The Golden Age Of Sword Manufacture.

[paulb]

A recent thread started by someone looking for a sword from a very specific school and period (Ko Aoe) started me thinking and I wanted to hear other opinions. Don’t misunderstand me I am a great Ko-Aoe fan, well actually an Aoe fan. My own preference is for Chu-Aoe which dates mid to the end of the Kamakura, but I have seen some superb ko-Aoe and indeed sue-Aoe work as well. I have also seen swords from all these periods that do little for me.

So spreading this beyond Aoe we often see discussions about whether Koto really were better than Shinto, are gendaito up to the same standard as koto etc. Many think the art hit its peak in the time of Masamune and following Soshu smiths. But when we look more closely are we right to draw these comparisons and conclusions.

 

To be honest I have been amongst the worst for this for many years. For me good quality sword making began in about 1100 and ended in 1336. It then headed down the long slippery road and with one or two minor upward swings continued to decline.

 

The reality is that when you really start to look in detail there were incredibly fine swords made in all era, there still are. One could argue the level of skill has remained largely the same. Materials have changed and any shortcoming is due more to deficiencies in available material than craftsmanship.

So how do we define “The golden era” of sword making?

1. Is it when the finest swords were made? That becomes very subjective, finest for what? quality of forging, fitness for purpose, complexity of hamon?
2. Was it when the greatest number of high quality blades were produced? Again very subjective and usually when we start to see increases in quantity quality starts to decline.
3. Was there actually such a thing as a “golden age” or are we suffering from marketing hype that dates back for more than 500 years?

I still believe that the finest swords were made in the Kamakura period. But I fully accept that opinion is based as much on my own aesthetic ideal as it is the quality of what I am looking at.  I also know that I have seen swords made in different styles and from different periods that have taken my breath away and I would love to add to my collection.

What I think I am getting at and go a long way round to do so is that I have been wrong to single-mindedly pursue swords from a specific school and time I think we should view blades with an empty mind, forget all preconceptions and look at what is in front of us. Then using the information gained through examination and study decide whether what is in front of us is well made, aesthetically pleasing and a desirable thing. Once we have answered those points then start to consider when and where it was made.

I would be interested in others views about this was there ever really a golden age or did some people just do a better sales job than others at different periods in history?

 

[Shamsy]

A very interesting topic and one I'm thoroughly unqualified to make comment on.

 

I've been doing a lot of reading lately and I will add a few points that appeared in the gendaito books... This will probably rattle a few cages but here we go. I'd like to add these are what I gather from OTHER people's opinions and are not my own. I've not got the experience to make that call:

 

It has been noted that the tamahagane produced today is far purer and undergoes better quality control than any other time in history

 

Modern smiths seem to be able to develop new and indeed improve on hamon and jihada from the past

 

We have a better understanding of the technology of sword smithing than ever before

 

Relating to the first point, some of the old aesthetic aspects of swords are likely created by impurities and are not by design

 

Age alters jigane so is it fair to judge an old sword to new?

 

I will add from my own opinion that there will be masterpieces from all periods of time so perhaps it would be wiser to say there were golden smiths as opposed to golden age? Likewise, it is difficult to judge past art based on a modern viewpoint. Frankly the Egyptian paintings are out of scale, 2d and crude, and we could make something much better nowadays. But that in no way diminishes the skill we perceive from the artists. A tricky topic indeed.

[Kronos]

Scientifically there is an undeniable truth to be found. However to answer that one needs to first answer "what makes a good sword?". i.e. what is the critieria we are judging on.

 

Is it what is most aesthetically pleasing? or what is most functional. If it is purely function then it would be a simple case of doing cutting tests (I'd suggest pig carcasses or some such as hacking up convicts is frowned upon these days in most parts of the world). Then simply finding what is sharpest on average without breaking too easily. If this were the case using modern technology and non-traditional methods would render the best result most likely.

