Please explain this hardening for me.

[Eric H]

muneyaki...a kind of flaw (kizu) ?

The nature of kizu is precisely defined in literature without any reference to muneyaki. Muneyaki, incidentally or by lack of workmanship, in some case it is an important kantei point. There are smiths and schools associated with muneyaki.

 

I own myself a sword that displays muneyaki...I would never consider to remove it, it belongs to the sword and the sword‘s authenticity must be respected...any „cosmetic repair“ as described is perhaps acceptable on newly made swords.

 

Muneyaki by intent is well explainable by fighting techniques as Jean has written in his comment...but it doesn‘t weaken the blade, the contrary may be right.

 

Eric

[kunitaro]

  kunitaro said:

If there is Tobiyaki (small spot) or small SPOT of Yubashiri on Mune, They are Mistake,

 

however, When you see the blade, you can see if it is Mune-yaki on purpose, or mistake.

The mistake Tobiyaki on Mune is usually very small (because, it is mistake)

and we don't see so much, because, it could be fixed.

 

Dear Eric san,

Could you please post some Example ?

so we can study together.

 

Best regards,

[Eric H]

Kunitaro san

Some examples from Internet, I cant see any remark that would qualify muneyaki as a kizu or as a sign of poor workmanship.

Possibly I will take some pictures of the muneyaki on my sword.

 

Munemitsu 50.2 cm „with muneyaki on the shinogi“

http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/wakizashi/11052.html

Morimichi 62.6 cm „there is light muneyaki“

http://www.nihontocraft.com/Musashi_Mor ... atana.html

Tameie Riheinojo 69.85 cm „all of them have muneyaki“

http://www.nihontoantiques.com/fss40.htm

Rai Kunihide „phenomenal jinie and muneyaki“

http://www.sho-shin.com/ss2-6.pdf

Naginata 52.2 cm „muneyaki on back ridge“

http://www.sanmei.com/contents/media/F2 ... PUP_E.html

Muramasa II „muneyaki drifts in rivers...“

 

Eric

[Jacques]

Earlier examples of swords with muneyaki;

 

Go Yoshihiro ((Matsui Gô)

 

 

Kunitoshi (Torikai Kunitoshi) muneyaki is clearly visible on the photo.

 

 

oshigata of the same blade.

 

[cabowen]

It is indeed considered a flaw in workmanship when its appearance on a blade was unintentional. One needs to know when it is and is not intentional. I believe this is what Kunitaro san is attempting to illustrate.

 

I have been in the forge of several Japanese smiths during yaki-ire and have heard them make the remark that unintentional mune-yaki is a failure in the yaki-ire process.

[Eric H]

  cabowen said:

I have been in the forge of several Japanese smiths during yaki-ire and have heard them make the remark that unintentional mune-yaki is a failure in the yaki-ire process.

 

I don‘t doubt on this. But how does one know „this is intentionally made and that is not“?...operating manual... ... Anyway I have never read an issue on this subject by a renowned scholar. If it is desirable to have it on a blade is another question and depends on one‘s own preference.

 

Eric

[kunitaro]

All of the examples which we have here are Consiously made Nune-yaki.

They are not Mistakes as we can see from the oshigatas.

 

as i wrote before,

when we see the sword, we can see if it is a mistake or it has been done on purpose.

 

There is no example of (mistake) Tobi-yaki on Mune here.

also, it is very diffuclt to find a bad example....

 

I will draw something (basic) after i go back home....

Not for advanced collectors, but for beginners.

[Brian]

Indeed, just like clay falling off a sword while doing yakiire...I am sure accidental muneyaki is a flaw (not a fatal one...just something undesirable) and would be corrected if possible. It is also logical that a collector would learn to identify what looks like deliberate muneyaki and accidental.

If you have a blade with absolutely no tobiyaki on it, besides one spot somewhere in the middle of nowhere..it is pretty obvious it was not intended. Can we prove it? No...but sometimes you have to study according to your gut feel.

 

Brian

[bubba-san]

As a swordsmith , I have seen hardening of Mune on many occassions . This type of hardening of spine

is done to counteract the upward bend of blade during quench .It is sometimes found on swords that have been re- hardened. It is one way to control the sori . ...... James

[kunitaro]

Thank you very much for follow up, Brian san,

I was trying to draw, but, it is difficult...

But, Brian san explained very well indeed.

 

  Brian said:

If you have a blade with absolutely no tobiyaki on it, besides one spot somewhere in the middle of nowhere..it is pretty obvious it was not intended. Can we prove it? No...but sometimes you have to study according to your gut feel.

 

Yes, That is why I though this is good subject.

Mune-yaki on purpose and Tobi-yaki mistake are easy to recognize.

 

How long (minute) do you stare at sword for examine ???

