Suriage

[Darcy]

We're often left wondering why some blades go suriage, sometimes it's "to fix a chip that won't polish out" or to fix a hagire or because the blade just broke. Sometimes the reasons are harder to understand. It was done on a Niji Kunitoshi I had (multiple times suriage) as late as WWII in order to fit well into gunto mounts. 

 

I stumbled onto this Enju Kunimura a month ago and just recently discovered that it is also Tokuju. This is a really rare example because somehow the cut off end of the nakago holding the signature was kept. How long, I don't know, but it is the only Juyo sword I know of that passed as two pieces. 

 

That was in session 22. By the time it hit Tokuju in session 18 the mei has migrated into the nakago as gakumei. I am not sure I agree with the decision to do that. There are some other that acquired kinzogan mei between Juyo and Tokuju as well.

 

But anyway it's an interesting thing to look at so I'm posting it to share.

 

[John A Stuart]

I like the idea of adding the mei by this process. No worries on losing the dangly bit, it is papered and has an oshigata and the process would have been recorded and in the literature at some point. It is just more tidy and traditional. Looks superbly well done too. John

[paulb]

Thanks for posting Darcy I dont think I have ever seen that before (other than a Rai Kunitoshi in two pieces for sale a while ago)

Like you I think I would have been inclined to keep the two pieces seperate and have an attribution added to the nakago.

I would love to see that sword, being a great fan of better Enju work I am guessing it would stand well against many Rai works.

[Gabriel L]

I like the idea of adding the mei by this process. No worries on losing the dangly bit, it is papered and has an oshigata and the process would have been recorded and in the literature at some point. It is just more tidy and traditional. Looks superbly well done too. John

On the other hand you lose both the section of nakago under the gakumei *and* the additonal context of nakago surrounding the mei. But I agree that in two pieces the odds of one day the smaller part getting separated would be high.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Very, very unusual. Thanks for posting, Darcy.

 

Ken

 

[Markus]

How long, I don't know, but it is the only Juyo sword I know of that passed as two pieces.

 

Very interesting indeed. The mei of the blade was presented in Honma's 1958 ed. Nihon Koto Shi when it was still on the blade, although already down at the nakago-jiri. Ito Sanpei wrote about that issue a while ago on his blog and says that back then, the owner consulted an appraiser who told him that the mei is bad and suggested that he should have it cut off. However, it seems that the owner was smart enough to keep the cut off part as it got juyo in 1974, that is as "package," i.e. as "mumei Kunimura, with zaimei nakago-jiri."

 

Reason I know that is because someone informed me a while ago that I feature this mei twice as reference in my Koto Meikan, one time with the cut-off nakago-jiri, and one time as gakumei, not realizing that it is the very same blade, haha.

[nagamaki - Franco]

Ha, is right, Markus. As good ole uchiko Jim Kurrasch used to say about big name swords, fail shinsa 3 times before removing mei. In looking at the oshigata and sword image, it is difficult to imagine what was going through the appraiser's mind! The sword confirms the mei and not the other way around as a good friend always says.

[Brian]

Love the way the detective work has progressed on this one

[Markus]

I can imagine the following scenario:

 

Blade was handed down as Enju Kunimura. It was one of these cases where a blade "had" to be shortened at one time but the desired length actually allowed to preserve the mei at the very nakago-jiri. Now blade got a little out of polish but Honma, knowledgeable as he was, saw that everything was fine with the blade and mei and so he added it to his references. Somewhat later, the (new) owner was suspicious about the whole thing and visited an appraiser who told him that if he wants to be sure, he needs to get it papered. For this, he also needs to get it polished and the appraiser also said that the mei doesn't look good so better have that nakago-jiri cut off so that it papers at all. So he obeyed and can you imagine the guy's face when he gets it back papered to ... Enju Kunimura!

