O-Suriage blade w/hi in gunto mounts, advice please.

[Tcat]

Some hada.

[nagamaki - Franco]

Hello Alex,

 

thank you for posting this additional information. The measurements are consistent with a Koto sword, no surprises. This is certainly an interesting sword with a strong Soshu flavor (lots to study and appreciate), enjoy! If it does go to shinsa and/or polish at some point in time I would very much like to see/hear about the results.

[Ted Tenold]

Hi Alex,

 

I wasn’t ignoring your questions. I wanted to address them in greater detail and I needed to set aside some time.

 

Ted, this is very interesting....what might the "(or more)" be?

 

Alterations can include moving up the notches (machiokuri), shortening the blade from the nakago end either modestly or greatly, removal of mei, installation of horimono, or even corrections from the tip end such as on Naginata and Nagamaki where the tip curvature is removed to promote remounting for use as a bukezukuri mounting. In its history, a sword may have undergone one or more of these processes, some of which will eliminate evidence of another such as a machiokuri on a sword which is later shortened. My point on your sword was that it may be possible the hi were installed prior to the shortening of the sword.

 

Is there a chance that this sword could indeed have been made by one of these smiths or is this pretty unlikey?

 

Determining the maker with any confident accuracy from images is, again, quite difficult to impossible. Swords are a three dimensional study while monitors provide a compromised two dimensional representation. It’s possible that a maker that worked in that style of hi made the subject sword, but don’t take those examples as suggestions of this swords origins.

 

Ted, being a craftsman perhaps you can shed light onto the reason atobori hi stop at the yokote and are not cut further into the kissaki? I was always under the impression that hi are always carved after a sword is completed - Does the hi carving occur before heat treatment if the hi are original?

 

The practice of ending the hi with a margin between them and the koshinogi is to provide a buffer zone (if you will) of area that the tip can be pulled back if necessary without intruding upon carvings closer to the koshinogi, in which case would compromise the shape, structural integrity, and niku of the kissaki. It also puts a bit more weight and strength into a critical, yet delicate region of the sword. Some smiths practiced this as a part of their working maxim, but when looking at older Koto pieces, I generally suspect atobori on hi that end further back unless the maker (or the condition of the hi) precludes that. In swords with shoshin mei (genuine signatures) it’s a bit easier to conclude whether they are ubu or ato. In mumei pieces, identifying the maker can be a process of either including the features and health of the hi as part of the analysis, or separating them from the other features (hada, hamon, shape) of the sword, to determine the maker. If the hi demonstrate certain elements of installation, then one might be able to accurately conclude that they are ubu to the maker. A particular maker may have hi that are very wide and deeply cut for the blade, and/or ends of a particular style, with ends cut in a particular way. These are all clues to analysis. But if they seem to not fit in some way, or stand in opposition to the other characteristics of the sword, then one might have to suspect they were added later.

 

All that said, after looking at your latest images I would add more points for consideration.

 

I see that the hisaki (ends of the hi) look more like nagashi than sagaru (terminating a distance back away from the koshinogi) with the end cut to mimic the shape of the koshinogi. Nagashi is "tapering or washing away" to an equal point rather than the conventional end with the rising cut reflecting the koshinogi shape. The hi are centrally set in the shinogiji so that a thin road boarders either side of the hi. This is ryochiri style. Over time, as swords are polished, there can be geometric changes manifested through the removal of material. Horimono can be one of the most evident visual victims of depletion. Hi become thinner and shallower as the adjacent surface material diminishes thus changing their shape. Their ends begin to soften and loose their original shape as well to the degree that original ends can eventually become nagashi. They can even begin to loose their uniformity of width and the edges begin to meander along their length so they look crooked or squirrely. Smaller hi such as soe-bi can disappear in places and re-emerge along the length of a sword. Hi cut later in the blades history can obviously demonstrate a newer, healthier appearance against the overall sugata of the sword. Polishers must make serious considerations to how much and how far to polish hi and horimono of any kind if they are suspected to be original, because if they are, they should reflect the maker’s intended shape, the period and age of the blade, *and* balanced symmetrical condition to the sword itself.