I take sometime 5 minutes 10 minutes to stare at one parts of Hamon or jitetsu. (or Sugata, or Nakago) without my ego.

and think about the maker how he has been done. (with my full knowledge and experience) till I have idea or clear vision.

Sometime stare longer time,,,then you start to see.

This is the communication with the maker.

It is almost Meditation.(my art appreciation)

Also, This is one of the reason why we bow to the sword.

make sense ??? or not ?

 

Studying only book without sword is not good.

Studying only sword without book is not good either.

 

PS : Good sword with Bad mune-yaki is risk of Saiba (re-tempered) also must be remembered.

[cabowen]

  Eric H said:

I have been in the forge of several Japanese smiths during yaki-ire and have heard them make the remark that unintentional mune-yaki is a failure in the yaki-ire process."

 

I don‘t doubt on this. But how does one know „this is intentionally made and that is not“?...operating manual... ... Anyway I have never read an issue on this subject by a renowned scholar. If it is desirable to have it on a blade is another question and depends on one‘s own preference.

 

Eric

 

You need be familiar with the workmanship of the smith. If you can find no examples of the smith's work with mune-yaki and you have one with mune-yaki that looks out of place, it was probably accidental and is thus a kind of flaw. Some smiths regularly produced mune-yaki, others did not.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

What about this one ?

 

[NihontoEurope]

Jacques,

 

I think that not all are mistakes. It is my believe that some are trademarks.

 

What do you think?

 

I checked my Kunishige blades and there was no muneyaki to be found.

 

Edit to add: I love the text "...almost ubu"

 

somewhere between changed and unchanged...

 

/Martin

[NihontoEurope]

In the Yoshifusa case...it is most certainly a trademark.

 

[attachment=0]YOSHIFUSA.JPG[/attachment]

 

/Martin

[Eric H]

Muneyaki is not a kantei point for Hankei, rather his jigane sometimes showing jiware and other kizu...in his workmanship they are not considered flaws as they would be judged by any other smith. However the following description indicates muneyaki and I think this is accidentally. I don‘t have a pic or oshigata of this sword.

What I try to say is... muneyaki accidentally on a collectible sword is not a flaw per se. Shirake utsuri, also is unintentionally made, and it is said, that it is not desirable to have it on a sword, but nobody would have the stupid idea to remove it, just because it is of accidental origin.

 

A picture is worth a thousand words, so I‘d like to see muneyaki on a collectible sword that should be removed because of aesthetic reason.

 

Mei: Hankei

Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 2 bu

Sori: slightly over 5 bu

Design: shinogi zukuri

Mune: mitsumune

Jihada: o-itame, itame hada mixed with mokume hada, and the hada is a bit rough. There are dense thick ji-nie, fine chikei, and muneyaki.

Hamon: Around the machi there is a narrow yakidashi, notare and o-notare, mixed with gunome, has fine sunagashi, kinsuji, frequent ko-nie, dense and thick nioi, and the entire whole hamon has a worn down nioiguchi.

Boshi: the omote isa  straight yakizume, and the ura is straight with an omaru style, and both tips have fine hakikake.

 

Eric

 

[NihontoEurope]

Eric,

 

I might plainly misunderstand what you just said.

 

Here is what I do not understand. Two statements:

 

1. "in his workmanship they are not considered flaws"

 

2. "...so I‘d like to see muneyaki on a collectible sword that should be removed because of aesthetic reason."

 

My ears do not compute this.

 

Also, I really don't see a flaw or mistake being pointed out:

"However the following description indicates muneyaki and I think this is accidentally"

 

"Jihada: o-itame, itame hada mixed with mokume hada, and the hada is a bit rough. There are dense thick ji-nie, fine chikei, and muneyaki."

 

 

If I would read this, which I just did, I would see this as a feature of this specific blade. Not like; "the blade has this and that, but unfortunately Muneyaki".

 

Trying to learn something, not questioning your statement as such.

 

/Martin

[cabowen]

Muneyaki that was not intended is indeed a sign of imperfect workmanship. It can degrade the value of a blade, both monetarily and aesthetically. Its accidental presence on an old blade of historical value or rarity will not prevent it from becoming Kokuho but certainly an expert, when seeing the blade, would be apt to say, "too bad about the muneyaki".....

 

People generally do not remove it from older blades, as far as I have seen. Modern smiths, on the other hand, in my experience, do indeed remove it if possible when it was not intended.

 

Sometimes we see a blade in gunome with gunome ashi that has a short section or two where the gunome disapppears into a notare, or a blade in choji where the pattern makes a strange change and the choji degenerates into an odd suguha. These types of unintended hamon are also an indication of a loss of control of even heating and are a sign of imperfect workmanship.

 

Sometimes we see a section of the hamon where there is ara nie suddenly instead of even nie throughout. Again, this can be due to uneven heating.

