ROKUJURO

Robert, analyses of TAMAHAGANE show that it is very pure, regarding alloy metals, but I have no data of KOTO and SHINTO era steel for comparison. What I think is important is that there is a very narrow temperature margin in the bloomery/TATARA process. Unlike many other metals, iron has a slightly wider temperature span between 'solid' and 'liquid'. This feature is making the direct reduction process possible. But you cannot leave this temperature area by much without metallurgical changes taking place. Usually, the intent is to have a good degree of efficiency in the process which rises with the temperature. Celtic and early medieval bloomery furnaces were around 30% (= 30 kg iron from 100 kg of iron ore) and were run at about 1.250 to 1.300°C. The temperature in a TATARA can be even a bit higher which means that near the vents, the iron wil be closer to melting temperature. The problem is that with rising temperature, the iron 'absorbs' more carbon. The malleability of iron ends with a carbon content of 2,02%; this is the limit where cast iron/pig iron starts to be formed. Crystallization can only take place from a liquid state, so if TAMAHAGANE was made at very high temperatures (= above 1.350°C), there is a high risk that it would not be workable on the anvil. Cast iron (roughly 2 - 5% C) will shatter like a cookie under the hammer. As far as I know, historical Japanese iron technology is not known for decarburizing processes (with the exception of OROSHIGANE, but this worked in another way) as we had them in the Middle Ages in Europe. So, the Japanese were forced to stay with the TATARA method. We should not forget that in medieval Japan, ALL iron was produced solely in TATARA, and most of the products coming out of the forge were made from (low carbon) iron, not steel! This was the same in Europe, by the way. Coming back to a potential technological leap after the KOTO era, a slightly higher carbon content in the steel might indeed make a difference in working it and in the properties, but we can exclude 'secret' alloy metals mixed in the TAMAHAGANE - or missing in EDO times. There are still more factors which can influence steel properties and the performance data of steel blades, but that would lead a bit far. BUT we should consider the fact that - starting with EDO JIDAI - many swordsmiths no longer made their own steel, and as you know, there is a big difference between potatoes that you grow in your own garden, and those you can buy in the supermarket!

Steven, you will have more luck in the "FOR SALE" section.

Two NISHIGAKI on the right, an AKASAKA on the left? What do I win in case I am correct?

And Chris, we should not forget that these are mostly still handmade! Probably not by renowned Japanese masters, and not old, and often made in series, but still individually made by skilled carvers. It is a good idea to learn from these objects about design, material, artistic expression, and execution.

Jared, by the less-than-ideal photos, we cannot come to a satisfying or even safe asessment of what that is exactly. I would not exclude that it might be an older traditionally made blade, but in making such a claim you take some responsibility. The experts here do all they can to help, but the possibilities are limited. And what you may not know yet: Even if it was a traditionally made sword with some 100 years of age, this would not necessarily mean that it could be restored at reasonable cost, considering our actual market. This may change in 100 or 200 years, but we don't know now. My personal view is to "save" every handmade blade if possible, because - as you said above - a lot of skillful work went into it. But there are individual limits in what is financially possible and reasonable for an owner. I own a few unpolished blades myself, and I like them, but I don't have the means to have them properly restored. It is not only the € 2.500.-- (minimum) for a KATANA, but you need a new HABAKI (€ 400.-- to 600.-- in normal execution - no solid gold or such!) plus SHIRA-SAYA ( don't know how much, but at least a few 100s). Plus papers plus shipping and handling..... So, as they say, the sky is the limit. What remains for us collectors is learning - and patience. We do not have and train that in the West, but it is necessary to move forward. Read as much as you can, look at pictures, learn Japanese, join a club, visit museums and exhibitions, and already in 40 or 50 years, you know a lot more!

Chris, with better photos, you will probably get a comment. Plain dark, non-reflecting background (not THAT flower vase!), presented as cut-outs, and nicely focused would help. I admit that these small objects are really difficult to photograph. You cannot go too close, and you need high-resolution. Making good photos of them is an art in itself.

Sam, I know and understood well. But if someone (Laters) comes to this wonderful forum to learn, the terminology is the first thing to adapt to. This may appear strange and difficullt to some newcomers, but it is the way we all had to go if we wanted to dive into that theme. The funny thing is that even most native Japanese have to learn the terms and the correct reading of names.

I think we have something in Europe that may be comparable: a Purveyor to the Royal Court, otherwise called Royal Warrant Holder. The titles don't tell much about the quality of the products.

