Ubu and Mumei

[Jean]

Franco is referring to this:

 

http://www.nihontocraft.com/Nihonto_Shi ... dards.html

 

Now if you take two ubu blades from the same smth, one signed and the other one mumei, juyo level, the difference of price can be 40% to 50%.

 

If you ever come by a blade like this one:

 

http://www.tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/f00201.html

 

You can kantei it immediately to Ryokai, the unusual shape and the hada are typical at 100%.

 

There was another juyo tanto for sale at the same time, signed by the same smith which sold for about 2,8/2,9 M¥, at once. This one is still for sale, it has been for a while so I am sure someone interested can ask for a discount

 

 

This for a tanto. Imagine what it can be for a katana size blade.

[seattle1]

Hello Marius, Jean et al.

Nakahara discusses a number of possibilities, making something look older is one deception, and removing a minor mei and putting on a more exhalted one is another option, and most certainly a signed Juyo has a multiplier effect. Nakahara starts with the question of why should a blade, any blade (I am paraphrasing of course) not be signed? I believe that is what led the translator to introduce a little balance to the issue.

How one draws a line in the sand on the ubu mu mei issue is a matter of personal preference, the size of the wallet and how chronologically narrow one's collecting goals might be. It seems okay to me to exclude all post koto mu mei, suriage or not, and all Muomachi which are not suriage, and on those one would have be sure it is a really good sword. It is just a matter of choice.

Arnold F.

[Jean]

Arnold,

NBTHK has clearly made its choice :D

[Marius]

How one draws a line in the sand on the ubu mu mei issue is a matter of personal preference

 

Arnold,

 

I agree, but some swords seem to have been originally mumei, like the tachi in the Kasuga-Taisha... I guess there are other examples in other shrines...

 

I am probably stating the obvious...

 

I like Bob's sword and I think it was created mumei (but who am I to make any statements...)

[seattle1]

Hello:

Indeed Marius. I think the sword Bob posted is very nice and well worth serious consideration and study. The monouchi has that straight look, from the images anyway, that suggests really early. If it is in fact ubu it might be Yamato as has been observed, and I agree that some early blades like that, if mu mei, were always so. None of those things can really be determined without the blade in hand and I hope he submits it to the Chicago shinsa.That was the point the Paul seemed to make in putting some balance into the Nakahara position. I would not adhere to the Nakahara position chapter and verse, however the cautions he raises are well worth careful study.

[to clear up some ambiguity in my earlier post, I was not trying to say not to collect Muromachi signed blades, far from it; ubu mu mei are a different story, and some very fine o-suriage Muromachi are out there, but the determining condition is found under "very fine"]

Arnold F.

[Marius]

Arnold,

 

I feel the same about Nakahara - a source of knowledge, one of many.

 

I would love to see the sword - it could turn out to be Tegai (a hunch on my part) - it definitely needs to be seen in hand :-)

[Surfson]

I would be happy to have any NMB members inspect it in hand at the upcoming Chicago show, assuming that I am able to attend (always depends on my travel schedule). Cheers, Bob

[Darcy]

There comes a time when one must determine what their collecting objectives are and state them clearly if they wish to become a serious collector or just remain a hobby collector. Then it becomes simpler to decide what to do. It is easy to tie up significant investments in swords that don't amount to much more than hozon level.

 

Well said Franco. A lot of people let their money burn a hole in their pocket and grab the next thing which their eye fancies. Ends up in a large accumulation of "stuff" of negligible collective value in spite of the large investment.

 

About the sword in question. Shape does look earlier to me. Everyone is right in saying early Muromachi smiths did copy Kamakura sugata, and as Jean points out Yasumitsu was one of them.

 

The hamon on this blade shows nijuba and some other Yamato like constructions and I would agree that Uda may be a target.

