sabiji

Exactly! Thanks to Georg!

Nobody has done that here! The basic message was that the Takada swordsmiths already had a broader range of styles in the Muromachi - and with considerable quality - than many other “main schools” at the same time. However, you have to be familiar with this subject matter. And who said that? However, Fujiwara-Takada copied Hizen, and sometimes not so badly. It's no wonder that Saga (Hizen), Onizuka Yoshikuni (Chikuzen) and Bungo Takada are not far from each other. There were interactions. How and to what extent? I don't know, it would have to be researched. Nothing comes from nothing. So now I'm really disappointed! Do they really believe this Mongolian fairy tale? Masamune didn't reinvent the wheel. Take a look at Ko Hoki or Mokusa works. There have always been swords that could be produced cheaply, quickly and in large quantities when there was a demand for them. Only most of these swords may have survived from the Sengoku Jidai. I don't want to start a debate about the art sword for the 100th time. I just want to say, very shyly and cautiously, that you can take a closer look at bungo swordsmiths. Because I personally think that this source of swords is undervalued. It's not a commitment. It's a free hobby. That's all

I can only agree with Kirill. I've long since changed my view of the bungo smithy. In the fall of 2022, in addition to the classic Bungo Yukihira, a Bungo Swordsmith from the Sue Koto period was on display, whose name I have unfortunately forgotten. The sword was an unbelievably beautiful Aoe copy with Saka-Ashi and a powerful Utsuri.

Not a collector? Really not? Don't you collect knowledge, and perhaps literature too? I don't mean that in a bad way. I simply ask myself whether it is not simply an oppositional attitude towards the owners of many swords to say that you are not a collector because you “only” study the subject matter. Of course, someone who is only interested in knowledge and not in the physical possession of the objects being studied is not a collector in the traditional sense. But the student who owns nothing must be aware that he cannot exist without being a collector in the conventional sense. He is dependent on being able to study the objects in the possession of a traditional collector or the collection of a museum in order to increase his knowledge. Conversely, the traditional collector with less knowledge may also be dependent on the knowledge of the student in order to better assess his collection. So there is a symbiosis from which everyone can benefit! Nobody is better or worse because they have more or less, or know more or less. The famous collector's disease “emotions” affects the conventional collector just as much as the collector of knowledge. Emotions are basically a good thing, otherwise we would all be zombies. But greed, envy, impatience, superficiality and arrogance cloud our vision and impair our judgment. You should never forget that. I can understand that. I also claim to have a good memory. Nevertheless, I'm often surprised to see a particular blade again after a long time. You often see it "with different eyes," which is also part of the learning process. I would rewrite the Jo, Jojo, and Saijo Saku swordsmiths as: works that would be described as Jo, Jojo, or Saijo Saku. Yes, I know that this is explicitly a designation for the value of swordsmiths according to the Fujishiro system. But it excludes very good works by lesser-rated or not-at-all-rated smiths. And it reinforces the fact that collectors tend to focus on the name of a swordsmith rather than the quality of a particular blade. What I mean by that is that I've often seen works signed by Jo or Jojo swordsmiths and thought, oh God, he must have had a really bad day. The blade is mediocre at best, if not poor. On the other hand, there are notable works by Chujo-Saku swordsmiths, or swordsmiths outside this system.

I go one step further: 本来無一物 Honrai mu ichi motsu! Of course green giraffes exist! Even though they might not have existed before, they do right now. But it doesn't matter at all, because nothing exists in the origin. No Nihonto message board, no Naginata Naoshi, no green giraffes. It's all just a work of human beingness. And it means nothing. We can blow out all the emotions around the things mentioned like an elephant, or simply let them burst. That's why no sack of rice falls over in China. When you realize that, you basically remain completely calm - regardless of whether the naginata naoshi has a kaeri or not. Oooommmmmmmmmmmmmhh.....

I see. Then everything is fine.

https://www.aoijapan.com/katanakatana-in-shirasaya-with-koshiraenbthk-hozon-tokennbthk-hozon-token/ Hi Jaques, I once owned a Naginata-Naoshi-Tsukuri by Kawai Hisayuki, clearly a Nanbokucho-Utsushi with a huge O-Kissaki. The Tokubetsu Hozon simply said “Wakizashi”. Since I'm at work now and can't refer to my documents, here's a quick example of Tsuruta-San with a naginata-naoshi-tsukuri. Here, too, it simply says: “Wakizashi”. I have yet to see an NBTHK paper that explicitly states “Naginata-Naoshi-Tsukuri-Wakizashi or Katana, if it is an Utsushi of a Naginata Naoshi. But if it was a naginata, then the NBTHK notes it as a naginata naoshi katana or waki. I'm starting to lose sight of what the problem really is.

