Suguha To Notare

[Jim P]

Hi Guys, It’s been a bit slow so I thought I would ask a question    I was reading some old copy’s of Token Bijutsu the other day and thought it interesting that they could tell that a sword was different from what was intended. So how do you conclude that the original suguha has changed ? on the Kunishige is it  because of the shima-ba and hotsure or because the hamon suddenly goes inward at the machi ? when I looked at the few shintogo kunishige I could find on the web it did not help much. I see that Hasebe Kuninobu http://www.nihonto.com/11.6.14.htmlalso has  a shallow notare, and hotsure  Fred states the Hasebe School, generally tempered a hamon that is essentially ko-notare. So one more, Echizen Yasutsugu Katana this time it’s the boshi. http://nihonto.com/abtartyasutsugu.html Thoughts

[paulb]

JIm

I am sorry but I dont understand the question/point (sorry). To change a hamon surely requires a blade to go through the Yakiire process again. I am only aware of this being done if a blade has lost the original hamon in a fire. Echizen Yasutsugu re tempered a number of blades for the Shogun.

If that is what you are referring to then there are a number of teltale indicators. If you are saying an original hamon has somehow been modified then its the first time I have heard of it and am intrigued could you explain a little more?

[Geraint]

Hi Jim.

 

In the first example you give the suggestion is that the smith intended to form one  hamon but misjudged the temperature which caused a different hamon to form.  The second example seems to be similar in that it suggests the boshi turned out to be other than intended.  Is this what you are driving at?  If so then the commentators are suggesting that there has been some misjudgment on the part of the smith during yakiire.

 

If you are asking how they could come to this conclusion then I suppose it is because the hamon is unusual both for the smith and perhaps not a form that suggest conscious control on the part of the smith.

 

 

Any use?

[Jim P]

Hi Paul/Geraint,    I was asking  how did they come to the conclusion that the hamon was not what was intended when the Yakiire was done. If you look at the work of  kunishige most of the features are common in his work. I thought maybe it was because the hamon suddenly goes inward at the machi and that’s how they can tell it was meant to be suguha and with Yasutsugu the boshi is close to the one in the link so I am trying to understand what they are seeing that make them think it is not right. I think most of us would not pick them as all that different and just a variation from their normal work. If they were mumei probably most would just use Den in the description and not pick up on the change ?  it's amazing the level of skill of the commentator .  

[paulb]

thanks for the  clarification Jim

you are right it would take a very high level of understanding to determine that some change was meant or not meant to be there. Considering that there is an ongoing debate which resurfaces from time to time as to whether Utsuri is deliberate or accidental or whether mune-yaki was intentional or just the result of clay falling off, I think I would question anyones ability to determine whether some slight variation was meant to be there or an accident. All I think you can do is decide whther the work falls within the range known for a particular maker and then guess (and I use the word deliberately) whether some slight variation was accidental.

Sorry not much help. I would love to understand the thinking behind this type of conclusion.  often I find that my interpretation of what is being said is over complicated and the reality is a simple observation.

[Jim P]

Hi Paul,    I was trying understand his reasoning. The only thing I could see that was not on other examples was the big dip at the machi but again he could have done it deliberately so you are back to what is individual interpretation. So I am in agreement (I think I would question anyone’s ability to determine whether some slight variation was meant to be there or an accident.) when I first looked at this I thought that you can see what he is seeing if you break it down but again  as happens a lot in Nihonto its subject to interpretation . I also follow the ongoing debates as to whether Utsuri is deliberate or accidental or whether mune-yaki was intentional or just the result of clay falling off, I always thought if you make something with a set formula and you know the result it is intentional. I was speaking with a friend last week about a  hitasura blade and I was looking at  mune-yaki (as I could not see it on the blade) as one of the things to try and work out age. Papers had thought shinshinto, I thought rightly or wrongly that the shinshinto hitasura examples  did seem to have a more controlled feel and hataraki was profuse eg. sunagashi, so I sided with shinshinto not koto as the look of the blade suggested and most of my friends thought, so again I would have to side with intentional as  I look at how  temperature is a big decider of what you get (control is critical)

[Markus]

This is a very sensitive topic and I was thinking about those issues myself quite a bit over the last years. We all agree that we have to separate the great masters from the ordinary rank and file smiths. When talking about the great masters, we also agree that they knew pretty well what they were doing but also only to a certain extent. That means they had pretty much control over most parts of the forging and hardening process but certain things always remained a "mystery" or "the deities having their fingers in the pie" in those days. What I personally think is that decisions had to be made sometimes and I think that a perfectly uniform overall quality had probably priority over the intended course of certain areas of the hamon. In other words, if everything turned out uniform after yakiire, they might have left it that way instead of focusing too much on certain elements. Of course, if some of these elements turned out to be completely off (e.g. an inharmonic togari or just too much nie along the boshi), the smith would have given it another try at yakiire.

 

At the same time, we also might face subtleties in wording here. From my experience as translator, I notice namely certain "trends" in sword and kodogu descriptions. Some are obvious, others are more between the lines. There were years where one aspect was stressed over and over again whereas in other years, every writer was mantra-like repeating another aspect. So maybe when these texts were written, there was a trend towards a greater focus on "what is deliberate and what is accidental" and every author tried to figure out which hamon turned out as desired by the smith and which one not so much.

[Jim P]

Hi Markus, Thank you for the reply, I have also pondered on those issues from time to time and it does make you wonder. I think maybe you are right certain "trends" in descriptions maybe at play or sometimes descriptions lose something in translation I wonder if the Japanese version expresses it in the same way ? and is it perceived  differently due to the description ?  All kunishige’s work has uniform quality and as you say that would be the goal and all the traits are there, it’s hard to follow at times. Well in the end it reinforces to me that temperature control is critical, and how differences are perceived, and lastly how little I know about Kantei.