 

If your intention is to send it to Japan then just send it to Japan and pick your shinsa provider. No sense in shinsa here, then send to Japan in my opinion. Shinsa here is if you don't want to send it. If you already have in mind that is to send it, if you get a paper that you're not happy with here you're probably going to try to re-paper it with someone else over there. If you get a paper you are happy with you may be inclined to send it over there to Juyo. Either way... if it's going to go just send it and pick your team that you want.

 

The kaeri, it's not clear from the photo if it is just some muneyaki or if indeed it is a turnback. Can you take a few more and show us? Is it identical on both sides? Can you show more of the boshi?

 

Sa school is another target, Sue-Sa probably, if you are showing a longish turnback, and fine nie activities. The shape and length would be OK for late Nanbokucho or early Muromachi.

 

Nakago condition can be misleading. Old looking nakago are generally old and those dummied up to look old someone skilled can often detect. Young looking nakago may be old or young, depends on how well they were preserved. Photos are difficult with nakago to tell the color of the rust because "deep black patina" will reveal itself to actually be a shade of red when you crank up the exposure on a camera. Depending on the camera and the light then it can be a bit difficult to assess.

 

Your nakago though is showing a mix of recent action that is attacking it. You should oil it and neutralize it.

 

This is a very well preserved nakago with a Kamakura date (1288). Yasurime are still visible and the metal is raised around the strokes of the signature.

 

 

It is more like a mid to late Muromachi condition than a middle-late Kamakura condition. So you need to be able to put a 50% fudge factor in there either way when looking at nakago condition. If it was abused a long time ago, then it's going to look a lot older now than it really is. If it was very well cared for, then it's going to look a lot younger than it is.

[Surfson]

There is lots of content in your post Darcy, and I'm glad that you spoke up. I am certainly guilty of accumulating a lot of blades, but I will defend what I've done economically, as I have been cost sensitive and have bought more swords at a fraction of their market value than ones that were overpriced.

 

Having said that, I am trying to better define my collecting, going after bigger game and planning to condense my collection to a smaller number of high quality blades. As to this sword, if I do submit it to NTHK and it comes up with a mundane Muromachi date and school, I would probably sell it rather than try to overturn the call by sending it to Japan. i have more swords worthy of polishing and restoration than I have funds to restore them with, so the decision is an important one to me.

 

I appreciate your comment and information about nakago condition, and agree that this sword has some active rust. Other than applying some oil (is choji oil ok?), do you recommend anything else? I have taken horn to a nakago or two, but this one has such a variable surface that getting the horn into the crevices will be very tough.

 

As to the kaeri, it's hard to tell whether it is muneyaki or a true kaeri. It is quite similar on both sides. Seeing the boshi is a challenge, and I don't think that I can take some good photos, but I'll try when I return from a trip in a couple of weeks.

 

Finally, I am not sure what the bottom line is on your view of it. Do you think it is muromachi or late nambokucho or do you think that it has a chance to be much earlier, before nambokucho? Cheers, Bob

[nagamaki - Franco]

As to the kaeri, it's hard to tell whether it is muneyaki or a true kaeri.

 

Generally speaking tempering along the mune is considered long turn back until it goes well into and beyond the monouchi.

[Darcy]

As to the kaeri, it's hard to tell whether it is muneyaki or a true kaeri.

 

Generally speaking tempering along the mune is considered long turn back until it goes well into and beyond the monouchi.

 

The difference between muneyaki and kaeri is that kaeri is intentional. Muneyaki is possibly an accidental feature that can happen at any point in the blade (on the mune obviously but possibly leaking into the shinogi). One theory is that it's from clay falling off. So for instance we see that in Niji Kunitoshi and seems to be an artifact of whatever his approach was.

 

Now if one of his muneyaki happens by chance to be close enough to the kissaki that it touches the kaeri we would not automatically reclassify it as an unusual Niji Kunitoshi with a long turnback. It would be a Niji Kunitoshi with a normal kaeri and muneyaki high on the sword.

