Ichinohira (Ippei) Yasuyo

[Basho12]

Does anyone have access to a good-quality oshigata for this Satsuma province Shinto smith (sometimes read "Yasutoshi")? I've found a couple of photos online and there's one in "Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords," but nothing in enough close detail for a good comparison. I have a katana blade in my possession that's allegedly by him, but I realize there's a good chance it's gimei. I don't have pictures yet but I'm working on it.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Here it is.

 

[Basho12]

Great! Thank you.

[Brian]

and uploaded here for future reference when the image host there has long since deleted it...

[Ludolf Richter]

Hi,there is a lot of reference material in the books about Shume no Kami (title in 1721) Yasuyo (1680-1728,Hawley YAS 573),who also worked at Edo when he was summoned by the Shogun.Ludolf

In my books I found

Watson,Shinto

Ogasawara,Japanese Swords,p.87

Suzuki,Tanto,p.239

Tokyo National Museum

Art and the Sword,Vol.4 (1991),p.61/62

Token to Rekishi,TTR 611 and TTR 612

Yoshu to Zuroku,YTZ 2 Nr.119,p.234/235

[Basho12]

Thanks. I'll try to track as many of those down as I can, whatever happens next.

 

 

I hope the more experienced folks will weigh in once I’m through making a fool of myself, but I’m looking at a sword which claims (I’ll get to that in a minute) that it’s a Shinto blade forged in Satsuma province some time between 1722 and 1728. This isn’t so much kantei as reverse-engineering, since I know what the blade is supposed to be and, as an almost complete beginner and using only those tools available to a beginner, will now try to decide if it’s telling the truth. Bear in mind, I have never seen a real Satsuma blade in my life, other than pictures and oshigata. Also, I’ve not been able to study nearly enough good quality blades in person to have that almost instinctive knowledge of what a blade is or isn’t at first sight. Maybe someday, but for now I’m going to have to quantify everything I do, so this is probably going to read like one of those test essay questions where you have to show your work. I apologize for that in advance.

 

From reading kantei of other Shinto Satsuma blades I have some guidelines on what to look for, and these are the measurements on this blade:

 

1) Nagasa: 68.9cm (2 shaku, 2 sun, 7 bu).

2) Nakago: Funagata, ha-agari

3) Sori: 1.2 cm (4 bu)

4) Sugata: shinogi-zuri, chu-kissaki, torii-zori, ihorimune.

5) Kisane: 6.5mm. I’d even call it beefy.

6) Motohaba, sakihaba: 3.2cm and 1.8 cm, respectively.

 

 

 

The sugata is consistent with Shinto blades of the Genroku transitional era (the b/w photo above is a known example from Satsuma of that period). Satsuma blades tended to have a shallower sori even after the rest of Japan was moving to a deeper curve, and 4 bu is a good match to known examples. The motohaba is wide and that’s also consistent with Satsuma. The blade is out of polish and the hamon is hard to make out, but in the photo below I’m seeing what looks like imozuru (“potato vines”), which is another characteristic of a Satsuma hamon/hada. The kisane is relatively thick at 6.5 mm, another characteristic of Satsuma blades.

 

This sword is signed “Shuma-no-kami Ichi-no-hira Yasuyo (sometimes rendered Yasutoshi). So if the blade had no or few Satsuma characteristics, I could easily conclude that it’s gimei. Yet it’s my beginner’s opinion that this sword was indeed made in Satsuma province. Assuming I’m right, is it really a Yasuyo? It stands to reason that there are a lot of gimei blades for this Juyo smith, and this could easily be one.

 

Kisane, sori, motohaba, nagasa, mune, and sugata are all consistent with a Yasuyo (Yasutoshi) sword. While maru-mune was common in Satsuma blades, Yasuyo was not a Naminohira school smith and he tended to use ihorimune, which is what I expect to see on one of his swords. Hamon: a bit hard to make out, but I make it suguha mixed with gunome, one of the two hamon styles Yasuyo preferred. If I’m right about the imozuru in the hamon, that’s indicative of a Satsuma blade but not necessarily of Yasuyo’s work. The nakago is more ha-agari rather than kuri-jiri, which is a point against. Any meaningful details of the hada are just not accessible with the blade in this condition, so all that’s left to consider is the mei itself.

 

 

 

I only have pictures to compare to (and thanks to Jacques and Brian for the links), but if it’s gimei, it’s a decent job. The way the “yasu” kanji is formed, the direction of the strokes, the curve of the horizontal strokes, everything I know to look at looks right to me, except the rightmost stroke in the third kanji (The "Shu" isn't showing).. It’s curved on my sword, and in the only two shoshin examples I’ve seen, it’s straighter. I had some concerns about the thickness of the strokes relative to the real thing, but once I was able to get a picture from about the same perspective as a good example, that matched up too. I also wonder why the hollyhock leaf is missing. Since this is the Shuma-no-Kami mei this would have to date after 1722 and the Shogun’s competition, so I’d expect it to be there.

 

Conclusion? A Satsuma blade that may or may not have been forged by Ichi-no-hira (Ippei) Yasuyo. Not much of a conclusion, but of course I want this blade to be shoshinmei, and that’s almost certainly the filter through which I’m viewing the evidence. But realistically? I know it probably isn’t. I want this to be what they call a “teachable moment,” so if anyone wants to weigh in to explain how this couldn’t possibly be any of the things I think it is, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

[Jean]

I want this blade to be shoshinmei

 

Incredible the number of greedy members, NMB is hosting :D

[Basho12]

Incredible the number of greedy members, NMB is hosting :D

 

Show of hands: All things being equal, who doesn't want a shoshinmei blade by a famous smith? :lol:

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

I think it is gimei, it is too short, swords made by Yasuyo are over 72cm; yasurime must be higaki and there are significant differences in the mei.