 

Whereas if it's pure aesthetics it's hard to argue that the mid-late kamakura is the pinnacle although the best early shinto smiths come close but there's not as many of them and it's aesthetically pleasing in a slightly different way.

 

I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between whereby it's a time that produced the most artistic swords that were still highly functional and could be classed as saijo-owazamono/Owazamono although no ones going to be doing cutting tests with a motoshige tachi anytime soon.

 

You say craftsmanship is just as good but the raw materials are substandard but I disagree. Harvesting the best materials and creating tamahagane is part of the skill, or at least it probably was in the early days when smiths had small operations and created their own. Raw materials seems like a cheap cop-out when from a geological perspective there's now a whole world to find the best iron sand and it's almost inevitable that there's some comparable to that found in 13th century Japan. There's clearly a gap in the entire process somewhere if modern smiths want to create work as good as 700 years ago but can't, whether that be raw materials, the current tatara process or forging skill.

 

The time you pinpoint as particularly exceptional was one of continuous experimentation from the inception of the classic Nihonto shape through to where soshu smiths may of looked to the likes of ko-hoki for inspiration but weren't afraid to do things a little differently from those that went before to improve upon it. They were after all still trying to perfect their methods whereas beginning nanbokucho it seems to get a bit stale and maybe they were happy with what they had and in combination with the need of increased quantity standards changed.

 

I'd contend that the best smiths throughout history that surpassed their teachers were those that didn't follow convention as is the Japanese way but tried to improve upon what they had been taught and this is why you still get great smiths like Kiyomaro in shinshinto.

[John A Stuart]

Simply, there are a few golden ages, with attributes which make them special in their own right. John

[Ken-Hawaii]

A really, really good question, Paul, & one that probably has no answer.

 

Subjectively, I am certain that nothing made later can match the elegance of Kamakura blades.  But having trained in two iaido ryuha for decades, I prefer to swing a heftier blade, one that can cut through pretty much anything, so functionality points to Nambokucho or early Muromachi.  When I was first studying Nihonto, Shinto & Shinshinto blades, with their florid hamon, were by far my favorite, but as I studied under an experienced mentor, I found myself paying much more attention to the jihada & boshi, & that took me back to early Koto blades.  Comparing a Rai, Ichimonji, or Go to any Shinto blade WHILE BOTH WERE IN FRONT OF ME, was a real eye-opener!  There was simply no comparison in quality of workmanship.  There are a very few exceptions, like Kiyomaro, but, in general, I think the more experienced a collector becomes, the more he or she will be drawn to blades made before 1392, & preferably before 1333.

 

Steve, when I was visiting the Bizen-Osafune Sword Village in Okuyama, they had an excellent display of tamahagane over the ages.  To my engineer's eye, the tamahagane from the 1300s looked infinitely more usable (i.e., the blue & green areas) than later examples.  So although I've worked with metallurgy for the past 50 years, I wouldn't say that

tamahagane produced today is far purer and undergoes better quality control than any other time in history.

 

Ken

[paulb]

Gentlemen

Thank you for your comments so far. I think they raise a number of points which add to the conversation

James

I think I need to clarify my point about poorer quality material. This is perhaps inaccurate. I think what happened was that production of tamahagane became centalised (and still is) and thus more uniform. Therefore some of the small subtle, possibly accidental differences in the locally manufactured tamahagane were lost. As a result some of the key matalurgical features which contribute to characteristics of the gokaiden disappear.I dont think these differences were created, sought or found I think they were just there in the locally made material.

I agree with you about experimentation and large steps were taken when smiths went beyond what they were taught. Something I think is often overlooked is the role of Go-Toba in this. Bringing the best from different schools together enabled them not only to experiment but interact with each other and you see the blossoming of the Ichimonji tradition and the creation of Soshu coming out of this activity.