 

What I am saying in the context of this sword is that it needs to be clearly examined, I couldn't tell from the photo if it was must muneyaki high up or if indeed it was an intentional turnback.

 

The difference is very important, because the kaeri is one hallmark of a smith and muneyaki is another hallmark of a smith. In the case of Niji Kunitoshi he never makes long kaeri. So if you have muneyaki high up and then choose to describe that as a long kaeri then the kantei will not be correct as Niji Kunitoshi is ruled out.

 

So the effect may be very similar but it's very important to classify it correctly based on what it is and how it got there vs. what it looks like.

[Darcy]

I appreciate your comment and information about nakago condition, and agree that this sword has some active rust. Other than applying some oil (is choji oil ok?), do you recommend anything else? I have taken horn to a nakago or two, but this one has such a variable surface that getting the horn into the crevices will be very tough.

 

Probably I'd consult Benson about what the appropriate thing is to do with the nakago. Myself, I'd oil it as I don't see the harm in that and it will stop it from further corroding. What happens to the condition of the nakago then will happen naturally from going in and out of the tsuka. But if there is anything really loose it should probably come off. I'd go no further than a clean cloth and some oil. Those are just my thoughts.

 

As to the kaeri, it's hard to tell whether it is muneyaki or a true kaeri. It is quite similar on both sides. Seeing the boshi is a challenge, and I don't think that I can take some good photos, but I'll try when I return from a trip in a couple of weeks.

 

Finally, I am not sure what the bottom line is on your view of it. Do you think it is muromachi or late nambokucho or do you think that it has a chance to be much earlier, before nambokucho? Cheers, Bob

 

If you go straight on the sugata it is koshi zori and it is early Kamakura mostly except for the kissaki which would make for a leaning to late Kamakura I think.

 

It has nie in the hamon and there seems in places to be nijuba and maybe sanjuba. I can see sunagashi in there.

 

The periods that the shape rules in go from late Heian to early Muromachi. The nie implies it is Ko-Bizen, Yamashiro, Soshu or Yamato. Could be early Mino too but I think the shape rules that out. It doesn't seem a lot like Soshu den to be but could be something related on the side like Uda. Do you see any ko-choji or ko-gunome in the hamon?

 

There are other related things like Hoki that could be ruled in but I don't see that in the hamon from what I can see.

 

The condition and age of the nakago looks like it is newer than the older schools here. I think to narrow it down past this looking at photos of an out of polish sword is throwing darts and when you throw darts it more kind of reflects on the bias of the dart thrower. We are really about 75% blindfolded when trying to judge a sword like this.

 

What I get out of it is that you should get it fixed up and sent in.

[cabowen]

Muneyaki is frequently done intentionally; it is seen often in sue koto. We can only say it is unintentional when it appears in a blade by a smith who is not known to feature it; it is usually rather obvious as it appears random and without form. When it appears unintentionally, it is usually not viewed positively as it is a sign that the smith was not in complete control.

[Darcy]

Here is what I am talking about on the sugata. This is a Ko-Ichimonji Sadazane which is about 78cm. I scaled it and rotated it to superimpose over your sword. The Sadazane is early Kamakura but has a shape found from late Heian to early Kamakura plus it has a bit of an ikubi kissaki. The blades are otherwise about the same length. The Sadzane may possibly have a mod to the nakago, it has been called ubu and also slightly suriage.

 

 

This is not to say your piece is Ko-Bizen but if we are stupidly to follow shape and go to a period this is where we go. The rest of it needs to confirm. So look over it a lot then check out the hamon photos of these two blades. Examine your jihada and compare. Ko-Bizen jihada goes all over the map from tight and beautiful to rustic. Again, not saying your blade is that but you need to start from the sugata and then look at the work and see. I think it will absolutely have to have some kind of ko-choji in it if it is going to be early Kamakura or earlier even if based on suguba. So start there, rule it in or out. If you rule it out then you go to the next thing that would let you make this kind of sugata.

