Does Kirikomi Add To Or Detract From A Sword's Value?

[javier]

Hi Guido I am attaching two pictures of a nagamaki naoshi with a deep kirikomi on the mune. 

I do not have experience in polishing but from my perpective it looks like the togishi left the kirikomi there. As you mentioned Impossible to tell if the skar was produced by the heat of the battle or something else. 

I had the chance to study this piece in hand during the San Francisco Token Kai in 2013.

According to the description on the show table the blade belonged to the Hojoji School (I am sorry I do not remember if it had papers ) It was also described that it was a classic example of the soshu work from the nanbokucho period but that there was new evidence that sometimes point these type of blades to those of the Ichomonji School.

 

Javier 

 

 

 

[nagamaki - Franco]

Hello Ed, All,

 

 

I have found through personal experience to take opinions with a grain of salt. 

If you feel good about a piece, throw caution to the wind and submit it.

 

Of course that is merely my opinion, and we all know what they say about opinions. 

 

 

 

Advice can work both ways. Keep in mind that with opinions the person giving is not at risk, nor necessarily willing to take their own advice. Yes, please pass the salt. 

[Guido]

As you mentioned Impossible to tell if the skar was produced by the heat of the battle or something else.

 

The reason why nicks on the mune, shinogi and shinogiji are often referred to as kirikomi 切り込み (cutting mark) or homare-kizu 誉れ傷 (honorable defect) lies in the fact that those parts are of softer steel than the ha, and sword cuts can be easier identified as such, whereas nicks, chips, and broken-out pieces in the (much harder) edge usually don’t show the typical pattern of a sword cut (even if that was the case), and therefore are simply called ha-kobore 刃毀れ, i.e. edge damage.

[Jamie]

It seems like it can be an interesting talking point. Mostly it's all in the eye of the beholder. Myself I'd rather have a flawless blade, but unless in the cutting isn't a detractor for me personally. However I wouldn't pay more if one were there. As has been pointed out its a flaw nonetheless.

[Darcy]

I don't understand why someone would think Kirikomi do not add something. Every warrior who carries a wound home has his scar to bear testimony to the fact he met the enemy and survived. Want to do a real sword cutting test? Forget straw mats. Hit it with another sword or on a helmet. Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

Vast majority of Shinto blades were not used and when tested to breakage performance was not good. This understandable ... If you designed cars and people bought them to park mostly you'd end up marketing to whatever got them to buy rather than make a great race car a lot of the time. A banged up sword filled it's duty and didn't break. Maybe the other did which is why this one is here with us now.

 

In the case of USA found stuff we don't know the history but we do know it still took a beating somehow. Maybe even worse to be in the hands of a 12 year old boy than in a 15th century fight.

 

It's a mark of honour. The sakakibara Masamune was covered with Kirikomi and left like that. Blade was tough as nails and one of the criticisms of so shut is maybe that it's is brittle but this is a counter example. Unfortunately a 2,000 pound bomb leaves a very big Kirikomi and it died in WWII.

 

Prominent swords like Masamune or Rai that bear scars show that they were not made for show. That they were first made for murdering a guy who was trying to kill you with a four foot long razor blade. That is ultimate what you need to see with Kirikomi. It didn't break, it was a real tool no matter how fancy, and this one saw blood.

 

After 1600 if it was blood it's more likely a samurai cutting down a defenceless peasant to test his blade.

 

So to me they mean a lot.

[Darcy]

Also attaching two examples. One is a juyo Masamune with a Kirikomi. NBTHK takes pains to illustrate them as can be seen. Other 'flaws' not so much. You find those out in the photos.

 

Also here is the Jubun Ishida Masamune. It is also known as the Kirikomi Masamune. That these blades carry the scars like this adds to their mystique. Otherwise you don't get people naming them after that. Or maybe choosing another to elevate to Juyo Bunkazai and I believe this is also one of the Kyoho Meibutsu Cho swords.

[SteveM]

I don't understand why someone would think Kirikomi do not add something. 

 

The reason they do nothing for me is because I cannot authenticate them, and, unlike the soldier coming back from the field, the sword cannot tell me whether a cut or a scratch was made in battle, or was the result of a careless mistake, or worse, was deliberately added using a well-placed flathead screwdriver and a mallet by some unscrupulous trader who was trying to tart-up an otherwise featureless sword. I cannot place a value on a kirikomi. I cannot go to Kurokawa-san with a sword to sell, and argue that he should give me a better price for it since it has a kirikomi. Even the words "mark of honor" seem to assume too much.This, I think, is the crux of my argument to Jason.

 

Now the contrary argument, "kirikomi add mystique", is something I have no rebuttal for. It is a subjective thing. I don't deny that some people may find sentimental value in them, but putting a monetary figure on sentimental value and mystique is a Sisyphean task. I think the advice to novices has to be: resist getting sentimental about swords and their imagined histories. 

 

The Ishida-Masamune linked to above is the very definition of the outlier that I mentioned in my earlier post

 

 

any sword that has a documented history of coming from a major historical figure will be appraised differently from a sword that has no such provenance. A sword that has a clear history from somebody like Ishida Mitsunari or Tokugawa, takes on value as an important historical artifact, in addition to any value it might have as an art sword.

 

 

Regardless of the kirikomi, this sword has great value both as an art sword, and as a historical artifact. 

[Chango]

I figured the "Kirikomi Masamune" wasn't the greatest example, since it has a documented history... but then again,it seem like most Masamune blades have illustrious histories too.