 

Taking the above into consideration, I notated your image of the munesaki. Looking at this image, one can see that there is a disparity in the termination points of the koshinogi at the mune between omote to ura and an imbalance in the width of the mune surfaces. This disporportion of shape from side to side can affect the depth and shape of the hi from side to side presently, and in the future. In radical examples, this also elevates the potential of shingane surfacing on the thinner side of the blade in the ji and/or shinogiji as one side of the kawagane (and the niku) may have been reduced more than the other. Restoration is many times about decisions of compromise to promote the greater good. Maximizing preservation while minimizing depletion is the primary consideration. The appearance of this imbalance could be a matter of your camera angle, but this can be seen on swords and thus am using what you’ve posted as the example. Seeing something like this compels us to look at all the features of shape and consider if they are original or alterations, and in either case if they are “as intended”, conditionally compromised, or just plain poorly executed.

 

 

 

I would say that the new images sway me to think the hi may indeed be original and showing signs of depletion, but without having the sword in hand, we're all just speculating here.

 

*edited for minor spelling errors and clarity*

[Tcat]

The study/collection of nihontō can be a slow-burn pursuit. Some of you with bear-trap memories may recall (though I concede, it may be unlikely) this blade I posted here, coming on seventeen years ago. At the time a recent graduate living in the UK with plenty of enthusiasm but very little knowledge and severely limited means, this board (and SFI) was effectively my only interactive window into the realm of nihontō. At this stage of my 'study', which I recall very clearly, I was not content in taking the very good advice to spend my hard-earned pennies on boring old books! I was keen to get my mitts on medieval Japanese steel, and was rather more inclined to trawl eBay looking for a deal than to drop my “first thousand dollars” on dusty tomes. (You gotta be kidding me!) I had three criteria for buying my first ebay sword: be sure it’s koto, thick, and not rusty. Eventually I settled on something I could be certain, I told myself, was genuinely old but still healthy, which to me meant thick. In my defense, I tried hard to be selective, gravitating towards something with an “obviously old” and active jihada. This sword represented my first foray into online auctions, and marked my first thousand dollars spent there.

 

I always had faith that this sword was a bit special and unusual; however, try as I might, I could never confidently match it to any school. It seemed to my ignorant eyes to have the traits of several, all at once. I am pleased to finally and at long last be able to share a reliable update and judgement of this sword. The sword was examined by renowned expert Mike Yamasaki, who appraised it as the work of...

 

Spoiler

Yamato Shizu - Late Kamakura-Early Nambokuchō era

 

More recently, I had the opportunity to exhibit the sword locally at a cultural arts festival in Orange County, alongside a few others. It was a small thing, but meaningful to me, and felt like a way of (finally) contributing something back to the wider “nihontō study and preservation” community.

 

I wanted to return to this thread to close the loop, but more importantly to say thank you. A great deal of my interest in deeper study began right here - I was so determined to uncover the mystery of this blade's origin. The friendships, knowledge, and perspective that followed all trace back, in part, to those early exchanges. NMB has a lot to answer for. Over the years I’ve had the chance to meet and correspond with some of the people who replied here and elsewhere. That has been an honour, and always both enlightening and entertaining. I feel compelled to mention a few names in particular who I wish I could properly thank: Guido Schiller, Ford Hallam, Keith Larman and Darcy Brockbank, among others.

 

Ted, I have been meaning to thank you for your responses to that original thread for a very long time. So, a belated thank you to Ted Tenold for such a detailed reply; it became, whether you realised it or not, a lens through which I’ve looked at sugata and three-dimensional blade geometry ever since.

 

This post is not intended to resurrect an old thread but rather to close the loop on an earlier discussion, which I have always felt was left unresolved, and also to acknowledge the influence it had. My thanks to those who contributed their knowledge then and who continue to do so now.

 

 

 

 

 

[jawob]

Great story and good eyes!

[Ted Tenold]

Has it really been over 15 years since I wrote that post??  Oh my gosh...   :-D. 

 

Alex, you are very welcome, and thank you so much not only for acknowledging my post, but also sharing with me how it helped shape your perspective and drive you to continue your quest to study, learn, and *enjoy* this magnificent art form!  I am *truly* touched by your post.  You've made my week, and I am so happy for you. 

 

Sadly, the Nihonto community has lost every one of the folks you mentioned before; Guido, Ford, Keith, and Darcy, three of whom were very close personal friends to me, and while I could not presume to call Ford a friend in the truest sense of the word, I held deep respect for him as a craftsman.  Friendships and relationships that were forged with shared enthusiasm and the joy within Nihonto.  Herein lies the profound and salient point; the most precious of all things we collect in this wacky field is the friends, relationships, and experiences that stay with us forever while we help preserve the arts that brought us together in the first place.  Thus in turn, these things can continue to do the same for future generations.

 

Keep going.  You're doing great, and it gets better.