 

You should also be looking at the mune and the nakago mune and see how much it tapers. If it is an old blade it should be noticeable. If it is Shinshinto then the nakago mune won't be thicker. Basically you're looking for evidence of centuries of polish. If it is old and even well preserved you should still see some evidence of this.

 

So far based on what we see and the sugata I think you can argue that it's a very old sword. But the sword needs to continue to support that theory in all ways.

[Darcy]

I never said Muneyaki is always accidental. I said the difference is that kaeri is intentional and muneyaki may not be.

 

I don't know many people who turn their nose up at the Rai school and thump the table talking about their poor control over their work. Yet muneyaki is a kantei point of their school, yet it is not considered a feature that they aimed for as it appears infrequently and a bit randomly. However enough to associate it with Rai.

 

I think you need to put this kind of thing into perspective with what the smiths were doing and trying to achieve and when they were doing this in terms of the development of the Japanese sword. What is happening as a side effect in the Kamakura period is acceptable, if it's a shinsakuto smith developing muneyaki by accident and messing up what he's trying to do, it's a different story.

[cabowen]

 

I don't know many people who turn their nose up at the Rai school and thump the table talking about their poor control over their work. Yet muneyaki is a kantei point of their school, yet it is not considered a feature that they aimed for as it appears infrequently and a bit randomly. However enough to associate it with Rai.

 

 

It is what it is....allowances are sometimes made, particularly for older swords...

[Darcy]

 

It is what it is....allowances are sometimes made, particularly for older swords...

 

Do you believe the Rai school to be in poor control of their work?

[Darcy]

This is also interesting and highlights what I was saying about the boshi and muneyaki. This description is from a Juyo Bijutsuhin Tegai Kaneyoshi tachi (kodachi I guess, it's 66cm) from Nanbokucho.

 

http://www.touken.or.jp/english/translation/669.htm

 

This is a shinogi zukuri tachi with an ihorimune, a slightly narrow mihaba, and the widths at the moto and saki are different. There is a standard kasane, koshizori, and a long chu-kissaki. The jihada is a tight ko-itame, and there are dense ji-nie, fine chikei, and pale utsuri. The hamon is mainly ko-gunome mixed with togariba and is ko-notare, There are ashi, a wide nioiguchi, very fine thick ji-nie, a little bit of kinsuji and sunagshi, and around the monouchi there are muneyaki. The boshi on the omote is straight and the tip is sharp; the ura is a slight midarekomi with a sharp komaru. Both sides have a return which connects with the muneyaki around the monouchi.

 

So a distinction is made between boshi and muneyaki. It sounds like a long turnback regardless but the muneyaki it connects to is distinct rather than an extension of the kaeri. So some effort has to be made to determine where one begins and the other ends.

[nagamaki - Franco]

There are basically two types of muneyaki. The nie type often seen on later swords and of this type it can be intentional or unintentional. Neither of which is viewed in high regard from the literature I have read. Of this type it is rather easy to differentiate from the intentional as it is well defined in what can be describe as having a clear separation wall and uniform sized nie within (although this nie will still be considered course coarse), plus it is generally well placed. The unintentional will have a more random look especially to its outside border and it will appear here and there especially extending over the edge of the mune in an uncontrolled manner, again, in a random fashion. Most likely flakes of clay coating having fallen off.

Then there is this other muneyaki which is very much intentional, only this muneyaki is not the same course coarse muneyaki seen in later works, but rather a much finer muneyaki that appears like a frosting, it is more of yubashiri, an indication of excellent control and in fact it is seen on better works.

 

As I look over the images of our subject sword again, I have not changed my opinion that this is a Muromachi period copy of an earlier sword, and in fact the more I look at the steel, the more this thought is reinforced. Of the copy swords I have seen in hand confirmed by the NBTHK or NTHK, the steel is what gives them away. Like the commercial used to ask it comes down to 'is it live or is it Memorex?'