However experimetation is not the same as improvement. I have seen early Soshu work by Shintogo Kunimitsu and yukimitsu that are incredible. Unfortunately I have only ever seen one Masamune (behind glass in 1990 at the British museum) and to be honest I didnt then know enouh to appreciate it. However I have seen later Soshu work that I think has clearly lost the plot, their experimentation had lost direction and thought and what resulted was a combination of busy and apparently uncontrolled features that had little to recommend them (opinion I know).

Yamashiro work up to Rai Kunimitsu was generally consistant, although niji Kunitoshi and Ryokai had some variation.

I would argue that after the increase in Soshu in other schools the quality of many schools seriously deminished. There are good Soden Bizen, Sue-Tegai, Sue-seki etc work but there is also a lot of mediocre as these schools tried to adopt Soshu technique and style but didnt quite get it right.

Ken

I was interested in your side by side comparison. I have done something similar and have reached the same conclusion. In general I think swords from the kamaura period look better. I cant explain this from a metal quality point of view, I dont know enough, but just looking at them side by side the earlier blades look better made and have an overall higher quality appearance. It is a combination of all features not least shape but also the jigane and hamon and the interaction of the features. They combine more subtly than much later work.

As said in the first piece, or at least intimated, I am beginning to think the golden age idea is too simplistic. However I do think certain periods did produce swords of a consistantly high standard and some exceptional examples.

[dig1982]

For me it is all subjective, for what a sword of 1300 is better of a sword of 1800? Sugata, jigane, hamon, hataraki? But all of these things are subjective. Compare a swordsmith of different period is not the right thing, Fujishiro rating for example is a valutation of swordsmith of the same period and the same school. Old sword maybe are interesting for the historycal period, but someone can prefer newest sword like gendaito or shinsakuto, why give the title of a national living treasure to some swordsmith if their works are not so good? I think everyone must find his own golden age.

[paulb]

yes it is totally subjective and all ideas are valid. However behind that subjectivity there is likely to be something more solid that creates this consistant view as to superior qulaity of one to another.

appreciation is subjective. However As one of my dear old friends once said, "The more you study the more you will understand why you like what you do"

Deigo

as I said repeatedly every era has its masterpieces and for some a beautifully made Gendaito cannot be bettered. But becaue it appeals to one group it doesnt necessarily warrant being classified as work of a golden age. If such a thing really exists.

[Jean]

All being subjective, can we consider as golden age the period where you can count the greatest number of Saijo to jo saku swordsmiths? If yes, you have the answer.

[dig1982]

Jean sorry, i'm not an expert, wich is that age?

[paulb]

Jean

What you suggest is logical and a good starting point but the ratings system is equally subjective so where do we go from there?

[Jean]

Yes , Paul, but if you cross check the different ratings, you will find that generally they reach an agreement when jo saku to Saijo saku smiths are concerned.

 

Very interesting article by Darcy: http://www.nihonto.ca/ratings.html

 

Undoubtedly the winner is Kamakura, but this is a bit biaised because Kamakura spreads over 150 years

[Shamsy]

Steve, when I was visiting the Bizen-Osafune Sword Village in Okuyama, they had an excellent display of tamahagane over the ages.  To my engineer's eye, the tamahagane from the 1300s looked infinitely more usable (i.e., the blue & green areas) than later examples.  So although I've worked with metallurgy for the past 50 years, I wouldn't say that

tamahagane produced today is far purer and undergoes better quality control than any other time in history.

 

Ken

Thank you Ken, that's good to know from a first hand source. Most of what I've said is based off the opinions of others that I am interpreting through books. I cannot stress that enough.I don't have the experience to offer an informed opinion but I wished to at least ensure that gendaito were mentioned and in people's thoughts. They don't often seem to receive much discussion but there are some exceptional swords made in the 'modern' age.

 

Furthermore I hoped to generate some discussion around the technical aspects of sword smithing, as leaving it to a purely subjective assessment of taste doesn't IMHO offer as much learning and deep though. It's easy to say which you like, but it's better to know the why (style, activity, innovation, jigane etc).