 

Cheers,

Ted 

[Brian]

2 Amazing replies. Alex, thank you for the update and that wonderful story, and to Ted who may not realize he is one of those pillars of the community like the great names he mentioned that came before him. 

[Lewis B]

16 years later. These replies are never too late. What a wonderful story mirroring a little my own journey into the crazy world of Nihonto, albeit I'm still cruising the bunny slopes. The post about not wanting to invest in 'dusty tomes' was funny reflecting the motivation of most noobs, who are only focused on getting their paws on the real deal,  research and knowledge be damned. 

 

I appreciated the discussion on the bohi, especially around signs of atabori and carvings ending in front of the yokote. Now with 16 years experience under your belt, what are your thoughts? The style of bohi carving is also found on some Yamato Cho-Senjuin swords from late Kamakura period like the TJ Mumei ubu blade in the Nagoya Museum collection I posted recently. 

 

Any plans to have it officially papered? 

Edited April 25 by Lewis B

[Tcat]

Ted, Brian, so well said.

Ted, I truly appreciate your follow-up and am very glad I came back to this thread and had the chance to acknowledge your original post properly. Your point about the relationships and shared experience that come out of this field is so true, and crucially, the friendliness and helpfulness of folks who care and take the time is invaluable. Again, thank you.

 

Brian, don’t know what to say other than thanks for keeping the lights on at this cool venue. 😎

 

Lewis, I think a lot of us started in exactly the same place – straight to the steel, with the books catching up later whether some of us want to admit it or not. Remember the old chestnut, “do as I say, not as I do.” 😂  I can’t condone my previous degenerate behavior, but at least in the end it wasn’t a complete disaster.

 

My thoughts on the sword 16 years on… I’ll start by saying I still find this sword quite impressive. It is undoubtedly quite utilitarian in terms of design proportions and construction build, and yet it remains beautiful thanks to noteworthy jihada with lots of sparking activity. I used to read plenty of anecdotes about how one’s eyes would change and mature when looking at swords, and of course that is true. Succinctly, I can say what has changed most for me verses back then is the relative context in which I am able to see a sword for the first time, and with that greater context comes much greater “clarity” for want of a better word. Realistically speaking, if one is not particularly visually artistically talented (and I am not) there is a lot of information to process in a sword’s sugata alone, before even beginning to look at what is happening in the ji steel and hamon, and light years before building up any kind of “mental blade database” of reliable info to draw upon. If I’m honest with myself, I remember it taking years to truly wrap my head around what’s going on with different sugata. As one sees more swords, one accrues more comparative data points but there’s just no shortcut to this.

 

On the topic of the bohi, I’m not going to lie, at the time Ted had me quite convinced that they were atobori, and due to the schooling on blade geometry plus all the new-to-me terminology he had just laid on me, I had more questions than answers, and plenty of homework to do. As the years went on, however, and I saw more swords, I became less convinced of the atobori theory. As others had noted earlier in the thread, there are enough precedents in Yamato work where this kind of carving is original to the blade. For example, looking back, John Stuart’s post now comes across as a very perceptive read. He saw the coarse mokume tending toward ō-hada, gunome-midare with togariba, and specifically noted that kissaki-sagaru in this context does not imply atobori. He placed it in Naoe Shizu, so while I have no reason to question the current appraisal there is clearly some overlap, and in that sense his earlier observation holds up well.

As for papering, it’s something I’ve considered, but I haven’t felt any real urgency. It could benefit from a touch-up polish, but the ura is quite tired and the boshi somewhat weak. When factoring in the time, cost, and practical risks involved against what would likely be a minimal change in outcome…well, I’ve been content to just leave it as it is.

 

Thanks again to all of you for taking the time to respond, it’s truly appreciated.

[eternal_newbie]

7 hours ago, Tcat said:

He placed it in Naoe Shizu, so while I have no reason to question the current appraisal there is clearly some overlap, and in that sense his earlier observation holds up well.

 

Although in many, or even most, cases it's fairly cut and dry, the difference between a Naoe Shizu and Yamato Shizu attribution can often come down to a personal opinion on whether a sword is "Yamato" enough. Are three togari "too Mino" to be Yamato Shizu? What about four? Or five? Is the masame-hada pronounced enough? Is the shinogi too high for Mino (assuming shinogi-zukuri)? All of those cutoffs are arbitrary and for blades that cut it very close both ways, every person you meet at a given nihonto convention can give you a different answer to the last person! In the end they both amount to the same thing - the work of a relatively close descendant (by blood or by teaching) of Shizu Kaneuji.