Well, Kamakura-Tachi and Mino-Den don't go together. Mino-Den only developed in the course of the Nanbokucho, and defined itself in the middle Muromachi. But since you mention a Yamatorige Utsushi, we would be at the origin in Bizen-Den, Fukuoka Ichimonji. But I think it's basically good! I have seen some excellent gendai, but also some quite mediocre blades, which were probably made specifically for use in martial arts. That's why it's important to know who you're ordering from, communicate clearly what you want and ideally have seen some work from your chosen smith.

Well, here is another example : a Naginata Naoshi Katana, Nakago O-Suriage. The boshi is ko-maru with a short kaeri. The Sword is attributed to Kaneyuki, the son, but probably younger brother of Kinju. I studied Kinju intensively for some time. This way of working is typical for him and his environment. The yakiba is kept narrow, the character is retained in the kissaki, and the boshi forms the logical and harmonious conclusion. This way of working remains identical, whether tanto, ko-waki, tachi/katana or naginata. The boshi is usually a ko-maru with a very short kaeri up to the yakizume. This basically follows the style of its Yamato (Senjuin) roots, in which a short kaeri up to the yakizume is common. What I mean by this is that probably a whole series of naginata naoshi before the correction or change to katana/waki in the boshi region did not look significantly different, because the existing boshi corresponds to the style of the school/swordsmith. A yakizume at a school/swordsmith who otherwise does not harden something like this naturally indicates a clear modification in the sugata in the case of a naoshi. It could be difficult with Kinju, because yakizume can also be applied. And then we are back to the sugata and here we come full circle, which has already been mentioned here several times, that it was precisely because of this sugata that such naginata were particularly popularly modified into katana/waki, because the amount of work involved in the modification was correspondingly low and the original boshi remained largely intact. Conclusion: @ Jaques, no, I can't say how the Kaneyuki Naginata (Naoshi) shown by me looked 100% in its origin. But I know quite well the working style of the school around Kinju and would say that no significant modification of the sugata was made here. Nevertheless, the blade is called a naginata naoshi katana because the blade has been modified from a naginata to a katana. Well, a major point of contention here is obviously whether the example I showed was actually a naginata or nagamaki, or whether it was conceived from the beginning as a katana in this naginata-naoshi-tsukuri form. But I don't think so. The Nanbokucho period is not a revival period. Forms considered typical of this period were developed here, such as the often-mentioned enbun/joji sugata. A sugata that also emerged due to changing war tactics favoring infantry. The Nanbokucho is the heyday of the naginata. The typical castle towns, where swordsmiths worked for local princes and warlords, emerged much later. In Nanbokucho, many swordsmiths worked on the grounds of Buddhist temples. This was also the case at Kinju. Or at Kaneuji. A tegai smith who first switched to the mino-kokubunji, and there were also large temple complexes in Shizu and Naoe. Alongside the samurai, the monasteries represented the second most important military force, intervening in the fighting on behalf of one side or the other, or even just for themselves. It is also no secret that families of the court nobility supported monasteries or encouraged the establishment of monasteries on their lands, thus indirectly using their military power to achieve their goals. Morinaga, a son of Go Daigo, was the high priest of the Tendai-Shu on the Hiei and represented a significant military resource in his "reconstruction" against the Kamakura Bakufu. The naginata is also the standard weapon of the monastic military contingents. In any case, the naginata must have been produced in large numbers at that time. It's simply logical that naginata were later modified into katana/waki, firstly because they were particularly well suited for this purpose, secondly because there were still sufficient resources for such weapons, and thirdly because modifying them into katana and waki was obviously cheaper than producing them from scratch. The emergence of naginata naoshi zukuri, i.e. the deliberate copying of a shortened naginata, coincides, in my opinion, primarily with the copying of a specific forging style, such as the soshu style. Kaneuji, Naoe Shizu, Sue-Sa, Hasabe, and at the same time their typical sugata of the Nanbokucho were copied. This, in turn, is a Kantei characteristic of Keicho Shinto. This, of course, does not rule out the possibility that such utsushi existed much earlier. There are always exceptions, and nothing is set in stone. But the essence is always the obvious.