[cabowen]

There are basically two types of muneyaki. ...

 

I think it can be classified simply into two types as well: intentional and unintentional.

 

As noted, it is usually fairly obvious when it is unintentional. When unintentional, most experienced togi will attempt to hide it with the migaki-bo as it is not considered a positive.

 

When intentional, there are two types: well done and not so well done.

 

It can appear unintentionally when clay is rubbed off along the mune during the heating process as the sword is drawn in and out of the charcoal in the forge. Similarly, at the right heat temperature and with the right thickness of clay, it can happen without the clay falling off...It is said that it can also appear unintentionally if the smith heats the back of the blade to adjust the sori, but it would have to be heated to a very high temp for this to happen, so I tend to doubt this in most cases...

 

I recall being told at a kantei-kai meeting that in Rai blades, the mune-yaki is usually on the peak of the mune, rather than the sides. Since it is seen with frequency in Rai blades, such that it is considered a minor kantei point, a case could be made that it was purposely done, or, perhaps a byproduct of their process like utsuri in early Bizen blades.

 

One smith I know, now deceased sadly, took a steel pipe and drilled many holes throughout the length and circumference. He would put this pipe into the forge and pile the hot charcoal around it when he did yaki-ire. He would put the blade inside the pipe to heat it. The pipe prevented the charcoal from rubbing the clay coating off and creating unintentional martensite formations (one of which is mune-yaki) during the quench. He was a very clever guy....

 

While it is impossible to make any hard and fast judgments from photos, I tend to agree with you Franco. From what I can see, I would tend to think this is later, rather than earlier...It will be interesting to hear what happens at shinsa...

[Darcy]

Chris, still waiting for your illuminating opinion on Rai school and their control over their process. You seem to really love jumping on everything else for comments and get up people's pant legs when they don't answer your direct questions... so how about it?

 

Because I'm a little bit confused about your dancing around the point above. First you say that blah blah blah it's a fault and blah blah blah old blades are given passes for these faults and then you kind of segue into since it's a kantei point for Rai we can argue that it's on purpose. You've kind of done a 180 here since I've been asking you to comment on the control of the Rai school.

 

Frequency is not something that indicates purpose. To me it's clearly something they are bumping up against and not doing right. What is not clear is whether they cared about adjusting it. What I disagree on is both the idea that "old blades get passes" without understanding the context. And then I disagree that just because it shows up a fair amount that it has to be on purpose.

 

The way I see these things, in context, is like how we do not haul Newton over the coals for not getting gravitation right. He got close, he got within the scope of the knowledge of his times and he advanced it hugely. It would take a very, very long time before it could be refined to be calculated better. Not until Einstein.

 

But we don't say "we give Newton a pass because it was old" (i.e. old stuff was busted). We look at it in context and say this was the bleeding edge of development and what he did was to haul all of science forwards. What he did was miraculous. This is why we don't attack Newton over being wrong and we still teach what he did today because he elevated the sciences. This is the context that you see muneyaki in Rai school.

 

And now, in the modern context, we would not expect a Ph.D. grad student calculate the orbit of Mercury incorrectly using Newtonian mechanics. We'd expect him to do it right. So in the same way a modern smith if he's going to make muneyaki it should definitely be there because he willed it.

 

It's not an "it is what it is" situation because that removes all context that the sword has been a moving target over the years, and it's halted now. The only goal now is to try to replicate what has come before.

 

It's convenient to try to now reverse your argument and brush it into "oh it must have been on purpose" so that you don't have to condemn Rai school the way you widely condemned anyone making muneyaki for "lacking full control" previously. But that's just a loophole and you're trying to exploit it.

 

So you're kind of straddling the issue to give the appearance of being right.

