Den Norishige with possible umegane?

[Tetsu]

4 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

This is a personal take but I don't think den in front of item is too relevant, after all it is for mumei attributions and well they are attributions to begin with. I feel the item itself should be more important than some lines of text in description.

 

The mumei Tametsugu discussed here is most likely very nice sword as it has passed the coveted Jūyō shinsa, congratulations Dustin for getting it. However I do admit I do not understand the sword at all. If I would see that sword without previous knowledge on anything about it I would maybe guess late Muromachi to Momoyama katana for it from pictures, I think I would not be able to figure out it is ō-suriage from these pictures alone. I think it is crucial to see swords in person for proper analysis, even though I admit with my skills it would still be extremely difficult to do identifications for mumei items. It feels crazy that I might not even be able to judge if the sword has been greatly shortened.

 

I tried to do photoshopping for 20 minutes to bring my visualization to reality but couldn't make a proper one so I scrapped it... However I was measuring from the Jūyō book by ruler in old school style as my backup plan  As NBTHK identifies this is an ō-suriage tachi and there is no hole below the 2 on the tang, then only logical explanation is that the original hole was removed by shortening. By my visualization if that indeed is the case then this would have been at minimum around 82 cm tachi in original form. I tried to do a nice photoshop side by side with current and presumed original blade in full size to get the idea. NBTHK expert in hand judgement is of course far superior to my personal opinion.

 

For some reason there does not seem to be any long tachi by Tametsugu surviving to this date (just as note I do not believe the smith X only made ōdachi theory, as I do not think they were even that common in the period, and it surely cannot be true for every famed Nanbokuchō smith as there are ōdachi by almost unknown smiths remaining to this day). So far I have only found 2 signed tachi by Tametsugu, both would seem ubu and they are 72,4 cm and 68,2 cm. For comparison I have so far found 86 mumei katana with Tametsugu attribution (length range 75,5 cm to 61,8 cm), out of those 26 are with den prefix.

 

Advances in AI have been so massive, I admit they far surpass my abilities to dig up information, and I think I am pretty good at it. It takes a person very long time to do what AI can achieve very fast. There are some mistakes it can make but it can also provide some information that might not be found by a single person. The difficult thing is that Japanese swords are extremely similar in shape and size throughout ages. Yes there are slight variations but in general I would say Japanese sword has changed quite little through history. It might be a generalization but the vast majority of sword fall within the common range. Identifying by just size and shape alone by AI or by a person can be very challenging. As that is my main identifying method I sometimes hit difficulties like that above. I just lack the skill to identify minor features, and I think AI could excel in this field beyond basic human ability if pictures/videos of very high quality were given to it.

Thank you for your insight as always @Jussi Ekholm.  I think the degree of ō-suriage explains what Schneeds pointed out as a relatively narrow saki-haba.

 

A bit of a n00b question, is this picture not the Kanji for Katana?  You mentioned it's a Tachi (as does Aoi-Art), but I'm unable to understand the how Tachi is being indicated by the NTBHK.

 

Edited August 4 by Tetsu

[eternal_newbie]

6 hours ago, Tetsu said:

A bit of a n00b question, is this picture not the Kanji for Katana?  You mentioned it's a Tachi (as does Aoi-Art), but I'm unable to understand the how Tachi is being indicated by the NTBHK.

 

You are correct, a tachi would be denoted by 大刀. It could be a mistranslation by Aoi, or they refer to it as such because of the handachi-style fittings on the koshirae.

[MassiveMoonHeh]

17 hours ago, Lewis B said:

I thought recent NBTHK Juyo and TJ shinsa have given firm Go attributions rather than qualify with Den. Eg Andrew's 2 examples. Admittedly I've not seen the papers.

Regarding your question, the last 3 Gō attributions (1 Jūyō and 2 TJ) have all been den including both Andrew's blades. 

 

When it comes to mumei blades the den is generally given, as @eternal_newbie advises, to those blades without Hon'Ami attribution. If Hon'Ami attribution or significant DenRai does exist (read Tokugawa) then the blade will generally be labelled without the den.

 

There are some exceptions, with reference to Gō for example:

 

1. The second Gō in Jūyō Shinsa 11 was mumei without Hon'Ami attribution but was labelled Gō - I have found no explanation for this.