[cabowen]

I have seen many Satsuma Shinto and Shinshinto works at kantei and I would say that the hamon and nakago are wrong. I vote gimei....

[Mark]

length and temper seem wrong, looks more like a Mino blade

[Basho12]

Length aside (I've found one Yasuyo only 3mm longer than mine) the yasurime should definitely be higaki, so that's a point. Looks like I'm 0 for 2. Disappointed but not surprised. Thanks, everyone. Back to the books.

 

 

 

looks more like a Mino blade

Funny you should mention that. Ujifusa, who started that Satsuma Shinto line of smiths, was trained by a Mino smith. I'd expect there to be differences from the native Naminohira school. Not that it necessarily means anything, but it's interesting.

 

Edited to add: I also agree about the shape of the nakago; there should be more taper toward the end than you see in this one.

[Eric H]

I think it is gimei, it is too short, swords made by Yasuyo are over 72cm;

Really?

Eric

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Eric, are you sure with the nagasa ? That blade looks more wakizashi than katana.

[Eric H]

It is a Katana by Ippei Yasuyo possibly conceived for single hand use (katate uchi) and quick draw (nuki uchi). I have in my library enough examples of renowned swordsmiths with swords differing considerably in lengths. As a convincing example two swords by Kazusa no Suke Kaneshige, of course both ubu:

 

Katana 61.7 cm

Katana 76.2 cm with Tameshigiri

 

I don‘t want to add the pictures for not deviate the discussion. However one remark. Those who have read the "Gorin no Sho" might remember that the legendary swordsman Musashi never gave an importance to the lengths of his swords, in other words the length of a sword in a fight is of secondary importance, the fighters capability (in all aspects) is decisive.

 

Incomprehensible for me, a great majority of Nihonto collectors cuddle the belief, that a "good" Katana must measure at least 70 cm.

 

Eric

[cabowen]

There are a few reasons why blades of length 70cm and greater have higher perceived value, all other things equal.

 

One reason is purely emotional- it is thought that only samurai were allowed to carry blades of this length and thus it is a "real" samurai sword, not something that belonged to a mere merchant. Thus people tend to value them higher.

 

The second reason is more practical. Generally, the longer the blade, the more difficult it is to make. It is much more difficult to get an even heat with a longer blade (and thus an even yakiba). Clearly, the more forged steel, the more opportunity for forging flaws as well. I have a Yasukuni blade by Kajiyama Yasunori that is 81cm long and flawless-the consistent workmanship throughout speaks loudly to the skill of this smith in a way a 60 cm blade does not...

[Jean]

One reason is purely emotional- it is thought that only samurai were allowed to carry blades of this length and thus it is a "real" samurai sword, not something that belonged to a mere merchant. Thus people tend to value them higher.

 

I thought only samurai were allowed wearing katana, starting in the 17th century, whatever the length?

 

Concerning the length Eric, I am afraid to tell you that it is more related with the idea this collectionors' have of manhood and I know a lot of them who say, the longer the better.

None of them knows or very few what was stated by Chris. about length and yaki ire

 

A small katana is ridiculous for them.

 

 

As for all things, as was saying Musashi, length has nothing to do with the way it is used

 

 

PS : I kill the forst one who makes a sexual remark

[sanjuro]

Its all in the technique. It actually takes more skill to use a 'big one'. (Particularly indoors....... You tend to bash it against a lot of furniture if you swing it around too much).

I refer here only to swords of course.......... On the other hand..........

[Jean]

Keith,

 

Don't try to copy Ford

[Eric H]

it is thought that only samurai were allowed to carry blades of this length and thus it is a "real" samurai sword, not something that belonged to a mere merchant.

 

Well, this is just the point, it insinuates that as per definition a Katana, 2 shaku at least, but shorter than 70 cm isn‘t a „real“ Nihonto...what is it than?

To wear/carry swords of Katana-size was prohibited to merchants, i.e. commoners.

Aside from the technical aspects of sword smithing which are fully agreed I want to point to the following article

 

"Was chonin class in Edo period allowed to wear/carry swords?" by Dr. T

http://www.una.edu/faculty/takeuchi/DrT ... hon_to.htm

 

Eric

[cabowen]

it is thought that only samurai were allowed to carry blades of this length and thus it is a "real" samurai sword, not something that belonged to a mere merchant.

 

Well, this is just the point, it insinuates that as per definition a Katana, 2 shaku at least, but shorter than 70 cm isn‘t a „real“ Nihonto...what is it than?

 

 

There was no insinuation made that blades less than 60 cm are not "real" nihonto, simply that they do not carry the monetary value, everything else equal, of longer blades.

 

Perhaps here is a historical reason:

 

"...According to Bakugi Sanko [The referral to the official issues of the Shogunate] written by Matsudaira Shungaku, a late Edo period daimyo and the last Lord of Fukui prefecture (also a cousin to the then Shogun), the legal lengths of swords to be officially worn by high ranking samurai to appear in the Edo Castle were a) 2 shaku 3 sun (=69.69cm) for katana and b) 1 shaku 6 sun to 7 sun (=48.48cm to 51.51cm) as officially set forth by the Tokugawa Shogunate (Ogasawara, 1994a)"

 

Thus the longer blades were to be worn by high ranking samurai, who, presumably, would have had the resources to afford better quality blades....maybe this is where the 2 shaku 3 sun length became the preferred nagasa.....???

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

I would add that after having checked all my library i can't found the kanji yo 代 located like this :

 

[reinhard]

Much ado about a poorly faked mei, don't you think?

 

reinhard