Tachi Kamakura

[jelda44]

We welcome you to friends,

considering buying this tachi of the Kamakura Period.

 

http://www.toukenkomachi.com/index_en_t ... 11113.html

 

I would like to ask you about your opinion on this blade.

I think that the price is appropriate?

Thank you for your opinions

Jirka

[Jean]

Good price. There is one Juyo signed tachi at Ginza Choshuya for 7 M¥.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Welcome to the forum, Jirka.

 

That's a very nice-looking blade, & with Tokubetsu Hozon paper, is definitely legitimate. However, it is quite expensive, at least for my pocketbook, but if you can afford it, it's certainly a good addition to any collection.

 

Ken

[jelda44]

Many thanks for your comments.

[Darcy]

Honestly this is a very interesting sword because I don't think it was a tachi. This was an early uchigatana if the research bears out right. The crazy thing is that now that it has tachi koshirae which are not correct for what it was, it is now a tachi! Instead of the reverse situation that we always see of tachi becomine katana.

 

We read in the books that uchigatana come about in the Muromachi period but they date back much older than this. The Kokuho Nakigitsune Kuniyoshi is a similar form and abbreviated length.

 

 

Furthermore there is an additional Tokuju Kuniyoshi which is mumei and the same form. The only Toshiro Yoshimitsu which is not a tanto is a "wakizashi" with wakizashi mei, but given the time this is also probably a short uchigatana. It has a standard shape though. But we see then this hirazukuri form showing up in old Yamashiro works several times and when signed, signed katana mei, it shows that the uchigatana is older than we might assume. How far back it goes, is not clear.

 

But this hirazukiri form is then carried out in a shortened form in the Nanbokucho in the Soshu smiths that ultimately have their root in Awataguchi. So we think first that Nanbokucho that the tanto grow in size to become these oversized tanto, but maybe the opposite is true, that they are scaled down uchigatana from the Kamakura period.

 

So from all of this yes, I think this blade is interesting and particularly that it comes from Yamashiro and ties in with what Awataguchi Kuniyoshi seems to have been doing. If you don't have the money to buy the Kokuho Kuniyoshi then this piece is a substitute for sure.

 

But also keep in mind what it probably is, this is early uchigatana I feel... tachi only by koshirae now. So particularly interesting.

 

This blade of yours, has some questionable health but I think given the age and what it is the price is good. Especially if research reveals it to be a little bit more interesting given that it would appear to be one of the few rare remaining examples of this form left to us.

[jelda44]

Thank you very much for your comprehensive comment.

The sword I already bought. I really liked it. A blade of Kamakura I wanted to collections.

Especially from Yamashiro.

Of course if I liked the sword in the collection of Kuniyoshi or Kunimitsu as you have on offer but it is far beyond my capabilities.

Anyway, I am very glad for your opinion .

Jirka

[george trotter]

Without commenting on the quality, age, price etc, may I ask a kantei question?

The blade is described as "suriage". To me it looks greatly suriage...this being the case (or not?), it can be seen that it has very noticeable fumbari just in front of the machi...how can this be?

Just wondering,

[Darcy]

You make a good observation.

 

If I am right and this is an uchigatana it should not be that much longer than this anyway. It's possible that this is the original shape. Maybe the nakago jiri is just trimmed and the nakago a bit reshaped. There are two tones of rust on the nakago which implies some kind of refinishing, but if this was shortened then one half of the bottom would look different from the other. Though the hi appears a bit different they don't have any different texture or tone.

 

It's possible that the machi is not that far off from original too, just moved up a bit. There is a spot just where the rust starts where it looks like it changes direction pretty rapidly.

 

So the best theory I would have is maybe it lost 3/4 of an inch on the machi, the bottom hole is original and the nakago jiri was trimmed a bit. This put the lower hole in a position to mount it as a tachi when originally it was suited for uchigatana koshirae. This is my guess for what it's worth.

 

It's an interesting case.

[Kronos]

At 0.72cm Kasane it seems a little thick to be an uchigatana, combined with a 68cm nagasa which would make it practically if not completely ubu as well and even then a rather large uchigatana I'd have to disagree with you Darcy. The Naki Gitsune is 54cm by comparison and I'd expect Uchigatana to be in the 55-65cm bracket for the most part (certainly under 70cm) and maybe not see longer ones up until the mid Muromachi. There's always experimental works of course and the strange sugata lends to this however without enough evidence for it to be ubu I just can't see it.

[Darcy]

I wouldn't buy the kasane argument because there's no data available to tell us what is right for a Kamakura uchigatana. There are so few and I don't see any measurements around.

 

I think the length argument is better. But if this one is ubu I don't see that the 64cm Tokuju Kuniyoshi considered a katana is so far off that we have to put an arbitrary number in there. The others in this shape are 35 and 38cm wakizashi by Rai Kuninaga and a 68cm tachi by Ryokai. The Ryokai is maybe the best argument.