2. The TokuJu 25 / Jūyō 35 Gō was attributed to Gō again without  Hon'Ami attribution but I suspect that this was because it was re-attributed from Taima to Gō and the NBTHK wanted to cement their decision that this blade was a Gō. That said, when TokuJu 16 / Jūyō 31 was re-attributed from Kashu Sanekage, some 9 TJ Shinsa earlier, it was re-attributed to den Gō, so the rule does appear to be flexible according to the Shinsa.

 

Certainly when it comes down to it with regard to the two most famous mumei smiths Sadamune and Gō the den does not really matter as all of these blades as @Jussi Ekholm points out have had to be attributed whether it was last week or 400 years ago. If the NBTHK calls it a Tokubetsu Jūyō blade then because these smith's blades are so rare and so desirable (you may only get 1 or 2 cracks in your life to ever acquire one and only if you have the money and are well connected) then big money will be spent regardless of the den status.

 

In fact, you can say that for most famous smiths with high mumei counts such as Masamune. If the NBTHK has given it a status of Jūyō or above then big money will not really care about the den status. At the end of the day the name, the quality of the blade and its exclusivity is all that matters. It is as much a bragging right as it is a investment.

 

And in this regard when people whether it be nihonto fans, collectors, owners or even people in the industry talk to these blade they generally do not talk to a den Masamune or den Sadamune or den Gō but instead generally talk with some excitement and even reverence about the blade and when they do they generally drop the den label. Most people will simply say "I saw a Masamune" rather than "I saw a den Masamune."

 

As such whilst den is an important factor for smiths who regularly sign their blades as we move into the arena famous mumei heavy smiths the den label is less of a factor especially at the higher level designations due to this understanding of attribution, the scrutiny they have already gone through to get designated and finally because of the exclusivity of just being anywhere near any of these blades.

 

Therefore for these blades if they have cracked the Jūyō and above designation then den or not, it does not really matter, the name and quality is all that counts.

[Jacques]

9 hours ago, eternal_newbie said:

 

You are correct, a tachi would be denoted by 大刀. It could be a mistranslation by Aoi, or they refer to it as such because of the handachi-style fittings on the koshirae.

It was a tachi before being suriage but NBTHK always name suriage mumei swords katana.

[Tetsu]

7 hours ago, Jacques said:

It was a tachi before being suriage but NBTHK always name suriage mumei swords katana.

Thanks Jacques, I'm unable to find 太刀 mentioned anywhere in the papers, is Tachi simply inferred for o-suriage blades forged before the Muromachi period?

[Markus]

I was asked if I could jump in and clarify. Its a super confusing topic, but as Jacques pointed out, the general rule is an IS vs. WAS. I will put down my notes below.
 

Traditionally, and currently, the NBTHK uses the following classification. Buckle up, hehe:

 

Tachi (太刀) for a blade that still IS or can STILL BE recognized as such, that is, a blade intended to be a tachi, which means a blade meant to be worn carried edge down suspended from the waist cord. This can, but must not depend on the time period it was made. Tachi were prevalent before the Edo period, but tachi were still made in the Edo period and later. Production time is a major indicator, as is the placement of the signature. First, katana (see definition later) were not common until the late Muromachi period (16th century). Long swords made up to that time were most likely intended to be a tachi. Second, Japanese blades were traditionally signed in a way that has the signature face outwards when worn. Thus, when suspended from the waist cord, edge down, the signature is on the side with the cutting edge facing to the right when you hold the blade tip up in your hand. There were exceptions (Aoe School, etc.), but that is the general rule. Accordingly, when you have an unshortened long sword predating the late Muromachi period, or a somewhat shortened blade that retains its signature on said side, it is classified as a tachi by the NBTHK. An unshortened, but unsigned long sword from the Edo period may still be classified as a tachi by the NBTHK if it is prominently of a shape that copies earlier tachi shapes.

 

Katana (刀) for all long swords in general that measure above of 2 shaku (60.6 cm) and that CAN NOT be recognized as a tachi. (FYI, even after being shortened to an extent that the entire original tang is lost [referred to as ō-suriage], a blade still classifies as a long sword as long as it measures more than 2 shaku.) There is no “katana now, but originally a tachi” in the nomenclature currently used by the NBTHK. For context, katana is the abbreviated form of the term uchigatana, which originally meant “striking shorter sword” (there was no textual distinction between dagger and short sword in early periods, only long sword, tachi; ANYTHING shorter was called a katana).