 

What I said about keeping it to golden ages or golden smiths seems to ring true (at least sentiment is echoed), so I'm going to step back as I think I've about reached what little I can add to the discussion. Please continue though, it's really a very complex and interesting topic.

[Gabriel L]

…when I was visiting the Bizen-Osafune Sword Village in Okuyama, they had an excellent display of tamahagane over the ages.  To my engineer's eye, the tamahagane from the 1300s looked infinitely more usable (i.e., the blue & green areas) than later examples.…

 

 

How did they have tamahagane from the 1300s? How did they even know that was when it was produced? Very interesting.

[Ken-Hawaii]

I really have no idea, Gabriel.  I was just looking at the clumps of tamahagane with dates under them, & noticing the distinct differences.

 

Ken

 

[Darcy]

I don't like to use this argument but there is some truth to it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

 

Good points raised above, from a practical standpoint, the use of swords was changing a lot through time and what is ideal for one set of conditions was not necessarily ideal for another. For flat out utility then what you're going to do and who you are is going to define your "best sword." The same way as a tennis player will have a "best racquet" or a golfer a "best club" that is different from other people's choices, what they may be talking about is most suitable or most complimentary to the task at hand. 

 

We hope that the tradition and the stories handed down are true and there is something to be said that the artistry is indeed following function, and so the most capable looking sword is also the most capable sword. There is a divide beginning in Edo though that work is no longer being truly tested. We see in this the far departures into "artistic hamon" interpretations that have nothing to do with selling someone a reliable sword that cuts well and won't break. 

 

We can't know absolutely without putting koto blades to the test which we won't do. I know a few exceptions though. There are a small number of great koto blades that do have cutting tests. For example there is one Juyo Norishige, and there are a couple of Aoe, Omiya, Enju Kunitoki, Naotsuna, Ichimonji, Nosada, Sa school, Tegai, Rai Kunitsugu, Kanemoto, Mihara, Naoe Shizu, Motoshige etc. with two body cutting tests. This puts them on the same level as Sai-jo sharpness guys like Tadayoshi and Yasusada. A lot of these were unsigned and it's not clear if it was known what they were at the time of cutting.

 

I think cutting tests also have a lot to do with the technique of the cutter, but at the same time you can give him a baseball bat and it's not going to cut through two bodies so some part of it is indeed the blade.  

 

This is a good sampling to show us that the various traditions could cut and there was no economic advantage for a dead smith to slip some gold to a cutting master to get him to keep trying until he can record the best score. 

 

Three body tests are on Bizen Kozori, Omia Morikage, Ko-Mihara, ... these are interesting because these tend more towards a "blue collar" type of blade. Is that why they were tested or is that why they cut well?

 

Mostly we see Shinto swords with these. Kotetsu, Yasusada, and so on. These seemed very popular to have cutting tests on. So we do know Shinto blades could cut well. Presumably though these were tested a lot more frequently than koto blades and just by frequency of attempts the chances to get a higher score increase. Kotetsu in particular had a LOT of blades tested. Nobody has a "lock" on the three body test though, a good number of famous makers have one or two. 

 

The highest count on cutting test blades that I have seen are four body tests on two blades. One is a Tegai and one is a Hatakeda Sanemori but I am not 100% sure I read the Sanemori right. There may be a five body test out there but I can't verify it (and not sure I would believe it). Four stretches credibility. 

 

Whatever we can take from this is that both of them cut well and a koto blade for being a koto blade is not going to cut any better than a well made shinto blade in the hands of a master. 

