Thoughts on this Aoe?

[Takezo]

https://samuraistore.com/products/katana-ts072-nbthk
 

does this seem underpriced? I’m not too familiar with Aoe work.

[Hector]

You are probably aware but it has already been  sold. I couldn't see if the website said when.

[Takezo]

Yes aware, but I wanted to discuss as it seems interesting at that price point. Would like to hear from people who can judge Aoe works, at least as best as possible from the photos. @Rivkin any thoughts?

Edited August 1 by Takezo

[Rivkin]

Looks like A grade Aoe from 1360. One of two main Aoe styles and earlier versions are known but sugata is more 1360 like and also around this time you see this very distinctive nie utsuri like line right between shinogi and ha.

[Takezo]

@Rivkin Is that what that line is (nie utsuri)? I was trying to figure that out, since it is really pronounced. I can't think of any other images I have seen with something like that. Was not sure if it was a good thing or not , but if it is nie-utsuri, that is fantastic.

[eternal_newbie]

Well, if it's from circa 1360 (and I have no reason to doubt @Rivkin's assessment here) that could explain the attractive price point; in terms of historical value and importance (and thus Juyo consideration), a good Aoe work in good condition from the Kamakura period is definitely a higher tier up than one from Nanbokucho.

 

Mind you, I think that for what it is, the blade was at a decent price point and they're not wrong that it has Juyo potential, but so much of the verbiage in the description is about the sword being an exemplar of Kamakura period work...

[Takezo]

@eternal_newbie Definitely, that's why I thought it presented an interesting subject. I feel like there are a few different things going on here. My eyes tell me I am looking at a very decent blade, but the papers say "Aoe" not "ko-Aoe" (does NBTHK label that way for Aoe or is it more of a "call and find out" thing?) and the shape to me is more Nanbokucho. Plus I can't really tell if it exhibits chirimen-hada as the photos are not extremely clear. 

 

I emailed them just for fun and the missing measurements are:

Sakihaba: ~2.0cm
Motohaba: ~2.9cm
Blade Thicknesses 4.5mm and 7mm

 

Which actually reminds me more of late Kamakura measurements...

Edited August 1 by Takezo

[eternal_newbie]

It's interesting to compare/contrast the sword in question to this one that popped up on Eirakudo recently: https://eirakudo.shop/875702

 

Also Nanbokucho Aoe, similar dimensions and sugata, and rated Juyo Bijutsuhin.

[Takezo]

Oh nice. The Eirakudo example has 3.2cm/2.6cm with a 1.4cm sori at basically the exact same nagasa. 2.9cm/2.0cm with a 2.0cm sori on the original link, with a discernible curvature to the nakago. Interesting. 

[Rivkin]

8 hours ago, Takezo said:

@Rivkin Is that what that line is (nie utsuri)? 

I called it "nei utsuri like" because with respect to Aoe this type of utsuri is dan utsuri and specific portion of it as a rule is not referred to as "nie utsuri", though its appearance is similar to "nie utsuri". This sentence is awkward but decades of kantei by text created a situation when "nie utsuri" is supposed to push the reader to, for example, Rai.

This type of work in Aoe is very uniform and very good, but it also means there are quite a few blades like that.

[Takezo]

Ah so this is dan-utsuri. Like I said, I am not familiar with Aoe work and have never held a good Aoe in hand. So do you think this would this be considered Chu-Aoe or Sue-Aoe @Rivkin?

Edited August 2 by Takezo

[Takezo]

Interestingly enough, I emailed them to speak more about the blade and they are saying Bo-utsuri and the large lines are o-hada...so yeah that is strange to me. I would not expect o-hada to stand out like that anymore than the rest of the hada, so I am a bit confused now.

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

This is only my very amateur opinion, and judging only from pictures on a sword that may not have the best polishing condition can be very unreliable, but it does look more like o-hada or Shingane/Sumihada to me on the left side, with a large amount of space not showing enough patterns of Kitae like this, and with very white outlines, compared to the right side. Red zone is with Kitae's pattern, blue zone is without.

 

 

Maybe it's better if we knew the Motogasane and Sakigasane (thickness) and weight. When I first see this, it strikes me as a somewhat tired sword.

 

Regarding Utsuri, because Shingane/Sumihada(literally "ink skin" sometimes, described as a "black spots without Kitae's pattern/Muji, a kind of Shingane or weak Jigane like Rai-Hada") usually looks darker and more unreflective than regular Kawagane, so in this contrast, the non-Shingane part looks like Utsuri, which is kind of like glowing.

 

 

Like this part retained most of this original Kawagane, and it looks like all of this part is with Utsuri, only the Chikei part is dark.

 

Also, "Mumei Aoe" attribution from NBTHK might suggest this belongs to the Sue-Aoe from late Kamakura to Nanbokucho, and the sugata suggests the same, so around 1360 is very reasonable.

 

(Nanbokucho swords are not supposed to be thick as an Okite in Kantei, so around 6.5mm of Motogasane is fine, but the mere number of Kasane can be misleading, so knowing its weight is very important. )

 

Again, I know very little about Kantei, and this is only my insignificant idea as a very young Nihonto student. Do please correct me on anything. Thank you.