 

Uchigatana (打刀) for all swords in hira-zukuri measuring noticeably above of 1 shaku (30.3 cm) and to around 2 shaku (60.6 cm) in their ORIGINAL, unshortened condition made before the Muromachi period (when short swords in shinogi-zukuri started to become common). This was the then period term for that kind of sword, or blade, and it is still followed. If a blade from said period and construction measures just somewhat above of 1 shaku, it will be classified as a wakizashi, even if other terms existed for it in the past (e.g., hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi, ō-tantō, ō-danbira, sunnobi-tantō, etc.). NOTE: Even if late Murmachi period long swords in shinogi-zukuri were still referred to as uchigatana in contemporary texts, those are currently classified as katana by the NBTHK.

 

Wakizashi (脇指・脇差) for all blades measuring between 1 shaku (30.3 cm) and 2 shaku(60.6 cm), regardless if made to this length originally or shortened to this length later.  If a tachi was shortened to below the length of 2 shaku, it is now classified as a wakizashi. There is no “wakizashi now, but originally a tachi or an uchigatana” in the nomenclature currently used by the NBTHK. See above for the exception of an uchigatana classification. 

 

Hope this is helpful.

Edited August 5 by Markus

[MassiveMoonHeh]

@Markus how do the NBTHK define a kodachi (小太刀) as this appears to fit somewhere between a Uchigatana and a Tachi as all three blade types are unshortened? 

[Tetsu]

I have a katateuichi, which the NTBHK more generically described as a katana.  It would seem the NTBHK tries to avoid granular classifications, in the same way they use naginata naoishi for what are more likely to have been shortened nagamaki.  

[eternal_newbie]

1 hour ago, Tetsu said:

It would seem the NTBHK tries to avoid granular classifications, in the same way they use naginata naoishi for what are more likely to have been shortened nagamaki. 

 

They do sometimes specify kodachi, as in the Juyo zufu for this one by Osafune Nagamitsu: https://www.nihonto-museum.com/collection/exhibit/bizen-osafune-nagamitsu-ko-dachi

Interestingly, the same blade was listed in the Yūmei Kotō Taikan as a tachi, showing that even among experts there are disagreements on how one should classify these things (images for both publications are at the link above).

[Markus]

12 hours ago, MassiveMoonHeh said:

@Markus how do the NBTHK define a kodachi (小太刀) as this appears to fit somewhere between a Uchigatana and a Tachi as all three blade types are unshortened? 

 

AFAIK, their definition is:

A blade, signed in tachi-mei or unsigned, in shinogi-zukuri that is ubu (or has just the nakago-jiri slightly cut off), measuring around the ballpark of what constitutes a long sword, and that dates not later than Nanbokuchō. From the Muromachi period onwards, such a blade needs to be signed in tachi-mei to classify as a kodachi, otherwise its going to be either just a wakizashi or a katana, depending on the nagasa.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Jacques wrote my thoughts and Markus expanded on it with excellent post.

 

As a person who is totally focused on shape and size of the swords, it is unfortunate that it is very rarely that experts share their thoughts on what they believe the original length of a shortened sword to be. They are rather focused on pinpointing the smith who made the item. For me that would be secondary stuff. I would much rather hear/read their thoughts on what kind of polearm (size,shape, etc) they thought naoshi X was originally. Or for ō-suriage katana it would be most interesting to read if they think it was 80,90,100 cm sword originally.

 

I feel specialized definitions like kodachi, ōdachi etc. are bit difficult, as there should be some flexibility. There are some 60 to 65 cm swords that can be kodachi or tachi, and to be honest is there really any difference? They would just be short long swords. Similarly as I have focused my research on ōdachi, and by classification the defining line is 3 shaku, however there are swords around 88-89 cm length that I would basically say are ōdachi even though they fall tiny bit short of the actual classification. Similarily there are (extremely rare) katana that are 100-110 cm long that I classify as ōdachi as they are so far beyond average katana size. For the late Muromachi swords, technically there would be very little difference if the sword had 59 cm vs. 61 cm blade but by modern classification one would be wakizashi and other katana.