Rivkin

Yes. And Soshu hamon was specifically designed to penetrate Mongol skin, while Ichimonji tends to be more effective against Ainu. Shinshinto swords are heavy and poorly balanced to better suit fighting habits of shinsengumi (who were also heavy and poorly balanced people). And obviously gendaito were not a meager attempts to copy older sword styles, but driven by some hidden efficiency against khaki. I heard today it is tested on suits worn by hedge fund managers. Because we know - Japanese sword is the best fighting weapon, whose evolution was driven purely by intense combat competition. A number of peasants who with the advent of XXth century suddenly became samurai, ninja and swordsmiths - wrote extensively on the topic.

1. Late Sukehiro. 2. Shizu Kaneuji or Fukuoka Ichimonji. I have to say even with their level, I find 50-70% of swords attributed to these gentlemen - not as inspiring, as the "top" 30%. So it has to be a combination of great condition, great polisher and great work to start with, or it is just a lot of money for a sword I would not enjoy as much. I have seen many Kaneuji attributed swords I just would not buy. Would much rather settle for shinto gimei with awe-inspiring work.

I would very much appreciate seeing the entire sword. I have a waki with very similar Kanekage which is signed with Mimasaka, but looks very koto-ish. From papers it looks like these get papered to either Tensho, Kanbun or Genroku generations depending on how the blade looks like....

If one is to look at 7th-9th central "european" or semi-european dug-out blade one is going to find horribly looking masame hada that comes out after light etching, differentially hardened edge, usually made from steel and wielded to iron core. On 17th century blade to see lamination you need to soak it in potent acid for a few minutes. And what you'll see is really something like only 8 layers. In European metallurgy the explanation of such difference is that bloomery (tamahagane) produces very small percentage of quality material, which then needs to be further reworked, or one needs to make steel by even more expensive processes like crucible. As steel is therefore very expensive, the edge is just as much as can be afforded, whether it is a knife or a sword. It is not to improve the blade, it is just the only way to make it on any reasonable budget. As steel became more abundant and much more uniform later on - hada disappeared, as did all complicated multi-piece constructions, wielded edges, complex heat treatments and so on. One of important consequences, that even medieval European blades do not have hagire, fukure, usually don't have ware, but they are bland and bleak with little artistic or even individualistic component. In Japan the process was about the same - good luck finding vivid hada on shinshinto and even on large portion of shinto blades. But the explanation provided was driven by the postulate - tamahagane is the best steel in the world (which it is for artistry, not for cutting) and old swords must be better than new ones (for artistry, not for cutting), and new swords must be still made from tamahagane (which judging even from their hada they are obviously not) and so on and so on. Then of course prepackaged setups for testing chemical elements helped to "explain" the superior qualities of Japanese swords (which is again, the postulate rather than any kind of observation) - as "findings" of vanadium, mb, 2% of C and other "miracle" elements were introduced into discussion. Rivkin

I would strongly disagree. It is a very common thing that people take commercial tools to old blade and then publish 2% carbon, trace of uranium and other things. Unfortunately, even journals like Nature or Science often run such articles. When one actually analyzes the experiment it nearly always comes down to people just using a tool and believing the output. Just my personal opinion and sorry if it contrasts yours. My experience would be that carbon and rare earth are most often measured with great imprecision. The basic problem is that the best spectral line for carbon is located in >UV. Complicated detection, probably in vacuum and laser excitation has to be done with powerful expensive laser and multiple frequency converters - and in the end UV optics is very expensive and almost non-existent. One is better off using sparks and other smith-level methods that will give 50% error bar. The thing used by most true steel makers is blasting steel with very high voltage and then calculating how fast did the particles emanated by the sample traveled. Very precise, very expensive, absolutely destructive, gives you exact % of C, but it helps greatly if you know which elements you have in the sample to begin with. The most fool-proof method, but using a typical setup on antique steel will still give bizarro results with probably read huge % of Cr or Ni. Which is excellent if you want to file for grant money saying that Japanese were ingineous in producing Cr 2000 years before Europeans, but at the source is not knowing what the test really means. Rivkin