 

There are many indicators of less than perfect heat treatment that indicate the smith did not maintain control. In fact, it is this control that separates in some way the top smiths from the others. These signs of loss of control indicate a less than perfect workmanship. You could call them flaws as that is what they are in one respect- flaws in workmanship.

[Eric H]

  cabowen said:

Its accidental presence on an old blade of historical value or rarity will not prevent it from becoming Kokuho but certainly an expert, when seeing the blade, would be apt to say, "too bad about the muneyaki".....

 

You refer to the Yoshifusa Kokuho Tachi. The existence of solely one spot is evidence of imperfect workmanship?, Ok., and people generally do not remove it from older blades. The explanations on unwanted results by imperfect workmanship are instructive.

 

Martin,

Hankei is a very famous Shinto swordsmith, Saijo saku, who aimed to make swords in the style of Etchu Norishige. His jihada commonly called „hijiki hada“ is o-itame mixed with itame. Many of his swords show small kizu and ji-ware in the hada, but in his case these kizu are not considered as flaws, but as a characteristic of his workmanship, but muneyaki doesn‘t belong to his characteristics.

 

 

Point 2 - I‘m grateful if someone can show a pic based on Brian‘s definition.

 

 

Eric

[Daniel]

Hi all, Interesting thread. What do you think of this Gendaito. Intentional Muneyaki or just a Gendaito with a flaw. http://yakiba.com/Kat_Masamitsu.htm

I shall add that I own the sword in question.

Best Regards

Daniel

[zatoichi]

Hello just wanted to say thank you to everyone for sharing there knowledge and insights. It might be for your own edification but others can gain as well. sent me to the books looking up words & soshu smiths.

Justin E

[cabowen]

  Daniel said:

Hi all, Interesting thread. What do you think of this Gendaito. Intentional Muneyaki or just a Gendaito with a flaw. http://yakiba.com/Kat_Masamitsu.htm

I shall add that I own the sword in question.

Best Regards

Daniel

 

 

Probably intentional but one would do well to see more examples of his work to see if this is typical.

 

Accidental is usually spotty....

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

 

  Quote

but in his case these kizu are not considered as flaws, but as a characteristic of his workmanship,

 

About Hankei, it is said that this kind of kizu were not considered as flaws nevertheless they are not considered as a kantei point.

[Jean]

Being a characteristic of a workmanship does not necessarily means it is a kantei point, as several smiths can have the same characteristics.

[Eric H]

Kantei is a methodical approach to identification of a sword‘s maker by examination of its shape and characteristics of workmanship.

In the case of Hankei‘s workmanship the kizu, sometimes but not always seen in his hada. Sensei Honma Junji: „The tiny cracks in the steel surface are his trait, so to speak“.

In my understanding this is a important factor in Kantei, of course aside of other characteristics of his workmanship.

 

Eric

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Eric, if i show you a sword with hidden nakago and showing some tiny hada ware, you will say it is probably by hankei ? This particularity is only a plus and not a kantei point.

[george trotter]

Hi Jaques,

If all other characteristics of your "hidden nakago" kantei point to Hankei, and it also has these "tiny hada ware' (which are said to be a characteristic of much of his work), wouldn't this make the "tiny hada ware" also a kantei point of Hankei's work?

Just asking.

Regards,

[nagamaki - Franco]

If hada-ware are needed to kantei Hankei's work, someone had best take up coin or stamp collecting.

 

http://www.sho-shin.com/hankei2.gif

[george trotter]

Hi Franco,

I don't think anyone has said that hada-ware are "needed" to kantei Hankei's work have they?

I understand Jacques to say that finding hada-ware on a Hankei work being kantei'd is "a plus and not a kantei point"...therefore I just asked him to explain how a point considered in a kantei is not a kantei point.

I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your comment.

Regards,

[Eric H]

  Jacques D. said:

Eric, if i show you a sword with hidden nakago and showing some tiny hada ware, you will say it is probably by hankei ? This particularity is only a plus and not a kantei point.

 

You didn‘t read carefully: „of course aside of other characteristics of his workmanship“

as well I wrote: „kizu, sometimes but not always seen in his hada“

 

The proceeding of kantei, sword appraisal, is unmistakably defined as well the comment by Sensei Honma Junji on the significance of the kizu in Hankei‘s workmanship. Any constructed interpretation against Honma Junji's comment is evidence of negating facts!

Generally said, an „Amateur“ opinion can be registered but an „Expert“ opinion should be appreciated and followed by the serious collector.

BTW if not noticed: „Muneyaki is present above the monouchi“

 

Supposing I would go to Hankei in a Kantei, when noticing small cracks on a blade, is ridiculous.

 

Eric

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Eric,

 

A flaw even made by Hankei is never a kantei point. A flaw is a flaw and nothing else. Hankei sword kantei points are nioiguchi, hijiki or matsukawa hada, machi, mune, nakago but not kizu.