 

The other practical aspect is durability. We are not actively testing these things but we see old koto blades all the time that are banged up from sword fights. Kenji Mishina told me before that shinto steel feels more brittle when he polishes it with the exception of Sukehiro. I am not sure if this means anything because it's subjective. But we know that Shinto swords did not have to "put up with the crap" that koto blades did and certainly not for as long. Because they were made for two different political eras, one filled with conflict where you could fairly expect to encounter armor, and one where you were more likely to use it to cut down a peasant in the street than face an armed and armored bushi with it, subjectively I'd think that each set of swords was made to fit its time. Shinto swords didn't have the durability constraints that would be a requirement to make successful koto swords. If you take out the constraint then its just not a real factor in the manufacture as an economic pressure and eventually that always influences what people decide to do. There will always be standouts and exceptional cases but in general this is what I think is the reasonable point of view.

 

Artistically we can look at the fact that every period since the Kamakura period called back to the Kamakura period reliably and frequently. From the swordsmith's point of view it was desirable to attempt to reproduce Kamakura style workmanship. We can assume that they were trying to emulate it not because it was crap but because it was good. We can also see their numerous attempts and failures, by the top level smiths of the day. Some got closer than others. I would say Tadayoshi exceeded some of the Rai smiths but did not hit the top levels that Rai hit. Hankei everyone knows tried to nail down Norishige but failed and failed and his failures even pass Tokubetsu Juyo because they are second only to Norishige in this style. But it's like Norishige got 10/10, Hankei got 5/10 and everyone else got 2/10. 

 

I can't say too many smiths were out there trying to copy Muromachi period work. But those that did, like Shinshinto Gassan to the modern day, have instances where they exceeded them.

 

So summarizing that, by their behavior and the direction they were looking at, the artists themselves felt Kamakura was the peak and by their inability to successfully copy it or exceed it they confirmed that it was the peak. 

 

From an outsider's point of view, what you like is what you like. I have a client who does not like bohi. What can I say, he just doesn't like bohi and it ruins a blade from his point of view. That's subjective, OK, I can't argue that. If you like a Kanbun sugata you like a Kanbun sugata. When I bought my first sword I specifically sought out a Kanbun sword because it looked right to me and I didn't like that deep curve of koto blades. Now I am the opposite, the koto to me looks right and elegant and beautiful and the Kanbun looks like someone put a piece of rebar in a vice and pulled on it a bit. 

 

Ultimately throughout time, because the Kamakura copies started already in Oei and in Oei, Yasumitsu could make midare utsuri and a hamon that can and does confuse people into saying Nagamitsu at kantei... this illustrates that (1) the techniques were not forgotten at this time, they were just not used and (2) if they made things like bo utsuri it was on purpose not because they forgot how to do it, it was done for some reason.... but from this point onward the forgetting starts and when the callbacks happen they continually miss the mark. It illustrates that either material or technique or both was something that wasn't found again.

 

I say that now even if someone makes a blade that will fool you into thinking it's an Ichimonji it won't be an Ichimonji. It's only ever a replica. Like if you make a Ferrari kit car in your garage that can drive well at the track and in photographs you can't tell the difference, it's not a Ferrari. It's simulated the appearance of a Ferrari only. A dolphin and a shark can be confused with some distance and a quick glance but it doesn't make them actually related, they have just converged on a form from two different directions. Without knowing the actual steps and materials involved in making a legitimate Ichimonji it can't ever be one. So all they have done since that point in time is to just hunt and by trial and error try to hit on something that is at least similar. Probably to achieve the same effect as an Ichimonji blade means to overlap and get some of the same techniques right. Without it all it's just Ichimonji-style though. 

 

Lastly I think we have somewhat of the low-hanging fruit effect. That is that the koto smiths had enough time and enough reason and enough experimentation to cover all of the forms that delivered best results. They took all the low hanging fruit off the tree. You can further experiment but the experiments tend to depart from the ideal because the ideal has mostly been covered. This is the problem that the Shinto smiths had and they developed their own things which have their own appeal but never seem to hit the same way as one of the classic schools from any of the traditions do. Like a Toranba hamon executed at the highest level will always be a very beautiful thing to look at but put it beside Yukimitsu or the very best Senjuin and it feels a bit like a pretender. The older work has a feeling of real legitimacy like a soldier coming back from war with a leg blown off and battle scars standing beside one of these wanna-be self-declared militia dudes with their pot bellies and dad bodies. They can look tough with their guns and gear and stuff but when you put them beside the legitimate thing that went through the real life of war and was intended to go through that real life of war it takes a back seat.