Laser tools as a rule will not give a good reading on carbon (and neither will do most tests), plus all of them are targeted towards modern scrap metal. Expect a lot of false positives - they are calibrated to look for modern metals like nickel or chrome, and often pullout materials like rare earth. Plus those elements used exclusively in nuclear plant operations and highly radioactive medical equipment are often given priority, so one expects them to show up as well. Old steel is just plain carbon, iron,silica, phosphorus and sulfur (two problems that limit how good a sword can be) and slag, so one needs to calibrate exclusively towards those. Some will have trace elements of copper or Mb, which can then be tied to specific iron source. Rivkin

Judging from metallographic data, namban-tetsu was just as diverse and vague definition as namban tsuba. There are billets of namban-tetsu that are clearly Indian/Sri-Lankan crucible steel with characteristic horrible quantities of phosphorus (very brittle) and carbon (probably also brittle, but too many opinions at this point).Yet, there are results from complete hagired swords that show very little phosphorus and carbon at just 0.8%. Taking in mind a number of earlier Japanese swords with 0.4% (and somewhat better ones from late Muromachi/Shinto with similar composition) it looks like just a decent quality western steel from XVII-XVIIIth centuries. Too much in terms of al oxides and other things you would not find in steel today. Never seen a shin-Shinto blade prepared and tested, but I would suspect it would in most cases go like contemporary western steel (already produced in quantities in Asia) rather than tamahagane. Which flavor - crucible (which by then regained popular in the West as the premier sword-knife steel, mostly in England) or something worse like puddling - that would be interesting indeed. But XIXth century western and western-like steels are tremendously diverse and one needs the test to be done by someone who actually knows and "feels" them. Rivkin.

Very pleased to encounter the lack of machoistic perception of nihonto. With very limited abilities I don't want to play the expert here, but natural arrogance take over. My desire was always to see the (unavailable) full list of failures. From (very limited) experience some of it would probably be accompanied by "hagired" or "bent". Some by "too unbalanced/heavy to wield efficiently". Still, even semi-trained martial artist could not sever Mishina's head from multiple attempts with supposedly the best wazamono, but I would guess with a lot of swords that would be not achievable realistically at all. One thing that always bothered me is how fresh were the bodies they used? Rigor mortis is a natural limited so that they need to be either very fresh (or better alive) or already rotting? Rivkin

I am not sure that shinto are worse cutters than kamakura. I am unaware of any supporting data for this, as very few kamakura blades were ever tested. Usually it goes from widely postulated in martial arts community thesis that more artistic blades are also better cutters. Which is questionable to say the least. Ichimonji looks great, as does vivid early hada, but all it means is that these things are horribly inhomogeneous, and, well, that's about it. Unfortunately, you just can't do much cutting-wise if your best steel is 0.4 carbon, with horrifying quantities of phosphorus and sulfur to boot, a typical bane of (early) medieval smiths all around the world. Shinto/shinshinto there is plenty of better quality steel around, but hada is unimpressive. But I've met a number of Japanese who believe that four seasons is a weird unique Japanese quality and that a melted padlock from XVth century will produce an infinitely superior cutter than modern steel. Artistism - yes, cutter - NO. Shinshinto has a different ideology than shinto - mass reproduction of early koto work. There were decent copies made before, but probably 1725-1750 was the last "good" shinto period. Lots of swords from 1750-1800 are extraordinary unimaginative - suguha with absolutely no activity, tight hada. It will cut, but would your want to be dying next to it? But then a lot of shinshinto swords have horrible unwieldy balance, hada artificially enhanced through brute mixing of different steels. P.S. There are swords from 1850s that are looking shinto, and those from 1800s that are already fully within shinshinto space of ideas. Just my vision. Rivkin

