extremely long tachi were popular at the time. To what extent of that trend reflected on the making of swords not made for horseback use, I don’t know. 

[Alexander Smith]

In fact, if anyone knows of a similar piece, let me know. I’d be curious to see it. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

They were not that common (and some of course got shortened) and maybe as I am researching big sword I have just noted them more than usual collector. Swords of this length often command a premium as they are pretty rare finds. And of course it doesn't really make any difference if it is tachi or katana as they can be practically identical size.

 

I am not home at my references so here are few that I dug up online from top of my memory.

Motochika 83,4 cm

Kanesada 80,4 cm

Fuyuhiro (mumei) 80,2 cm

Chiyozuru (mumei) 77,7 cm

 

I had few more that were online in my mind but I cannot find them online anymore so the dealers must have taken the pages off. And few I remembered incorrectly and were signed tachi but were still later Muromachi items.

[Stephen]

I was always told a sword to be used with one hand (shorter nakago)

Making me think not as long as blade as a tachi, more of O wakizashi. 

 

Three sources 

Yumoto

Hawley 

Nagayama.

 

I'm sure other sources may have different view.

 

 

[Stephen]

[Ed]

The only absolute in this hobby is that nothing is absolute. There are references which relate varying views, dates, etc.  These references varied several hundred years ago due to logistics and the lack of information being shared.

 

From Sesko’s Encyclopedia of Japanese Swords:

uchigatana (打ち刀) When we consolidate all relecant early – that means

Kamakura-period – entries like the Heike Monogatari (平家物語),

Genpei Seisui Ki (源平盛衰記) oder Azuma Kagami (吾妻鏡), we

come to the conclusion that an uchigatana was a shorter, simple

mounted sword worn by lower ranking warriors or civil servants.

The blade length measures somewhere between 1 shaku and 1 shaku

3 sun (30.3 ~ 39.4 cm). That means an early uchigatana was more like

a later sunnobi-tantō or ko-wakizashi.

katana (刀) – 1. Generic term for a blade measuring over 2 shaku

(60.6 cm) in nagasa. 2. Colloquial term for an uchigatana (打刀).

katana-mei (刀銘) – Signature of a sword that is chiselled on the

sashi-omote side, i.e. the side facing away from the wearer when the

blade is worn cutting-edge up thrusted through the belt.

 

From Nagayama:

 

[Stephen]

Ed please use post as plain text...hard to read black on background 

[nulldevice]

On 12/24/2023 at 3:42 PM, Jacques D. said:

About uchigatana, some should read Nagayama's book page 28, 29.

I just re-read that section and it seems that katana vs tachi was mainly in what side the smith chose to inscribe their signature. katana-mei = katana and tachi-mei = tachi. However, Nagayama also notes that there is historical evidence these longer swords during this time being worn as both katana and tachi depending on preference. 

 

The uchigatana seems to be shorter than the long katana and tachi of this era and was meant for 1 handed use and a shorter ~60cm blade and eventually became the "popular" style of katana by the end of the Muromachi period. 

 

I hope I understood all of that correctly!

[Ed]

From Sesko’s:

 

uchigatana (打ち刀) When we consolidate all relecant early – that means

Kamakura-period – entries like the Heike Monogatari (平家物語),

Genpei Seisui Ki (源平盛衰記) oder Azuma Kagami (吾妻鏡), we

come to the conclusion that an uchigatana was a shorter, simple

mounted sword worn by lower ranking warriors or civil servants.

The blade length measures somewhere between 1 shaku and 1 shaku

3 sun (30.3 ~ 39.4 cm). That means an early uchigatana was more like

a later sunnobi-tantō or ko-wakizashi.

 

katana (刀) – 1. Generic term for a blade measuring over 2 shaku

(60.6 cm) in nagasa. 2. Colloquial term for an uchigatana (打刀).

 

katana-mei (刀銘) – Signature of a sword that is chiselled on the

sashi-omote side, i.e. the side facing away from the wearer when the

blade is worn cutting-edge up thrusted through the belt.

[Ed]

1 hour ago, nulldevice said:

I hope I understood all of that correctly!

 

It can be somewhat confusing. Nagayama relates the the Katana of the Muromachi period had a nagasa of 70-73cm, while the "so-called" uchigatana from Bunki-Tenbun eras were about 60cm and no longer than 70cm. 

 

Sesko's references relate to earlier uchigatana being much shorter ie; sunnobi tanto or ko-wakizashi.

 

So, most or all of these fell into either wakizashi or katana lengths, though some could have been mounted in tachi koshirae, even small tachi koshirae (ko-dachi < 60cm).