 

This is just basically development of the sword and technology and what you're looking at when you see Rai is just that. They are pushing the envelope and they are dealing with something happening that is a side effect of what they're intending to do. Most of the time it does not show up but sometimes it does. We don't "give it a pass" because old stuff sucks and is overrated, we give it a pass because this was the cutting edge of technology that they were on. If muneyaki were intended they could certainly without a lot of trouble implement it more often in less random ways.

 

Anyway I think it's just more of the same.

[Darcy]

As noted, it is usually fairly obvious when it is unintentional. When unintentional, most experienced togi will attempt to hide it with the migaki-bo as it is not considered a positive.

 

And you know this one how? You spoke to most experienced togi and did a survey?

 

Benson polished a Niji Kunitoshi of mine that had muneyaki. It was treated normally. It went Juyo first shot in spite of this terrifying detrimental thing. It's a kantei point in koto. Maybe with your gendai smiths these guys are trying to hide their mistakes. But you don't do it on these koto blades because you screw up the kantei.

 

Or maybe you want to call out Benson as an inexperienced amateur polisher who doesn't know what he's doing this time?

 

There are too many Juyo Bijutsuhin that appear with them which means polishers of these are not trying to hide them. It is also is not considered a flaw that has been hidden as too many descriptions of Juyo and Tokubetsu Juyo contain them in the setsumei. These descriptions do not go out of their way to describe kitae ware and flaws, but features on the blade. They are presenting as a feature. And in fact it has been literally described as a feature.

 

So an "experienced togi" polishing a rusty blade that has no kantei yet who goes about trying to hide muneyaki is screwing up how it is going to be read down the road. He's not doing his job well.

 

Or maybe they are pulling the inexperienced togi to polish the Tokuju and Juyo and Jubi contending blades. I dunno what do you think?

[Darcy]

As I look over the images of our subject sword again, I have not changed my opinion that this is a Muromachi period copy of an earlier sword, and in fact the more I look at the steel, the more this thought is reinforced. Of the copy swords I have seen in hand confirmed by the NBTHK or NTHK, the steel is what gives them away. Like the commercial used to ask it comes down to 'is it live or is it Memorex?'

 

Thing is what I see in the steel I have seen in the numerous older blades I've had in hand too.

 

Plus, bad timing to judge the steel by poor photos, in advance of a polish.

 

Sugata is clear, it's an old sugata. That leaves us with old period, or people copying the old period. Past that, gets into the crapshoot area. Anyone's guess is good at that point, there are only a limited number of things that it can be put to and whatever it ends up being put to maybe someone will be right for all the wrong reasons! Who knows.

 

I think just get it polished then judge it after the polish. Sugata is the only thing we have to go on now that doesn't need fixing and we can't even see the hamon, just hints of activity.

 

Polish polish polish!!!

[cabowen]

Because I'm a little bit confused about your dancing around the point above. First you say that blah blah blah it's a fault and blah blah blah old blades are given passes for these faults and then you kind of segue into since it's a kantei point for Rai we can argue that it's on purpose. You've kind of done a 180 here since I've been asking you to comment on the control of the Rai school.

 

Unintentional mune-yaki in many, if not most, blades is looked down upon as both a sign that the smith made a mistake and for aesthetic reasons.

 

Some will say that the mune-yaki in Rai blades is unintentional. I presented the other argument as well- that because it occurs rather frequently, it could be a byproduct of their process that they considered benign. I have heard both viewpoints and have given both theories. Some I have seen look unintentional, others have looked quite controlled.

 

Regardless, Rai blades of otherwise high quality get a pass- it isn't considered a negative by most, all things considered, like it might be for other blades. Like old Yamato den in masame with kitae-ware get a pass. As I said, generally speaking, much more is tolerated in older blades when it comes to flaws, defects, condition issues, etc. Make of it what you will...

 

So an "experienced togi" polishing a rusty blade that has no kantei yet who goes about trying to hide muneyaki is screwing up how it is going to be read down the road. He's not doing his job well.