Noooooo, impossible!

Don't feel bad for it.

Thank you Brian, stuff to read through for a while! I hope the 1925 research on KUJI SATETSU is no longer secret now!

My next project in this field will be the restoration of woodworking tools (NOMI). It will probably take a short while....

Forest NINJA (please sign all posts with at least a first name plus an initial. It is a rule here so we can address each other in a polite manner. You can add your name to your profile), I have explained this several times here on NMB, but again: TAMAHAGANE is a very basic form of metallic iron. It can have differnt amounts of impurities (= NOT ALLOY METALS !). The low temperature of its production process (around 1250 - 1300°C) is not high enough to reduce other alloying element oxides that may be present in the iron ore (there are always other elements like manganese, chromium, silica, copper, titanium, a.s.o.). You cannot "mix in" other metals into the process unless you throw modern alloyed steel in the TATARA. Another method would be the OROSHIGANE process where iron can be carbonized but also modern alloyed steel could be introduced. Traditionally, this is of course not done. Steel alloys can only be made in hot liquified state - roughly 1.600°C or more. The TATARA process does not produce melted (= cast) iron, at least not in considerable amounts but more as an unwanted by-product. Nevertheless, even these small amounts of cast iron are sold and used by some swordsmiths to increase the carbon content of their steel. The TATARA method (comparable to the early European bloomery furnace) produces a very pure iron as far as alloy metals are concerned, but it is not "clean" in hindsight to impurities like silica and metals that are attached to it like titanium. So even in the 'best' TAMAHAGANE, you will find very small amounts of impurities. The traditional swordsmith does not care for them; he is solely interested in the carbon content. Carbon is introduced into the iron by the charcoal used in the process, but is is not automatically distributed homogeneously. There are spots with higher heat in the TATARA furnace where the iron takes on more carbon than in "cooler" places. This is why repeated forging (= stretching out, folding and fire-welding) is required later for refining. From a metallurgical view of the subject, differences in the appearance of sword-steel and its properties are mainly due to the work of the swordsmith. How he treated the metal in the long process has probably much more influence than tiny amounts of a few impurities. However, it is known that some elements like titanium can have an effect even in very small amounts in an alloy. Since there are no actual comparative scientific tests on authentic Japanese sword blades, we will probably not know much about this subject. However, ASANO TARO, a swordsmith in GIFU, has executed final fracture tests on a blade (on YouTube under asanokajiya).

No, we would never do that!

....and light from the side so the chiseled KANJI can be seen.

John, not nehonto, it is NIHONTO, and again, this is the NIHONTO section which means it is for traditionally made swords. Yours would belong into the military section in case it was machine made. And in WWII, there were no SAMURAI, so it is probably a military sword, called GUNTÔ.

Max. early EDO JIDAI, I think. But age is not important in these items. Quality and condition make the value.

Yes, possibly KIRI KOMI. But I don't think the TSUBA is very old, early EDO max. You are posting this in the NIHONTO section, but it belongs into the TOSOGU section.

John, I am asking basics to help assess the blade. A signature does not tell all that might be necessary, and if you want competent comments, we need good photos in the first place. As we strongly object any DIY polishing attempts, the actual condition of a blade is of interest and importance. The little that I can see on the less than ideal photos (maybe due to my old eyes) lead me to suspect that the blade was not traditionally polished. Usually, this leads to severe damage and loss of value. So please excuse my critical questions, but I think they were justified to come to useful answers to your inquiry.

Hi John, this made me curious. The blade WAS in bad condition and had even SCALE? So how was that condition changed to its actual shiny state and possibly rounded SHINOGI? Scale can occur when a steel object is exposed to fire/heat which for a Japanese sword means, it is destroyed.

He certainly did not "etch" anything in his blades. Signatures are chiseled with a TAGANE.

Of course as Jussi says. A cheap iron TSUBA in not so good condition was repurposed as BOKUTO TSUBA. Not common, but not very rare either.

If this blade was really shortened by so much as it seems by a first look, I would have expected a considerable material loss on the NAKAGO when it was shaped to the actual new dimensions. This would have resulted in a partial erasure in the HORIMONO and the broad BOHI. Although I like the HADA, some details of the blade are suspicious in my opinion.

Grev, a) and b) are meaning the same. As far as I know, in written Japanese, there is no separation of terms, so you might write TACHIKANAGUSHI (style) or TACHI KANAGU SHI (style).