Being a troll, I would say that first and foremost there are very few books in English that are worth keeping (but all of them are worth reading). "Connoisseur's..." is a great book, but being a reference type it requires a lot of swords to look at and serves as just a guide to look at them a little better. Introductory texts are great, but they are all repeating in one way or another what was said in the earliest ones (Nipponto etc.) - gokaden etc., quite useful if one urgently needs to distinguish his new Masamune from ko-Mihara, but leaving a reader to be mighty puzzled by first shinto sword they are going to see. They are not meant as collector's aids, but more like introductory books on history of nihonto. To be a collector one more in need to learn hada, hamon with all their minute details, which can be accomplished only by looking at real swords (hopefully while comparing what one sees in hand with a general book like "Connoisseur's..."). Unfortunately, it is hard to find (basically I don't know if such book exists, and hope somebody can maybe point me to it) a truly collector-oriented starter book, which would go through blown-up photographic images of 20 different hadas, giving you general feeling for the overall gamut, and 30 or so different sugatas and about 20-50 different hamons (+boshi), 15 various nakago, giving you the images that one needs to know to be more or less comfortable with blades. Oshigatas are handy, but more so when one already has the blade, than beforehand, and after one already seen enough of real world blades. I think the problem with making such a book is that experienced collectors would kind of prefer a reference volume with lots of oshigata and signatures, and pure beginners would prefer pretty pictures (complete swords, late kinko mounts; big dragon always helps). Kirill Rivkin

Dear John, If holding "in high esteem" is a matter of religion of this site - I truly apologize and have no intention to bug you further with my presence. A sword is a sword. It is an object with a utilitarian purpose - hardened steel on the outside, soft iron inside. Almost all nations made them with the same technologies, just differently "tooled" for their specific goal. Paraphrasing by memory Dr. Sato - all people went similar roads, so studying the way sword developed somewhere in India one will find parallels and answers to its development in Japan. Then each culture in the world develops its way to make it artistic. An Indian would spend his days putting "staircase" on his wootz blade. A Japanese would slave on a stunning hamon and would use a specific tamahagane because it results in better looking blade. A Russian might cover the blade with gold and bluing. A European will make an intricate pattern based on mixture of different steels. There is no magic here - just different tastes and different applications of similar technologies. But if you want to believe that Japanese swords (best in the world) live by different rules - I can not in honest faith be a part of this discussion . P.S. And I love Norishige! Sincerely yours, Kira R.

Historical metallurgy. Not Japanese swords. Except the latter are stripped, chopped and metallographied.

To a possible surprise of many on this board - almost every single well developed metallurgical culture from Central Asia to Europe by 900 AD already had folded blades, with iron for the core and steel for the edge, with differential heat treatment... Take a number of "viking" blade from XIth century - you'll find hardness going from 20 to 45, lots of martensite, twisted core, folded steel edges. Outside of Japan (a relatively backward country, overall importer when it comes to produsing steel itself, not to be mistaken with swords), already for 500 years people experimented with crucible steel and other complex steel making technologists, which modern (and XIXth century European) metallurgy holds in high esteem. So if you are looking for something really stunning - look at XIIIth century "Islamic" sword. Inserted edge, folded, crucible steel, differential tempering. Full array of stunning metallurgy. Dear Chris, I know quite well what I am talking about. And differential hardening is much simpler than it seems. Just doing it in a Japanese way (with clay) is one of a more different tricks. Any thick blade will differentially harden by itself, just because of different rates of cooling. If one goes for oil-based heat treatment, one can just dunk one edge into it - resulting in a very pronounced hamon (no nie obviously). Again if you read any articles by Williams - most European swords until say XVIth century (by memory) have drastically varying hardness and are differentially hardened. And I don't think that the flashy hamon for the sake of it is a post 1600 feature, to say mildly .

Dear Sanjuro, It has a style of its own. With its own sence of beauty. As politically correct as it sounds, I would not estimate it as "superior" or "inferior" to say Indian (as ghastly loud the Indian styles appear to me), and quite frankly I would not evaluate Japanese swords very highly on the scale of metallurgical complexity or skill, compared to, say, Indian work, especially when it comes to producing steel per se. Not like Asians were very keen on importing tamahagane. Japanese work is different, with its own set of rules of what makes a good sword, and the Japanese concept just appeals more to may more than, for example, European or Chinese. Yet I am a little perplexed every time I am out to acquire a new sword. This one has a fantastic nie work, great ratings, but it feels in hand like an axe. This one is very plain and quite, but the worksmanship is high, the balance is correct and the shape is more consistent with good cuts. But its some averaged rated Echizen smith. And I like wild, blackish nie on the third sword, with a loud gunome hamon, but the hamon work is uneven enough to question whether this thing (as stunning as it is) will cut well. Are these contradictions real, or I am missing something? Yours, Kira R.