 

An experienced, professionally trained togi knows when to hide it and when not to....those are the kinds of things they learn by studying under a master daily for 8-10 years and attending kantei.

 

Talk to any qualified togi-shi and they will tell you that the togi-shi's job is to bring out the best in a blade by accentuating the positives and downplaying the negatives. I don't have to talk to most experienced togi-shi and take a survey to know that in general most will try to hide unintentional mune-yaki in cases where it is considered a negative. I have spent considerable time with many top togi-shi and have been party to this discussion and others like it many times. But don't take my word for it------->

 

I dunno what do you think?

 

Perhaps you should take a break from data mining your Juyo Nado Zufu, spend enough time in Japan to learn the language and attend kantei so you can then discuss these issues directly with smiths and bona fide togi-shi..for say, another 5 years or so. It will help with the confusion. That's what I think....

[paulb]

It is a great shame when a meaningful and informative post has to end in side swipes and vitriolic comments.

Perhaps you should take a break from data mining your Juyo Nado Zufu, spend enough time in Japan to learn the language and attend kantei so you can then discuss these issues directly with smiths and bona fide togi-shi..for say, another 5 years or so. It will help with the confusion. That's what I think....

 

Some while ago I commented on this view and I have no wish to repeat myself BUT

Not everyone is in a position, either through choice or circumstance, to spend a large part of their life studying in a foreign country. Certainly such opportunities were never available to me, nor I am sure many others. To suggest (or at least imply) this is the only way to learn and be in a position to offer a valid opinion or share research is demonstrably wrong. There are numerous examples of great research being done by non domicile and non native speaking people on all forms of art. Is it better to have these skills, yes of course it is, but not having them does not exclude one for learning and having an opinion.

To suggest that unless you have spent time in a country and with artisans your opinion is invalid is a cop out in any debate.

 

It would be great if at least some of these discussions/interactions could progress without the apparent bitchy comments.

 

Enough, I am sure I am stoking the fires. I think I have been around here too long and its time to move on and leave you to your sarcasm and sniping.

[Brian]

Ok..so here's a new tactic. I am locking this for the weekend, and will open it on Monday. By then, hopefully the emotions will be gone, and we can get back to facts and discussions.

 

Brian

[Brian]

I've decided to unlock this tentatively but I really don't need a continuation of the past saga. Bickering or arguing will lead to suspension of accounts, not just a locked topic.

I am adding this from Chris, with the understanding that I will allow information that is relevant to the thread, as long as it is on topic:

 

In answer to a request for sources, here are a few online sources which corroborate my statements concerning muneyaki. These are the first few to pop up-more can be found with a google search of 棟焼...I have provided a translation.

 

From togi-shi Yoshikawa Ryoga, one of Nagayama Kokan sensei’s (LNT) students:

 

http://www.geocities.jp/me20030706/muneyaki.htm

 

“名刀とされる刀で棟焼のかかるものは多くはない。棟焼がかかっている刀は、通常 焼き刃土が不本意に剥げ落ちて焼が入ってしまったものが多く、その類はいわゆる失敗作であり、下作鍛冶に多い。それらはこの稿で取り上げない。”

 

Translated:

 

“Among swords considered meito, there are not many with mune-yaki. Among swords with mune-yaki, usually, those which have mune-yaki as the result of the clay peeling off the blade accidentally during yaki-ire are plentiful. These are called “shippai saku” (flop, dud, bomb) and are plentiful among the work of lower class smiths.”

 

Excerpt from the togi-shi Tamaki Joji’s blog entry titled “棟の鑑賞” (Mune no Kansho (Appreciating the Mune)):

 

http://kyoto-katana.at.webry.info/201209/article_9.html

 

“研磨で棟を針で磨く時にも棟焼きには注意をはらいます。

意図しないと思われる場合は普通に磨き潰してしまいますが、意図していると判断する場合は磨き潰してしまわずに、"

 

Translated:

 

"When polishing the mune with the migaki-bo, we have to pay attention to mune-yaki. When it appears to be unintentional, we generally burnish it down. In cases where it is judged to be intentional, we do not burnish it down."

