sanjuro

This topic is prompted by observations made over a period of time by members of the board. One sometimes sees a tsuba that has a nakago ana that is rectangular, which is usually immediately identified as a naginata tsuba. There is in fact one on ebay at the moment whose sole claim to being a naginata tsuba is a rectangular nakago ana. This despite the fact that the tsuba in question also has hitsu ana which would be totally pointless on a naginata. The nakago of every naginata I have seen is in fact similar in cross section to a normal sword nakago, ie not rectangular but with a narrow ha and a broad mune. So why is a rectangular nakago ana identified/associated with the naginata? Is it that perhaps regular tsuba adapted for use with a naginata are given a rectangular nakago ana in order to mount them either way on the naginata? I may add that I have four naginata tsuba, none of which have a rectangular nakago ana, two of which are still on the naginata they came with. There must be other indicators that a tsuba was intended for a naginata, and one wonders what they may be and if any board member can enlighten me.

Hi Denis. Actually, I wasnt picking up on anything specifically said when I made the 'desecrators by neglect' reference. It was after all, couched in generally inclusive 'we' terms and pointed to the continued use of uchiko when it is totally unnecessary as a regular maintenance practice. It pointed also to maintenance so infrequently carried out, if at all, that allowed choji oil to polimerise. All comments made are in the spirit of discussion. A discussion we seem to be continually having, and one that gets ressurected on a regular basis it seems, even though there are ample references to uchiko and choji oil available in the FAQ section and identical topics to this one available in the search facility of this board. The arguments both for and against uchiko have not changed and the composition of choji oil and all its alternatives are discussed exhaustively. So, why do we keep revisiting this tired topic?

Baz. Could be..... But I figure a cormorant who would obviously prefer a shag on the rocks that hangs out with a duck thats only interested in food is likely to get a bum deal anyhow. :D

On the NMB we have discussed this topic repeatedly and never really arrived at a concensus. Those who cling to the use of uchiko will continue to use it and rationalise their use of it despite advice to the contrary. In addition, we continue to define what we mean by uchiko and what we understand to be choji oil, all to no avail. Fact: uchiko is finely ground uchigumori slurry, usually provided by a togishi, and is abrasive. Wiener Kalk is not uchiko, but is used as a milder version of it to limit the amount of damage done during cleaning. Fact: Choji oil can be made of camelia oil or paraffin oil with a few drops of clove oil added. it does not damage the blade and is a proctective agent against rust. I take it we basically agree on this................ Now, why the hell do we need to use an abrasive on a blade just to soak up old oil? Why are we even discussing the fact that choji oil will eventually polymerise and need removal. The polymerisation takes years, and if we as preservers and collectors leave the cleaning of our blades long enough for the polymerisation of the choji oil to take place, then we should be labelled as 'desecrators by neglect'.

Touche'. Or should that perhaps be tushy?

Franco. Not to be crude, but unless the bird in the water has got eyes in his ass, he's not likely to see the other bird on the post :D Yes, I know I have deliberately misinterpreted your post.

Denis. One of the most abrasive mixtures I know of is real uchiko mixed into a paste with choji oil. I used it some years ago a couple of times to clean light rust off Russian Shashka and kindjal blades. I would not even dream of bringing that paste into the same room as a nihonto. It leaves steel dull. (nice and free of rust but dull). Just stay away from uchiko, its not necessary, and unless you have the touch of a butterfly, you will ultimately do damage.

Welcome back...... We have all been good boys......Not a single locked thread while you were away. I wonder if something could be read into that?????

Bruno. I'm no authority on this subject, Chris Bowen is one who springs to mind as having the most access to togishi and therefore the most access to some authority on the effects you are asking about. I know of no published work that examines the effects of diluted alcohol on swords, and probably there are none since it is a fairly recent practice. For my own part I am approaching this from a 'best practice/potentially least harmful practice' point of view. Our greatest enemy is rust. Water in any form promotes rust. Ergo, anything with water in it, no matter in what proportion, constitutes a risk. A question that springs to my mind in this context, is what are the potential differences in terms of risk, between shinto and shinshinto blades which tend generally toward tight hada, against koto blades whose hada are generally looser and more pronounced. Is one at greater peril than the other in terms of susceptibility to rust? This is perhaps a moot point, but the discussion here has brought it to mind. Where is Chris when you need him??????? :D

Bruno. Isnt the reason we oil our blades to exclude water? Why introduce water into the tiny interstices of the blade then add oil over the surface to trap it where it will do the most harm? Reoiling a blade is done with more frequentcy immediately after a polish. Even the most professionally polished blade has small microscopic interstices in the hada.This initial increased frequency of oiling is to replace the water used in the polishing process which has settled in those interstices, with oil. Using alcohol that has been diluted with water is surely not sensible. Anything less than 100% alcohol is taking a risk

David. You are right when you say that it comes down to a matter of choice. However, the golden rule in this collecting and preserving of nihonto that we all share, is 'DO NO HARM'. Your choice therefore should always defer to the method that achieves the objective of preserving the blade against oxidation with oil, but most of all is the least invasive on the polish. Uchiko does absorb oil but it is abrasive, hence most of us dont use it because there is no need to use it.

Hi Eric. True.... The military academy and the shrine in this instance are however, synonymous.

Hi Eric. I dont know if this is relevant, but back in November this topic was raised. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14414&hilit=shrine+swords

OK.... Genuine question. Bear in mind that I know very little about tsuba. No offense to Patrick, but given that the opinion of two members whose opinion I value say that this is a shaomi tsuba in akasaka style and that it is a fairly thick example which I understand as indicative of a late tsuba. Doesn't this all make this particular example a bit of a 'dog's breakfast'?