 

I have a friend who really likes Yamato blades and his big thing is that they are warrior's blades. When unsigned not because of worries about vanity vs. the lord that you would be presenting it to in Kyoto or Kamakura, but unsigned because nobody gave a damn this is something that was made to go harm someone. Old warriors and I get that. But I feel the same way about the great old blades of all the traditions and though I am no fan of things like Kozori, they were made for use and real stresses. The minivan of their time. Not a wall hanger or decorative object but was going to get wear and tear, had to function and get good mileage but mostly was a very good value proposition for the discriminating buyer on a budget. "If You Can't Afford a Kanemitsu, Get The Next Best Thing ... Buyyyyy KoooooZORI! " 

 

Mostly this is a feels based argument but I think that the behaviors to desire to emulate Kamakura and failures of the Shinto and Shinshinto smiths to emulate the koto smiths is the best way to measure it objectively. 

 

Maybe I am not being fair enough to Hankei because sometimes he really got close.

 

On the left is Hankei looking like he is going after Go Yoshihiro and on the right is Tametsugu (signed tanto) that I took a picture of in a book because the hamon was a dead ringer for a mumei Tametsugu that I had. Tametsugu in this style is following Go. They are both hunting in the same arena with this stuff and have converged on the same presentation. Can't speak to the jigane though and oshigata is just oshigata but have to respect what he was able to do.

 

[paulb]

Something I hadn't considered before Darcy but now you mention it is blindingly obvious. On the basis that copying is the sincerest form of flattery, those later smiths trying to recreate kamakura work did so because either they, or their customers believed they were superior.

I think I have seen one or two Hankei blades, both were very highly regarded but failed to excite me too much. I always wonder when something seen as a fault in one sword such as openness of grain or lack of sori suddenly become a virtue in someone elses work.

Most typically I remember seeing an almost straight blade, I forget the smith, which was described as having a rustic and unattactive shape. A few pages on an almost identical blade by Kotetsu was described as having the "magnificent rod like straight shape" typicl of the master.

 

On balance if enough peole whose livlihood depend on the quality of what they produce and its appeal to a discerning market chose to emulate kamakura work it was because it was seen as the pinacle of the art.

[John A Stuart]

I have always thought of Yamato swords as being connected to warrior monks. Of course, not exclusively, but, this I imagine. After all the subsets use temple names. John

[Jean]

They were, John, they were and this is one reason why most of them are unsigned

[Mark]

If i had to come up with a "Golden age" i would say 1290-1330.

 

I am quite sure there is a papered Yasusada with a 5 body test, i agree that seems a stretch but it exisits

 

I have seen a number of Hankei blades, a few were very good but more were sort of mediocre, they had more ware' and flaws than i could enjoy in a Shinto blade. I realize he made some great blades but from my experience they did not have the natural feeling of the original.

[Darcy]

 

I am quite sure there is a papered Yasusada with a 5 body test, i agree that seems a stretch but it exisits

 

I have seen a number of Hankei blades, a few were very good but more were sort of mediocre, they had more ware' and flaws than i could enjoy in a Shinto blade. I realize he made some great blades but from my experience they did not have the natural feeling of the original.

 

 

Thanks. That will let me try to find it. I was pretty sure I saw one and marked it but when I went to look at my notes for this couldn't find it, and didn't remember who it was. 

 

 

Something I hadn't considered before Darcy but now you mention it is blindingly obvious. On the basis that copying is the sincerest form of flattery, those later smiths trying to recreate kamakura work did so because either they, or their customers believed they were superior.