 

And lastly an excerpt from Nakahara sensei’s writing titled “Muneyaki ni Tsuite" (About Muneyaki), recorded here:

 

http://www.token-net.com/knowledge/31_mineyaki.html

 

　"端的にいえば、どんな名工が刃文を焼いても土落ちによって日本刀に棟焼は大なり小なり入るのである。

そうであるから、焼入した後で修正(注文通りの寸法の反に調整)する際に、棟焼を消し去ってしまう ケースが多いのである。従って一流名工の作にはこの棟焼は殆どないに等しく、地方や二流刀工には、 よく棟焼があるという事につながっていくとされている。"

 

 

“If we speak frankly, every famous smith when performing yaki-ire will have the clay come off here and there and thus there will be muneyaki more or less on occasion. After yaki-ire, the smith touches up the blade (correcting the sori to fit the parameters of the order, etc.) and the muneyaki will be gotten rid of in many cases (as a part of this “rework” -Translator). Because of this, we rarely see muneyaki in the work of first class smiths, and likewise, it is very common in the work of country smiths and second rate craftsman.”

 

There are many interesting observations in Nakahara sensei’s musing on muneyaki. I will not translate the entire piece here but one interesting tidbit within the article cited which I will include:

 

According to Nakahara, there exist order documents written by the Nabeshima daimyo to shodai Tadayoshi and Iyo-no-jo Munetsugu which, in minute detail, describe the parameters of a sword order(s). These swords were likely ordered for gifts for other Daimyo and the Shogun’s family, and the Nabeshima were very particular about all aspects of the blade. They clearly specify that the blades are to be made without muneyaki. From this Nakahara states that obviously they were aware of muneyaki and states that they considered it ugly. Also, muneyaki was rumored to make a sword more prone to breaking, and this may have played a role as well, as they were very particular about what they would gift.

 

I don't think there is much here that disagrees with anything said. Muneyaki is often the result of unintentional quenching flaws. Sometimes it is intentional and can occasionally be seen as a kantei trait. Not much to debate too much imho.

 

Brian

[Surfson]

Hi All. As I mentioned, I have been out of town, and will be gone another week. I just caught up with this thread, and wow. There is a lot of content. Darcy and Chris, thanks for sharing a heap of knowledge on this sword and on muneyaki. Darcy, I'm impressed by the profile comparison of my sword and the other - pretty amazing. I will take to heart your recommendation to polish it. I still am mulling about getting NTHK papers first, but that's another issue. I will study your posts again on my return when I have the sword in hand. I will say that not only does it taper a great deal in the width, but also in the thickness. The nakago is quite thick, and the blade gets thin pretty quickly above the munemachi. By the time it gets to the monouchi, it is quite thin. In terms of the width, it is about two thirds in the yokote what it is in the machi. I didn't measure the ratio for the thickness, but I think that it tapers at least this much. All of this from memory, but I can take measurements on my return. Cheers, Bob

[Darcy]

I still think it's the polisher who looks at blades in a pre-polish condition and works with the blade as it evolves through the stages who is going to give you best feedback in terms of what it is and where it's going.

 

Papering before polish and after polish is just one papering that you don't need.

 

Just pick a good polisher and go from there. Window if necessary or an opinion fro someone with a lot of experience about what you have. That will be as good as what a panel is going to give you in terms of your decision to pursue it. After the sword is presentable as best as it can be it gives the shinsa panel the most information to work with and so the least reason to be extremely conservative with a judgement.

[Surfson]

Thanks again Darcy. I use Kenji Mishina, and he likes what he can see of it in the photos. Just for fun, I think I'll bring it to Chicago to get opinions and then ship it off to him without shinsa. Do you ever go to that show? Anybody who does is welcome to have a look. Cheers, Bob