The Golden Age Of Sword Manufacture.

[Darcy]

Let's put it between 1150 and 1350

 

 

It's good as this begins just about when Gotoba gets the itch and ends when Masamune is in the ground 10 years and Samonji's first student makes a Soshu style blade. 

[Jim P]

Hi  Paul, Its interesting how we all see these questions differently off coarse jean is right if we are speaking only about the work , but my reasoning was that it was after the  mongol invasions of Japan,that the blades hit their peak as  all-rounders so it depends on your criteria     

[Greg F]

Hi Jim, From a lot of what ive read this is the feeling I have too as the demand for better swords was created because of the Mongol invasion. Very interesting to read all the different opinions as all have their merits. Cheers.

 

Greg

[Rivkin]

One can voice an opinion that Japanese swords are kind of like modern Art - an attempt to express very wide range of emotions using very limited technique and space. There is therefore great subjectivity in their appraisal.

 

One person will see a tired, signed, Rai blade and conclude that there is nothing to see, except a straight white line along the blade' edge. The other will see the perfect emptyness, bounding the eternal. The third will see the soul of Samurai floating in the pure Zen. The forth will say that it is "just right". Finally, the wast majority will proclaim that since it has on its scabbard "chin-chin-chin-chin-cho-cho-cho-cho", it must possess the beauty so insurmountable, that no other sword (especially non-Japanese) could compare to it. The ones disagreeing obviously fail to appreciate the Art in so pure a form. 

 

Depending on the century in which appraisal was made, such positions also tend to shift drastically. Today Juyo books can be essentially a Bizen school inventory, and apparently 1333 is when the good stuff was suddenly over. Yet Meibutsu and other early documents failed to appreciate the truth that simple and precise.

The story is not unlike a more conventional Art collecting. Today few would think of Rafael as the best artist of all times, and "Rubens school" is used as derision, nevermind that 200 years ago these were the most expensive and appreciated items on the market, especially when compared to shady van Hals or unknown Caravaggio. And the last of great Impressionists had the opportunity to brand Modigliani and cubists as inconsequentional.

 

One can propose however a different approach - buy what you like, enjoy it, and try to learn the points by which better pieces are appreciated. In the end however it is a duty of a noble (and we in sword community Le Bourgeois gentilhomme per excellence) to learn a better judgement of his own.

 

Regarding the superior performance/sharpness/steel/forging of Koto from purely practical prospective, one is bound to notice that all discussions of such are held up by exactly zero experimental evidence.

[Jim P]

Hi Rivkin, Sorry your comment about koto (one is bound to notice that all discussions of such are held up by exactly zero experimental evidence.) in my IMHO is not correct there has been some testing done granted not much and in the west its hard to find but it’s out there . How much weight do these tests hold that's something else

[Rivkin]

Jim,  the best work on the subject I know of is Kitada's "Beaty of Arts" and related articles. It points towards a few important aspects of Japanese swords - very small grain size characteristic for higher class blades, substantial inclusions of Ti, which allow sone to relatively reliably tell exactly how much western vs. local steel was used.

It shows that a few analyzed high class smiths indeed produced interesting and high class work from the metallurgic standpoint. 

It does not show that a lower grade artistically, shinto, work has to be technologically vastly inferior.