suriage or not

[Jean]

https://www.aoi-art.com/auction/en/auct ... 1213703271

[nagamaki - Franco]

Would say O suriage, why?

[Jean]

very good question, Franco : Shumei

 

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1798&hilit=shumei+and+kinzogan+mei

 

What would lead Hon'ami Koson to think this sword was never signed.....

[paulb]

Hi Jean,

I would say suriage rather than O-suriage. If it were O-suriage it would have to have been an enormous blade even by the standards of the time. If it were suriage then it is perfectly possible for Kozon-san to make an appraisal on it as a mumei blade.

I have read the article by Darcy which I am sure is based on the conventional view of when different types of attribution were used. However as with all things in this subject thee does seem some contradiction bwetween sources as to what was used when and what it means.

regards

Paul

[nagamaki - Franco]

I found the piece in Tanobe-sans article I referred to in the earlier text. I quote:

"We know during the Edo period The Honami family applied Kinzogan-mei to blades which got mumei after the O-suriage process. When an attribution was done on an ubu but mumei blade, it was inscribed via a Shu-mei (red lacquer signature) From time to time we find blades which show a kind of shu-mei but which can be identified as O-suriage by the way the yakiba goes over the machi. Such attributions were done from the Meiji period onwards, and are not called shu-mei but shu-sho (red lacquer inscriptions). Also Kinpun-mei were not applied during the Edo period but also from the Meiji period onwards"

I hope this may help to clarify and confirm peoples views

 

Regards

Paul

 

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/posting.php?mode=quote&f=9&p=43283

 

speak of the devil, posting one minute too late, story of my life.

[nagamaki - Franco]

If it were suriage then it is perfectly possible for Kozon-san to make an appraisal on it as a mumei blade.

 

In study of numerous Juyo oshigata almost without exception when the bo hi runs all the way through in the 'same manner' as it does on this blade, the blade is o suriage. This blade is close to 27", adding the length of the nakago would not be unreasonable.

edit: it is somewhat surprising the overall length and nakago length are not given, at least in the AOI English description, nor does it seem to mention suriage, o suriage??? Does the Japanese written description say something about this?

[paulb]

Hi Franco,

Yes You are more than likely correct and I have seen the same on oshigata. I think I just struggle with the idea of someone weilding an original blade of 80-90cm, which of course some did.

Are there not examples of blades from this period with hi that either run through an ubu nakago or at least well into it? If there were then it would be possible to achieve what you are seeing here by partial removal of the original nakago rather than complete removal.

Just speculation as I dont know if such examples exist

regards

Paul

[nagamaki - Franco]

Hi Paul,

 

My thoughts were not dissimilar while holding an o suriage 75 cm/ 96 cm overall nambokucho blade once at a club event, it must have been carried by a horse mounted samurai with Arnold Schwarzenegger like forearms. edit: BTW, this sword according to the write up on it had the bo hi running half way through the nakago.