Hi Mariusz. My apologies.... Perhaps I was not clear. I dont use uchiko any more. I merely remove old oil with silk cloth and re oil the blade. All my blades are kept in shirasaya, so they are never completely dry of oil. Since no other liquids can contaminate the blades then the use of alcohol seems redundant.

On the subject of microfibre, It is possible (More than possible) that I resist using it purely on traditional grounds. I have however departed from tradition in as much as I no longer use washi paper. Firstly, its expensive (at least where I live) also it is a wood fibre and could have silica embedded in it. Rather I use silk cloth to clean the old oil away. Silk absorbs oil like crazy, and I get it cheap as chips, so I just throw the piece away when I've used it. I've never really seen the advantage of using alcohol, but if someone can convince me it is absolutely necessary, then I'm prepared to listen. Traditionalist I may be, but I'm not an idiot. I do still enjoy the ritual of cleaning my blades though. I only do it twice a year. No uchiko any more, just a wipe down and reoil. Even modified as it is, the ritual or what remains of it, still gives me much pleasure.

My two cents worth....... For hundreds of years the Japanese have used uchiko and choji oil. Such things as isopropelene alcohol and microfibre cloths were not known of, yet many thousands of nihonto have survived the centuries to come into our possession in good order and properly cared for using time honoured practices. Now I dont know if isopropelene alcohol or microfibre cloths are better or worse than the traditional materials and quite frankly I dont care. What has worked for centuries when used correctly is good enough for my swords, (none of which are rusty, out of polish or suffering from the care that they receive at my hand). What I use I use sparingly and seldom. My most precious blades never see uchiko because they are not used as swords any more. As Chris has said, uchiko removes blood and fat but has an abrasive effect. A clean with a soft cloth and replacement of the oil is all that is required. A newly polished blade is a different matter. I would take a togishi's advice on how the blade should be maintained in the early months following the polish. Call me old fashioned...... Call me a traditionlist. I prefer to use what is proven rather than what is speculatively called 'modern' practice that has not yet stood the test of time.

Unfortunately. The repatriated members of our armed forces following WWII did not know that Ferromunchicus Australis was easily combated by the application of Oilus chojii Japonicus! :D A single application of which was anomolous to Ferromunchicus Australis. Alas, the result as sad as it is to relate, results in nakago horribilis which leads ultimately to the condition known as swordus neglectium undesirabilis. :D

Not to be 'picky', but it occurs to me that a seller who has had this tsuba in hand and did not notice that it was a casting, is an ill informed seller indeed. It was immediately obvious from the photographs to most of us here and also to the OP who by his own admission is a newbie himself. (No criticism intended Patrick, at least you have insight into your condition and a degree of skepticism, and that's always a healthy sign). :D

This amused me..... When reading down the bottom of the page where they attempt to justify their existence, I read: Now thats great if you dont have any trouble expressing yourself on someone elses behalf. However, on reading the item description, there seems to be something of a gap in the translations. Perhaps they need someone to help them express themselves? :lol:

I'm not sure what you are asking here John. Is it likely that these tsuba were cast prior to 1950?......... Why not? The art of casting is much older than 1950, or 1590 for that matter. Many namban and other tsuba were cast and are of a much earlier vintage than 1950. Am I perhaps missing the point you are trying to make? :?

Let us take each one in turn. I shall ignore for the moment the question of seki gane. seki gane can afterall be added to a cast tsuba. Firstly, John's tsuba. jpeg nmb 1. Lower right hand side. Decayed porosity. This only happens to cast iron. small sukashi seems to have some casting flash. Upper left hand side between petals of the flower, casting granulation. Secondly, Your tsuba. casting flash in small sukashi elements. Loss of detail in the centre of the flower shows some granulation at base of crosss hatching. A carved iron tsuba does not have granulation at the base of incised cross hatching. Finally, the seki gane. On Johns tsuba the seki gane appears on one side only. A seperate seki gane is usually visible on both sides. On your tsuba the same, but more obviously cast since definition is blurred by fine casting granulation. On both tsuba there is a lack of fine definition of the design which one sees in carved tsuba. There is also a 'flatness' to the patina of the metal. A small caveat is in order at this point. These observations are based only on photographic evidence and the eye can be fooled by the camera. However, Since there are dissimilarities in the petal structure, and similarities in the tagane marks around the nakago ana, then one is not a direct copy of the other. Therefore, I think we have possibly yet to see the original from which both these copies were made and cast. JMHO.

From the photographs both Yours and Johns for different reasons, appear to be cast to me. Then again, what the hell do I know?

KM. What you say is quite correct. The type three gunto for instance, had a second mekugi ana almost at the tip of the nakago, and I have also seen a few older nihonto with that feature. (I think the second hole is called a shinobi ana, but I could be wrong on that count). They are however, relatively rare on nihonto generally. In this instance, the last hole is not far enough down toward the nakago jiri nor is it central enough to suggest that this is a feature of this particular sword. the nature of that offset toward the ha edge of the nakago in the case of the last plugged ana, further suggests some reshaping has been done to the original nakago and is therefore indicative of suriage. Sorry about the groan and rolling eyes in a previous post. Half of Australia is on fire at the moment and I have people I care about in an effected area that I cant contact. My patience is a little worn but i shouldnt have taken it out on you.

KM. In the case of the dai nakago, the open holes are possibly the result of refitting to different koshirae but the last of the plugged holes is too far down the nakago to be anything but the original mekugi ana. Not all suriage was indicated by a straight cut nakago jiri. Some fairly notable ubu nakago had a straight cut. This one appears to have a three angled cut, never the less it is suriage. There are as you know, no absolutes when it comes to nihonto.