Europeans knew how to do pretty amazing things with their steel before Japanese sword was born as it is. But they had no interest in painting a fancy looking hamon on the blade, then polish it out to perfection, and then have the picture completely ruined after couple of engagements and rough sharpening in the field. They had their own ways to do something fancy, which required no less skill by any means.

And as far as I could understand, one of his main points is that the superior grace of many Kamakura tachis is the rest of horrific overpolishing, rather than a designed occurance... And that's precisely what I am trying to ask here - are there some greatly valued Juyo level swords that certainly do not cut well, and probably never were meant to be cutters above all else, while there are very utilitarian and plain swords with very little that visually distinguishes them from hundreds of other swords, that are much better cutters?

Dear Chris, I appreciate your answer. However, I have no doubts that in some cases the beauty is accomponied, or even serves as an indirect measure of the sword's function. And I have no doubts that there are quite a few swords that have "peerless" artistic qualities and superior functionality. The question I am raising is that there a lot of artistic developments in Japanese sword, as well in that of any other culture, that have nothing to do with functionality. The most prized artistic swords can be mediocre cutters and very simple swords with absolutely no artistic value can still be superior cutters. And the most prized cutters can have weight/balance issues that would make their use prohibitative under certain circumstances. Regarding European use of martensite - I think every single work of Williams will show some examples. I.e.: "METHODS OF MANUFACTURE OF SWORDS IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE: ILLUSTRATED BY THE METALLOGRAPHY OF SOME EXAMPLES", (Sword Ea 92. Leiden Wapenmuseum, SWORD No. 4) etc. The use of martensite is hardly unique to Japanese, although there were cultures that (by choise) preferred to see rather different properties in their swords and therefore did not heat treated at the temperatures that would lead to the appearance of martensite. Sincerely yours, Kira R.

Well, there were not so many interested in painting pictures with specifically martensite, however every heat treated steel blade will have a picture made from martensite. There were cultures interested in painting pictures with carbides (Indians with their wootz come to mind), or in using very complex patterns, wielded from a combination of different steels (from late Roman times to everywhere in the world, i.e. "Damascus") and so on and so on. It is like saying Japanese are unique because they have sanban sugi, and Europeans - do not.

Dear Chris, Thank you very much for responding, What you are saying is printed probably in every single book on nihonto - the reason behind the beauty of Japanese sword is its functionality. I am quite sure that this is, frankly, far from truth. There is no reason for striking and valued Gassan hada to be more practical than a simple modern steel that has a very faint hada. There is no obvious reason why swords with gunome would cut better than those with suguha. In both cases, I see no reason, other than purely artistic, for an artisan to make these features. Yes, I did not recieve Zen enlightment, but certainly there is a way to prove the practicality of such solutions without - sorry for saying this, but pretty cliche road of "1000s of years before Europeans", "uniqueness of Japanese spirit and culture", "after dozens of years of studying on the mountain with Dao sages" and so on? Yours, Kira R.

If Art is purely subjective, then all my swords just got promoted to J.Tokubetsu... When I look at a number of swords with different rankings and/or prices, I can't help but notice that the preference is typically given to swords with a very pleasing, illustrous hada (which means that it is highly non-uniform, if we believe western metallurgy - not the greatest accomplishment for a piece of steel), complex hamon (there are plenty high ranking swords with nioi suguha, but that's not what people tend to proudly display) with lots and lots of repeatative nie-based activity, and the shape which is pleasing to the eye. From all of that, I can understand the abundance of nie as something that might relate to performance; regarding the shape I have troubles believing that most slender-fumbarish kamakure shapes would perform as well in test cuts as a typical "heroically proportioned" Bungo. I do understand there is a number of weapons that are excellent cutters with great balance and great artistic looks. But, can we really rely on "this sword has a lot of activity and its very artistic, so it must cut very well, since Japanese art is extremely functional"? Or there are somewhat separate criteria of practicality and artistism? P.S. Masamune swords were not tested (although there are some conflicting accounts on that if I am not mistaken), but were the swords that achieved such status during the smith's life really carried into battle, or the reason that so many survived is that besides occasional skirmish in the castle they really did not see any use? P.P.S. Regarding the Western Science not being able to explain and the uniqueness of Japanese Smiths - sorry, I am not aware of a single technical solution that is unique to Japanese swords. Folding, differential tempering, ridge construction - all were well known from almost BC times.