 

I'm not confident either way and regardless at this point the NBTHK would normally classify such a thing as a katana if it is mumei and suriage. If it is ubu and clearly a tachi then they would call it a tachi, sometimes. So the Kuniyoshi being called a katana is not 100% without looking it up anyway to see if they call it an uchigatana in the setsumei.

 

I couldn't rule this thing out as being a tachi but also I suspect still it may be an uchigatana. Mostly the presence of this Ryokai tachi at 68cm makes the best argument for this blade I think rather than kasane.

[Fuuten]

I'm sorry if i'm asking an arbitrary question, but if this blade in question wasn't o-suriage then why would the bohi extent to the very bottom of the nagako? Weren't they usually made from say the top of the shinogi to the part where the habaki would fit?

[hxv]

Axel,

 

Some grooves are meant to go through the nakago, i.e., kaki-toshi (see page 74 of The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords by Kokan Nagayama).

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[Jean]

Axel, what bohi are you refering to. I only see futasuji hi. Read the book "Facts and fundamuntals of the Japanese sword" and you will see what happens to hi in case of O suriage

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think you have very nice sword there Jirka. I was drooling over this when it was still for sale.

 

I really like the shape of this blade and the strong sori. It's nice to hear your thoughts on this Darcy, and I must say it's an interesting view that I didn't think before. Now I've been looking for the early uchigatana in my books, and I'll have to look more into them.

[Adrian S]

hello all,

 

this sword is Ryukyumono. Special order made for export, prized by the mainland and the Wako. i have researching this for some time for an article but Markus beat me to it with an excellent article on this subject on his blog

 

http://markussesko.wordpress.com/

 

i have two similar swords. One shows very early jiba my opinion being it is early to mid Kamakura of course no-one from the mainstream agrees but im glad to see Darcy is on the right track. Uchigata actually go right back to Heian,and yes there is plenty of good proof for that. Ill discus it if im not going to be locked again.

 

cheers,

[drbvac]

SO -- this suddenly becomes even more interesting than it was - amazing sword - any consensus on all the different opinions - anyone want to modify their comments - great post .

[Darcy]

Markus' comments are interesting on his blog because he says that there's no connection between these and the rediscovery in the Muromachi period.

 

The one signed Awataguchi Yoshimitsu that is left to us is a 58cm signed wakizashi. From the oshigata it looks like it is suriage but it says in the comments that it is ubu. There is not a whole lot different between this sword and a muromachi katateuchi. Even has a ramrod straight nakago mune. So I am not so convinced that there is no connection at all. And I am feeling like the long tanto of the Nanbokucho are indeed related to these hirazukuri uchigatana of the Kamakura ... while I had previously thought of them as elongations of the Kamakura tanto now I am really open to the idea of them being shortened versions of Kamakura uchigatana like the Kuniyoshi pieces and this Ryokai school piece (which may or may not be in this group).

 

This is 100% conjecture but I think the question was more what was considered utilitarian and what was considered a treasure that should be preserved. And it is I think as much about this changing attitude as well as changing battlefield use and also what got consumed through use that ends up with the examples we see today. Heavily used polearms may for good reason not have been as carefully made (extending one of Markus' analogies in his blog post, you may spend more on your sports sedan and carefully use and preserve it, and a lot less on your pickup truck which is going to be a workhorse and abused and probably worn out and discarded... so both use and attitude and of course design and fabrication all of these things end up tied together into the preservation equation).

 

Another analogy would be like mom's good tableware and china which is brought out for guests on special occasions, more expensive, intricate, and lightly used, preserved and handed down. While every day cookware made good quality but not high cost or top quality, made to use, be worn out and thrown away and nobody thinks to preserve it because that's just a normal fork, knife, plate, etc.

 

So now casting our eyes back and trying to understand "trends of the times" it is I think a more complex and harder to answer question than at first thought because what we are seeing is as much "trends of thoughts in terms of what was important to *not* use" as well as what was important to fabricate.

 

I kind of like this idea more of an attitude change that the uchigatana may always have been there though not preserved so well and the phasing out of the tachi is as much to do with getting down to (at least the perception of) warrior basics and dispensing with what may have been a more courtly weapon (and not as efficient as well).

 

Just conjecture and thoughts and this thread I think has been good as a reminder that we're doing something similar as trying to understand what a dinosaur looked like when we've only recovered 30% of the skeleton. There's some dot connecting and in the past some of these guys have put the head on the end of the tail.

 

[nihonto1001]

Nagamitsu was known to make Kodachi in the Kamakura Period. Maybe the difference between Kodachi and Uchigatana is not mutually exclusive.