 

Although katana mei vs tachi mei is a general guide for determining katana vs tachi, the most important criteria in calling a sword tachi or katana are the mounts. Prior to the muromachi period long swords were typically tachi. After that time, the katana came into it's own due to the change in battle field tactics. If you cut down a tachi and mount it in katana mounts, it is now a katana. Similarly, take a katana and mount it as a tachi, it's a tachi.

 

How can this be? I hate to bring this up as it will only add to the confusion, but again keep in mind that that like most things in this hobby nothing is absolute. There were smiths who broke this rule (so to speak). There were smiths who made tachi yet signed on either side. Some which signed on the opposite side regularly.

 

So, yes there were tachi, uchigatana, katana, wakizashi, tanto and other sub-types.

 

It is likely the confusion surrounding so many variations is why the standards of katana, wakizashi and tanto were adopted. When did you last see a set of papers which said uchigatana, or sunnobi tanto.  You may see blades called by these terms, and they may have been made that way, but the papers will not concur. You see a lot of short blades labeled as "sunnobi-Tanto" yet the NBTHK designation will say wakizashi based on the length criteria of the blade.

 

Here is the first one I googled as an example. Listed as a Sunnobi Tanto, yet papered as a wakizashi: https://nihontoart.c...legant-edo-koshirae/

[nulldevice]

9 minutes ago, Ed said:

 

It can be somewhat confusing. Nagayama relates the the Katana of the Muromachi period had a nagasa of 70-73cm, while the "so-called" uchigatana from Bunki-Tenbun eras were about 60cm and no longer than 70cm. 

 

Sesko's references relate to earlier uchigatana being much shorter ie; sunnobi tanto or ko-wakizashi.

 

So, most or all of these fell into either wakizashi or katana lengths, though some could have been mounted in tachi koshirae, even small tachi koshirae (ko-dachi < 60cm).

 

Although katana mei vs tachi mei is a general guide for determining katana vs tachi, the most important criteria in calling a sword tachi or katana are the mounts. Prior to the muromachi period long swords were typically tachi. After that time, the katana came into it's own due to the change in battle field tactics. If you cut down a tachi and mount it in katana mounts, it is now a katana. Similarly, take a katana and mount it as a tachi, it's a tachi.

 

How can this be? I hate to bring this up as it will only add to the confusion, but again keep in mind that that like most things in this hobby nothing is absolute. There were smiths who broke this rule (so to speak). There were smiths who made tachi yet signed on either side. Some which signed on the opposite side regularly.

 

So, yes there were tachi, uchigatana, katana, wakizashi, tanto and other sub-types.

 

It is likely the confusion surrounding so many variations is why the standards of katana, wakizashi and tanto were adopted. When did you last see a set of papers which said uchigatana, or sunnobi tanto.  You may see blades called by these terms, and they may have been made that way, but the papers will not concur. You see a lot of short blades labeled as "sunnobi-Tanto" yet the NBTHK designation will say wakizashi based on the length criteria of the blade.

 

Here is the first one I googled as an example. Listed as a Sunnobi Tanto, yet papered as a wakizashi: https://nihontoart.c...legant-edo-koshirae/

That's what I'm beginning to understand regarding the mounts.

 

So say you have one of those transition-era blades. Its the proper length where it could really be a tachi or katana (disregarding the side the mei in on). If the owner mounted it in tachi-koshirae its now a tachi and if its in katana-koshirae, it's now a katana. And as I've been learning more and more, almost no original mounts seem to exist from the 1400-1500s and most koshirae for blades these days seem to be modern make or edo period mounts.

 

I'd imagine if a wealthy swordsman of the time asked a swordsmith to sign a blade on "the other side" for whatever reason, they'd probably do it. We're all human after all and history is full of outliers even though I've started to become fascinated by the attributions that the experts in nihonto can make because the Japanese did seem to standardize quite a bit making this whole system of grading and attribution to smiths/eras/schools/etc. possible. It's all becoming more and more fascinating to me the more I learn.

 

If I saw that Sunnobi Tanto you posted without any classification, I'd say its a wak but again, I know very very little (and even less and less about tanto). I've gotten through Nagayama's book briefly and still, 99% of the stuff probably hasn't stuck but I'll be attending the Las Vegas show with book in hand and hopefully some swords in hand with some people who can educate me in person! 

[Jacques D.]

From "Art of the samurai" Boston Museum exhibition.

 

 

[Stephen]

Yes what I think when I think Uchigatana.