First a disclaimer - I am a complete newbie when it comes to Japanese swords. So pardon my arrogance, but could you help me out on a little philosophical question - what is the beauty of a true nihonto? Every single book I've read says that the beauty of Japanese sword is inseparable from its functionality. Disrespectfull as I am - it's hard to believe it is so. It never works this way in other cultures - beautiful patterns on the blade, gold furniture might still accompony a greatly capable weapon, but do not add any combat characteristics, sometimes even present a liability. Similarly, I had a number of very artistic sukashi tsubas with the cuts that were uncomfortable enough to hurt when I pick up a sword. Shakudo reliefs on tsuba that probably would not last even 100 swings without starting to become dull. I had a great honor of looking at the blades of Osafune Motoshige and Nagasone Kotetsu. I am just a newbie, so I am absolutely certain I did not understand them, but generally speaking these juyo-level blades of the highest wazamono ranking smiths did not impress me as supreme works of art. The shape is graceful, but I've seen more graceful ones. Hamon is not particularly startling with activity. Motoshige's hada was quite luminating, but Kotetsu's was not out of this world. And on the other hand I've seen blades with amazingly graceful contours, with hamon literally changing from pitch black nie to milky whitish. With hada brilliantly reflecting in silky red or subtle blue. And those were highly ranking smiths, but I quite frankly don't know how highly irregular, artistic assemblies of nie are supposed to improve sword's cutting qualities. So my question is, as a newbie - what should I be looking for in a sword to call it a true work of art? Fantastic hada with lots of nicely shaped nie on a chouji hamon, with a thin, graceful blade with a deep sori and funbari? Or there is something about those thikish shapes with simplistic hamon and tight hada with wazomono ratings that is a true Art (I don't dispute the artistic properties of many wazomono blades, but some of the most highly ranking ones are kind of not what I expected) and I am just foolish enough to not recognize it? Or should I treat practicality and artistism as separate entities? And if practicality is my goal, then another question comes to mind - would I really pick a very poorly balanced, heavy sword, which supposedly cuts very well over something lighter and more balanced, which may be does not cut as many bodies lumped over each other, but can move and strike way more faster and more precise? Yours, Kira R.

May I ask another question - what's a typical situation with old mouts? I understand the lacquer offers some protection, but can one really use typical shinto mounts, or it is rather unsafe? Would one be better off, if one wishes to display the sword in mounts occasionally, to make new saya+, get old tsuba, menuki, whatever?

Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate the advice! Guess I'll dive back into books and start preparing for the next sword show .

To thy mercy I, though undeserving, apply! After spending a lot of time on books and going through a lot materials on sword, I decided to purchase my first blade. My purpose is mostly studying. I have been collecting for a while, but only recently decided to slightly expand my extremely narrow interests by learning about nihonto. My personal preferences were always - simple, very austerely decorated swords. I definitely strongly prefer sturdy, capable blades that can be effectively used today (not that I have any knowledge how to use Japanese swords). Now, I understand that it is somewhat tricky to ask for an opinion about something currently for sale, but I would greatly appreciate if you could help me to choose, between these two (or may be I am wrong in the selection alltogether and the first blade should be something else): http://www.nihontoantiques.com/fss381.htm http://www.nihontoantiques.com/fss373.htm Pardon my arrogance, but I would like to explain my reasons for thinking about these two. I like the second one: Simple, yet elegant mounts. The blade appears very healthy and usable (however I am a tad surprised that the seller does not say anything about iai-do or tameshigiri, as he does with other swords - for example http://www.nihontoantiques.com/fss387.htm). I love the curvature, which I find very gracious and overall fitting my preferences . Minus - no activity, rather simple construction, therefore not a lot of learning (?) and a lot of rumors (?) about bungo takeda being relatively low grade, very few people actually liking it (resale potential?). I like the first one:Lots of activity, like the hada, like the curvature. Minus: fatal flaw? I hate the military mounts (per se). Also, I am a huge guy, and short swords actually look a tad funny when I hold them. As you can see - not of knowledge in me yet, mostly just emotions, feelings. Again, I apologize taking your time with a such personal request, but would greatly appreciate any advice, even if it is to return to reading books.