I think I have seen one or two Hankei blades, both were very highly regarded but failed to excite me too much. I always wonder when something seen as a fault in one sword such as openness of grain or lack of sori suddenly become a virtue in someone elses work.

Most typically I remember seeing an almost straight blade, I forget the smith, which was described as having a rustic and unattactive shape. A few pages on an almost identical blade by Kotetsu was described as having the "magnificent rod like straight shape" typicl of the master.

 

On balance if enough peole whose livlihood depend on the quality of what they produce and its appeal to a discerning market chose to emulate kamakura work it was because it was seen as the pinacle of the art.

 

And it never went out of fashion. Every master who comes along tries his hand at it. 

 

Yososzaemon in the 1500s was copying Nanbokucho Soshu. While not strictly Kamakura period, it's not like swords changed overnight on the day we use for the period change historically, so there is some bleedover into Nanbokucho before stuff starts to fall. Hiromitsu is part of the fall from grace but high enough up on the mountain still that his is one of the influential work styles. 

 

Hankei you just always have to feel bad for the guy. Anyone making gun barrels is going to be capable of making good steel or else you're going to kill the shooter. Swords are hard. Because of that if you just isolate his greatest successes you get to see where he ended up in his process. A lot of the time you see where he started or where he was halfway through.

 

I feel the same about Kiyomaro. Bleh boring blades. Not interesting at all. Then you see one of the couple of blades he made where he fully applied himself and it is a night and day difference. Then his reputation becomes clear but if you never see those blades (I only saw them at the Met exhibit, I have never seen one in hand that impressed me other than that) then it's hard to change your opinion. 

 

It shows another reason why you have to keep getting out there and broadening your vision and opportunities, otherwise you're just living in a box and you think the area inside the box is the entire world. Get your head up out of the box and you can see further and your ideas will change. If you can put on wings and fly above the ground and see it all then you can start to understand.

 

I was having a similar conversation about signatures. If you look at 4 examples posted in a magazine in an article, there is no way to draw any conclusion about that or use them for anything if there are 100+ signature examples of the smith. You need to raise the periscope higher and look at them all together.

 

Fujishiro in one of his books, Meito Zuikan or something? He has a page or two devoted to Nosada signatures. There's like 50 all together. If you do that now you can start trying to figure out what the hell is going on. 

 

If you want to understand how the Rai group operated you need to get all of their signatures, print them out, put them on a pasteboard and move them around. If you do this you will discover that the Rai students subbed in for Rai Kunitoshi 50% of the time. If you look even more closely they appear to possibly have subbed for each other sometimes. Without knowing this it's very easy to take a signature and dismiss it as gimei because it doesn't match the six examples you found or are in Fujishiro to compare against. 

 

In all ways increasing perspective will lead to better understanding, appreciation and discoveries.

 

An Okimasa signed only "Nagasone" and a beautiful cutting test on the back leads us to believe that he sometimes signed like this. Looking higher, further, longer, leads us to see that there is at least one more example that says Nagasone on one side and Okimasa on the other. Right where the cutting test went. So, someone very clever, within the life of Kotetsu, took an Okimasa, wiped the back part of the signature, brought to a cutting master, had him do a test and he put that in over where the mei was removed. Without seeing that other blade we draw the wrong conclusion. Now we know what it is: a little bit of sleight of hand to convince someone that this was a Nagasone Okisato (Kotetsu) complete with cutting test to show its prowess. 

 

Gotta keep looking at examples. Oshigatas. Old books. Museums. Exhibits. Sword dealers. Websites. 

 

Eventually you will see the masterwork of Hankei and as a result say well, he almost got there. Not quite. Lots of failures along the way but he picked himself one of the hardest tasks that you can imagine. He wanted to copy this. And nobody can.

 

[Kronos]

Just wow...

[CSM101]

Once again a thread, where you really can learn something. Thanks to Paul and Darcy.