 

So he was a little upset and brought the blade to all sword meetings to get more opinions and everyone told him that this is actually a really good blade. So he submitted it for Juyo, handing in also the cut-off nakago-jiri and explaining the whole thing to the NBTHK. So they accepted it and it passed Juyo with flying colors. Then he felt so guilty about what he did and as everyone kept saying that the blade is not only very good, it is very very good, he wanted to do some "damage limitation" and felt responsible for having the cut-off nakago-jiri, cut-off on his behalf, preserved. So he was eventually opting for gaku-mei and the blade was submitted again, this time for Tokubetsu-Juyo, and passed...

[ROKUJURO]

Markus,

a good story!

You should definitely try to become a writer!

[Darcy]

All I can say is.... "wow." 

 

Be really careful of self-promoting "sensei" ... always gather multiple opinions, always act conservatively. That this was cut off in the modern period is a travesty. I would have never suspected it for a moment. 

 

There is a lot to learn in here about hubris, and acting rashly on too much faith on one opinion. 

 

If it passed Tokuju like this it would have passed Tokuju before he damaged the blade. So here we have a very high level piece and neither the owner or whom he turned to for advice could understand it at all but they had no problem plowing forward with a destructive mission. Cutting off the end of the nakago is a horrific way to do it, but in hindsight it saved the mei for the future ... instead of the normal way of pounding it out which would have destroyed it forever.

 

The casualness is really amazing to me.

[Gabriel L]

Darcy, you bring up a point which has often bothered me (to understate it) between the Western vs. Japanese attitude towards "preservation." The modern western attitude is alter nothing, ever. The Japanese attitude is bring the object to its ideal state. Neither is wholly correct. If the western ideal were applied to nihontō, we would have only out-of-polish dull grey blades and togi as an artform itself would die out. But sometimes the Japanese approach is too cavalier — "The tsuba on this koshirae isn't to my taste, swap it out." "Hmm the polish on this 800-year-old sword is only at 95%, get it repolished." "Oh I don't think this mei is good therefore let's destroy it." That kind of stuff might have flown historically, but it's the 21st century, and many of these changes can never be undone. Incredibly ironic how the same collectors who recognize the tremendous rarity and value of ubu kotō can be so quick to make their own "edits" for the sake of convenience or worse.

 

I am fairly certain the topic of what to do about gimei has come up before with no ideal solution. Even if we are all totally sure it is gimei, anything short of removing the mei still leaves the possibility of fraud down the line. But removing the mei is the height of entitled editorializing in this field. Okay, so some gimei are painfully obvious and nobody could object. But what about the ones people are 90% sure of? 75%? 50%? What about uncommon signature variations that people would notice if they only bothered to preserve them?

 

There is a reason the western preservation approach is valued, and that is that we don't know everything, and sometimes what we think we know we find out was wrong tomorrow. That's science! The alternative — "this is what the references say, therefore what we are seeing now must be wrong" — strikes me as valuing narrative over facts.

 

Anyway I don't know what the solution is, except to advise caution and circumspection. This was more rant than anything practical.

[Ken-Hawaii]

 

The Japanese attitude is bring the object to its ideal state.

...or to whatever length the Shogun/Emperor/Daimyo insisted was ideal at the time....

 

Ken

 

[b.hennick]

I recommend the 4 part series on conservation/restoration of armour, swords, shirasaya and kodogu that is published in the JSSUS Newsletter. Part D will come out later this year. The authors are Ian Bottomley, Francisco Couthino, Brent Tanner and me.

[paulb]

I knew when reading this thread I had seen another example of a mei becoming seperated from a sword but kept. Some of you may remember some time ago tsuruta-san offering a Rai Kunitoshi blade which had been converted to a wakazashi after suffer some fatal damage. The owner had the presence of mind to keep the original nakago. See image below:

 

[Ray Singer]

I've always wondered if the owner did that to the Kunitoshi to maximize market value due to a hagire or deep hakobore. Here is another example.

 

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/Sueyuki1.html

 

There was a Yokoyama Sukenaga nakago laying on a table in Tampa this weekend. I assumed it one of the many signed koto nakago that seem to be converted to nakago nuki these days. When I asked the dealer about this he replied that the nakago cracked very recently during martial arts training and the mei was going to be added as a gakumei in the now wakizashi length remainder to the blade.

 

Best regards,

Ray