Partially the Hamon reminds me of Kataochi-Gunome, especially what you have drawn. Partly flattened yakigashira, partly somewhat inclined gunome, which are evenly and regularly connected to each other (tsurete). This has nothing to do with the Yamato-influenced Mihara. The origin of this style lies in the late Kamakura in the Bizen (Kagemitsu), can be found again in the Sue-Bizen (I once owned a Sukemitsu with pure Kataochi gunome), and became popular again in Shinshinto. An acquaintance of mine also owns a very long and very classically shaped katana with an interpretation of this gunome by Inshu Kanesaki, one of the late generations made around 1860.

Both time and money can be wasted without any problems. It's always a question of point of view.

If you start to view your collection as an investment, this will inevitably lead to disappointment.

Beautiful blade! For me, Taima is the most beautiful representative of the Yamato-Den. Also note the typical Taima hada in the boshi!

Hello Minh, I think your urge to explore is very good. However, it's always better to research first and then buy. Unfortunately, the reverse is most common. Well, you seem to be a young beginner, and then you really want to own something, even if you get advice to the contrary. But I can completely understand you. A homework assignment for you now could be to find out about the history and stylistic working methods of the various Nobukuni branches. What are the special characteristics of the (legendary) first two generations (there is still a lot of controversy and mystery here)? What are the special features of the Oei-Nobukuni? When did a change of style to Bizen-Den begin? When did Nobukuni swordsmiths move to Kyushu, especially to Buzen and Chikuzen, and why? Did this have an impact on the way they worked, and if so, what was it? Are there any differences between Buzen and Chikuzen? What possible connections and interactions are there with the immediate neighbors in Bungo-Takada? When and why did the Buzen Nobukuni disband? Did the remaining representatives possibly move to Chikuzen or Bungo? Why did the Chikuzen Nobukuni survive until the end of the Edo period? Isn't that a project? Look at so many Nobukuni blades of various branches with your own eyes. Collect information, photos, Oshigata, and learn to draw Oshigata yourself. And in 2, 3 or even 10 years, you may be able to provide us with valuable information. You will help others here who are not familiar with the Buzen-Nobukuni to see unknown schools in a different light. That's how it works, and no other way, if you take a serious look at the subject. Let's go!

No, I'm not surprised. Have a look at Tsuruta-San, there are some Ko-Mihara, Ko-Uda, Enju, even Kyo-Mono with TH, which reach up to just under 1.5 million yen, all of which have their irregularities, faults and shortcomings. Sometimes he has blades from this environment and price segment that show a really good and even jihada and also the Nioiguchi is right from front to back and promises good quality. Unfortunately, others also seem to have a good eye. In any case, such blades are sold quite quickly.

Let's not kid ourselves: would a healthy blade with intact hada, with this length, from this time, from this school, cost the price quoted here at a Japanese dealer? It would realistically start at least three times the price. It is an old, worn and tired warrior that may have had a quite decent basic quality in its younger years.

Looks like a very old, but also very worn blade. I hope the spots on one side of the monouchi are not umgane, but just loose welds. It's really hard to see.

Honestly - and I'm sure I'm not making any friends - but I can count the really good Sue Bizen works I've seen in recent years on one hand. I know that Sukesada & Co can do it and then I think, holy sh..., what a great blade! But most of what you find, including the linked swords, are (in my eyes) weapons, nothing more. Robust swords with a sharp edge, conceptless hada with rough weld seams and conceptless hamon, a hardening that often looks rather uncontrolled. One should not try to see anything artistic in this. Of course you can find something like this interesting and collect it, that is completely legitimate. And if dealers are asking such prices, then there seems to be a corresponding clientele.

We've been through this before: even if there is some machiokuri, the Nakago is still ubu!

Okay, and since in the "Suriage definition" the tapering and the material thickness of the Nagako are adjusted by grinding - even if the Mei and the original Yasurime are retained at least partially on one side, it explains the Kanji 磨 for me.

My mistake! There is nothing in the text about changing the tip. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that some material is missing from the Kissaki. Under the “ubu” it is noted that the (nakago) tip has been cut off and is kurijiri. So ubu and suriage? It will be a point that I will make a note of and ask about in Japan in the fall.

...and where did I translate something wrong?

Nathaniel, in the Juyo Nado Zufu, ultimately only the Oshigata and the Setsumei are depicted, i.e. what you (or Tsuruta-San) are depicting here. And in the Setsumei it says Naginata, and the Mei has been cut off in the date. Of course, the setsumei also states that the saki has been cut. Perhaps Jaques has another Zufu...

Yes, the Kissaki has been reshaped! You can actually see that the mune slopes down towards the Ha. It also says in the origami that the moto saki has been “cut”.

iiiiiiidesuneeee!