 

I only held one Hankei in my hands. I know many collectors were not impressed by this blade. But i was really fond of it. And i didn´t see it as a copy of Norishige but as a Shinto-blade.

4 blades by him are bunkazai (I think). And that doesn´t come out of the nowhere.

 

And just another point: "If You Can't Afford a Rai, Get The Next Best Thing ... Buyyyyy EnJUUUUU!

 

 

Uwe G.

[paulb]

Hi Uwe

you are pushing against an open door re Rai vs Enju. I dont have a Rai blade but I have an Enju that compares veryfavourably and I count amongst the best "Rai" blades I have seen

[Darcy]

Once again a thread, where you really can learn something. Thanks to Paul and Darcy.

 

I only held one Hankei in my hands. I know many collectors were not impressed by this blade. But i was really fond of it. And i didn´t see it as a copy of Norishige but as a Shinto-blade.

4 blades by him are bunkazai (I think). And that doesn´t come out of the nowhere.

 

And just another point: "If You Can't Afford a Rai, Get The Next Best Thing ... Buyyyyy EnJUUUUU!

 

 

Uwe G.

 

 

If that attached photo is the Hankei in question then he did a very good job with the hada on that one.

 

I've always like Hankei. When he fails at a large number of the welds it's a bit much to look at but the first one I saw was on Cole's site and it is still a masterpiece I think. This one looks a lot like Norishige jihada. 

[CSM101]

I know that we already discussed Rai vs. Enju. This is just to show, why Enju is close to Rai.

 

And the Hankei. Well, I think I will not have a chance to make photos. But I will ask.

 

 

Uwe G.

[Jim P]

Hi Paul,   I would have to say for me the Golden age is mid-1200-into the Nanbokucho why ? because the later smiths tried to copy those blades and I think for good reasons as Darcy pointed out those blades were Cutting different things and still durable and the good ones did not break easily. You may remember am article about someone doing tests in the 1800s some big names were tested like  Naotane / Sukehiro  that did not do well at all and by Shinto times the steel was becoming brittle and had changed and IMHO did better in one set of conditions but early koto was a better all-rounder that declined the closer it got to Shinto

 

[Jean]

The golden age is Kamakura. Having the period started/ended mid to late Kamakura/Nambokucho is a mistake. You are ruling out Ko Bizen smiths, ko Hoki, ko Ichimonji, Fukuoka Ichimonji, Awataguchi, ko Aoe smiths... Look at the Goban kaji. Look at the Japanese Kokuho..

 

Here is a link to Sho Shin Data base, list the smiths above 1000 by Era (Kamakura, Nambokucho....) and you will have an idea of the golden age

 

http://www.sho-shin.com/smith.htm

[paulb]

Hi Jim

I think I am with Jean on this one. I think going mid Kamakura cuts out too many earlier smiths from several important traditions. Some would argue it should be extended to still earler in to the Heian period to include a number of Ko-Bizen smiths.

Let me be a little controversial but here is something to consider. For whatever reason, and there are many put forward, there was a great deal of movement of technology spreading out of Sagami and bringing influence in to other areas. As smiths tried to emulate, or maybe compete with Soshu smiths much of the indvidual characteristics of given traditions become blurred. At their best some of these later works, Soden Bizen, Sue Tegai,etc were very good but an awful lot weren't. You see things being attempted that didnt quite work. At the same time the later Soshu smiths seemed to lose all self control, throwing all and everything in to the mix (in case you hadn't guessed I am not a fan) and creating a "tarts Boudoir" of a look.

From thereon in standards slipped and as a result of other changes in supply and patronage they never quite came back to that high point.

As Jean said in an earlier post the Kamakura period covered 150 years which is a long time. I think for me the Golden age extends still further running from late Heian to the early Nambokucho.

After that there are examples of pure genius but not the consistant high level of crsftsmanship and artistry you see from a broad range of kamakura period schools.

[Jean]

Let's put it between 1150 and 1350