Tachi koshirae opinions

[Lee Bray]

This is a tachi koshirae I've recently obtained, the blade being here - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11123

 

 

 

 

 

I originally thought it to be Meiji period but a couple of opinions I respect have said it maybe a lot older.

The hangers(ashi?) are later, low quality additions but the rest match and are gold washed copper nanako.

 

The tsuba is 4.5mm thick, 85mm tall and 80mm wide.

 

There is a sekigane missing from the upper but the lower seems not to have had one.

Around the entire 'seppa dai' perimeter(that meets the inome) there is evidence of cross hatching with traces of gold nunome zogan. Hard to see with the eye but viewable with a loupe. Gold perimeter was around 1mm wide.

The iron surface makes me think late Edo, more likely Meiji, but the 'missing' gold made me wonder if the tsuba was older with a later restoration.

 

Considering taking the koshirae and blade to Japan in October for a few opinions.

What do you fellas think in the meantime?

[sanjuro]

Hi Lee.

 

Theres a few mixed messages in this one isnt there?

As you say, the Ashi appear to be later than the other mounts, and are most likely Meiji. The 'Panelled' nanako fittings were fairly standard as 'Formal' from the mid Edo period onward. The lacquer also looks Edo to me.

The tsuba could be a replacement, since it doesnt match the ones typically found with this formal style of fittings. The blade as others have said, is probably earlier than the koshirae, which would not be unusual since a decent blade was often 'updated' with later koshirae.

Quite an interesting little puzzle, and certainly worth getting a more informed 'hands on' opinion.

[Lee Bray]

Hi Keith,

 

The tachi will be going to Japan for some hands on opinion. I'm too curious to let it slide.

 

It's the first time I've seen the fibre reinforcing. The saya wood cross section is quite thin and the resultant saya is very light weight.

Not sure if it is unusual or possibly a way to date the saya.

[Henry Wilson]

Dear Lee

 

I originally thought it to be Meiji period but a couple of opinions I respect have said it maybe a lot older

 

What rationale makes the people think this koshirae is older? I would be interested in knowing.

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

Tachi that predate the Muromachi period were only worn by the social elite and they would have been of very high quality. When the uchigatana came on to the scene in a big way and was a weapon of choice for pretty much everyone from the Muromachi period onwards, the tachi was only worn for ceremonies and again they would have been of the highest quality.

 

The wrapping of saya before it is lacquered is quite common. It serves to bind the two sides of the saya together and allow the lacquer to be applied easily. Depending on the lacquer finish desired, a variety of materials were used but fine animal skins seem to be quite common and leathers and cloth appear as well. The twine that appears to be wrapping your saya instead of skin or cloth is unusual and not a very good base for any kind of lacquer if you ask me and looks like is is the main cause the lacquer has come away. Considering all this, from the pictures, I would make the guess that the koshirae is not of the best quality. The tsuba does not look like it is up to much either. It could be a rather long Edo period handachi but I have a feeling the koshirae is a Meiji period "wall-hanger" job and was never intended to be worn.

 

If you are going to the DTI, I should be there on the Saturday 29th Oct and I would be interested in seeing it and would be very happy if I was wrong.

[Lee Bray]

Hi Henry.

 

Thanks for your opinion. I tend to share the thought that it is low quality.

I think the 'older' call was based on gut feeling rather than anything solid.

 

My own thoughts about it being Meiji were based on the tsuba and the quality of the suriage work done to the sword.

In hand, the suriage work last done on the sword seems to be rather rough. It gives the feeling it was done just to fit the nakago into the tsuka and the nakago was not finished cleanly.

To me, this indicated cheap work done to sell the sword and recalling the Shinshinto tachi copies, that's where my thoughts went.

But the sword itself does not appear to be low quality, hence my curiosity.

 

I get to Japan on the 24th; doing Bob Hughes Kamakura trip if that happens.

Not sure that I'll be taking the sword into the DTI itself as I don't fancy carting a sword case around all day. If I do, I'll take it on the 29th.

 

That reminds me...I've heard the DTI has an unofficial 'shinsa' table where you can get opinions but I didn't see it last year. Is this the case?

[Guido]

I've heard the DTI has an unofficial 'shinsa' table where you can get opinions but I didn't see it last year. Is this the case?

Lee, it's on the 4'th floor in the afternoon, called something like "my family treasure" iirc.

[sanjuro]

Henry.

 

Whilst I agree with your general assessment of this sword, the following statement by you is simply not true:

 

Tachi that predate the Muromachi period were only worn by the social elite and they would have been of very high quality.

 

Kokushitsu no tachi (Kurotachi) were in common use prior to the Muromachi period and were generally a cheap efficient mounting used not only by the so called samurai elite for warfare, but also by more common soldiery prior to the introduction of the uchigatana. Tachi of very low quality had been produced and used by all levels of soldiery for a very long time. It is only the examples we have today that may indicate that tachi were all of high quality, since only the better examples have been preserved. Plain iron mounted black tachi with sometimes very mediocre blades, were once far more common than these.

[Henry Wilson]

Dear Keith

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to correct me. You are indeed right. It seems in my mind's eye, I pictured the early foot soldier using only yari and early forms of uchigatana. I forgot they would have also used tachi as well.

 

Cheers