Kizu?

[Swordlook]

I have been researching “KIZU” and would appreciate any input on the following pictures. What I trying to distinguish is what is actually considering a flaw and what is not.

 

Thanks in advance for everyone’s help!

 

Ken

[SwordGuyJoe]

Good topic!  I still struggle with the difference between "O-Hada" and Ware.  Given that preface, I would say sword one has a ware, since it is in a single spot and doesn't appear to have been deliberate.  The second looks like o-hada, since it appears pretty uniform in the shinogi.  That said, it's not present on the omote shinogi, so maybe early signs of being tired

[Kronos]

Looks like just a little bit of Ware/loose grain which is very common. To elaborate, pic 1 is ware, pic 2 is probaably ware as well, however in context this what looks like a shinto katana which were almost exclusively made with masame in the shinogi-ji which seems to be more prone to splits in welds between layers.

 

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will come along and correct me.

[seattle1]

Hello:

There is a difference between "kizu" and the eventual product of a sword being polished down sufficiently to display undesirable visual features that would not have been present when the sword left the smith's hands. There are many Juyo and higher rated blades with "visual" defects, some to the extent that they would actually impair the blade in combat (as if that were to happen!). A quick Google search should provide several discussions of kizu.

Arnold F.

[Gasam]

hi all,

 

This was the first web page I found on flaws on swords when I first started out, I still read it from time to time, and it will be familiar to many in these forums I´m sure:

 

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/flaws.html

[Swordlook]

Gasam - Thanks I have read this a few times in the past. The problem with it is it uses very simple straight forward examples. I more curious about the subtle examples as in pictures.

 

Seattle - That’s another good point… How does one discern if a flaw is from over polishing if the blade is still thick and healthy?

 

Picture 2 is of newer (Kanbun era) sword. My assumption would be that it probably wouldn’t have been over polished(?) The hada looks to be very tight everywhere else other than on the SHINOGI-JI. I thought that areas rough hada were indication of a poorer quality forging? This however didn’t affect the sword from getting Juyo. Am I making a newbie mistake by thinking this?

[paulb]

To some extent Ken you are making a mistake. Masame hada is often (very often) present in the shinogi-ji of shinto swords. It is one of the features looked for when trying to determine period of manufacture. This masame lends itself to causing roughness, or openning along the shinogi-ji. In the work of some smiths this is seen as a characteristic of their style and not necesarily seen as a fault, For example works by Hankei and Sukenao often exhibit this but both are regarded as very talented smiths and this a feature of their workmanship.

On a pure personal level I dont tend to think of this parallel roughness as a kizu but nor do I find it very appealing  others are less concerned. It is certainly less of a problem than blistering or delamination within the Ji. Whether this type of fault is seen as fatal is debatable. Fatal flaws are generally regarded as those that impair performance such as hagiri, or the loss of the boshi. However if a sword is important enough it can receive high level papers despite having lost its boshi.

Sorry there is not a black and white answer ( as with much in this subject) but because a sword has the type of openness you see in your second example does not make it a poor quality sword or undesirable. It is one contributing factor you need to assess against all the others.

[seattle1]

Hi Ken:

Each blade must be judged on its own merits and when a blade has flaws (and lists will vary as to what is on the list and how "bad" individual flaws are) you have to decide how negative they might be, whether they bother you, and what is the appropriate rate of discount that should be reflected in the price. There is no iron rule of thumb. Lists can be quite misleading. Gasam's suggested list mentions old cut marks and if acquired in battle many would be considered a plus as is stated. On the other hand one must be very careful on the criteria of a retempered blade as there are many markers. Mizukage, for example,is a virtual criterion of the maker when found on some smiths within the Horikawa school, particularly Dewa Daijo Kunimichi. Also there are ware and there are ware. Paradoxically they are a criterion on Hankei blades and on Yamato Hosho to a lesser extent. Certain Rai jihada features might be kizu when in the work of others, but for Rai it is a kantei point.

Once you are thoroughly familiar with the features of particular schools and smiths then, and only then, can you judge the +'s and -'s. Seeing the image of a blade, no matter how excellent, is too risky to say much from.

When a blade is thoroughly pleasing, in many respects it is like the comment of US Supreme Justice Potter Stewart, who famously said with respect to the definition of pornography, "... "you" know it when you see it..."

Arnold F.

[Isocyanide]

The left katana is a Shodai Hizen Tadayoshi. It's a damn shame it has that ware, because it's otherwise very a nice sword.  I've actually noticed ware in the same exact spot a few Hizen Tadayoshi blades.