 

I made a quick video of my 1st example:

 

https://youtu.be/Zq1wfZCV1hA

 

I still think the mune damage at least came from another sword and I think the blade in general (minus the rust anyway) looks exactly what one would expect a good sword to look like after an hours long full-scale Sengoku era battle...though I realize it's highly unlikely such a sword would sit unpolished and unused for another 4-500 years after a battle and there are far more likely possible sources for the damage.

 

I am definitely more enamored with the history of nihonto than the art aspect of them...I guess I have to be careful to not let it cloud my judgement when I'm putting money down for a sword.

 

I guess the root of my question is this: if I have this sword polished, am I gonna be throwing good money after bad as most of the damage on the mune can't be polished out?

 

Also, if pigs fly one day and I actually find this particular sword documented in period sources as something that was previously preserved in "battle damaged" condition, will I have destroyed a piece of history or saved it?

[Stephen]

Jason

 

IMHO have it polished, one mark will remain that was possible battle damage, the rest to me looks to be back yard tomfoolery, ya got a tad bit of over romancing going on there my friend.

[Chango]

Jason

 

IMHO have it polished, one mark will remain that was possible battle damage, the rest to me looks to be back yard tomfoolery, ya got a tad bit of over romancing going on there my friend.

 

Can't help myself!    I'm in my late 30s now but I'm still at the front-end of the generation that first heard the story of feudal Japan through anime and video games and until a couple of years ago my only experience with swords was through reproductions (and now mostly from books and a couple of swords from good smiths but in bad condition). Guess I still have some mental fluff to go through and clean out as I try to learn and better understand the real deal.

 

 I do appreciate the sincere teaching I get from you guys (though I could do without most of the heavy newbie ribbing ). I'm listening and learning...

[Kanenaga]

http://www.nihonto.com/7.8.14.html

 

Juyo Token

 

Les

[SteveM]

As with the Masamune blade owned by Ishida Mitsunari, the above blade, being a signed and ubu blade Bizen blade from the Kamakura/Nambokucho period, is an important art blade despite the kirikomi, not because of it. Particularly telling is the complete lack of reference to either the hakobore or the kirikomi on the NBTHK appraisal paper, and on the sayagaki. 

 

I cannot imagine anyone at the NBTHK saying (of any blade), "Flawless sword. Too bad it doesn't have any kirikomi.". 

[Jean]

Les,

 

Pros and cons have been already discussed there:

 

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/18679-could-you/?hl=morisuke&do=findComment&comment=192454

[lonely panet]

ok, I haven't read all the posts

but heres my 10centss

 

They are a point of interest on cheap/lower end swords

 

an flaw/damge to quality art swords.

 

like vintage cars, we like them in mint condition, not with stone chips in the paint, but if its a Toyota carolla now one cares

[seattle1]

Hello:

 This thread and its referred to parallels is interesting because it seems to polarize views so emphatically.

 It seems clear that kiri-komi do not limit high level designations from the NBTHK. Most of them are not visually damaging to the aesthetic appreciation of the blade, but even when they are distracting, they can be highly papered nonetheless.

 What does surprise me somewhat is a tangential issue spun off under "mystique" such as in the following quotation form Steve M. "...putting a monetary figure on sentimental value and mystique is a Sisyphean task..." Where is the flattening from that big rock? To mention only a couple examples from recent times it seems to me that "mystique" is what the Yasukuni Jinja and the Minatogawa Jinja blades are all about. Other equally fine blades were made elsewhere during the Pacific War era, but they don't seem to have that mystique that demands a premium in the market for Jinja blades, being wrapped up as they are in the deepest Shinto focus so influential in that era. I think the same thing can be said of the blades made by Horii Hideaki (Toshihide) in the early 1930s incorporating steel from a damaged gun from Admiral Togo's flagship Mikasa during the Russo-Japanese War. It was only a small amount of the damaged gun steel that was mixed in, but that was the magic sauce that leads to a price premium above the already high quality of his workmanship. Many other examples of value influencing "mystique" characteristics could be found from earliest times on.

 If we don't collect swords for something beyond their cutting prowess, why do we collect them at all?

 Arnold F.

[SteveM]

I am trying to answer the original poster's question as objectively as possible, and lead him away from the romantic or mystical aspects of nihontō. I don't deny these things exist (I'm repeating myself here), I just deny that there can be any objective consensus as to how the market should value "mystique". In the case of Yasukuni swords and such, I think you mistake rarity and quality for mystique. Rarity and quality are objective things, and the market attributes a value to these. I have yet to see a valid argument that kirikomi add monetary value. If one kirikomi is good, are two better? Are five even better? Should we expect swords with a lot of kirikomi to have consistently higher prices? Should the beginner be steered towards swords with kirikomi, because (presumably) these add value? 

 

Ultimately we like what we like, regardless of whether or not those reasons make sense to anybody but us. But the question is not: "Does anybody like kirikomi?", or "Are there swords with kirikomi that are highly valued?". These questions hardly require any input from us. Instead, the original question is one about the monetary value of kirikomi. 

 

Art is subjective, and so the question of why anything in the art world has value leads to divergent views. In this case I don't disagree with Darcy. He says kirikomi are a physical manifestation of the sword's history, and this is something that should be valued. I have no argument with this. I just don't think this is what the original poster was asking. I also don't think we can know whether a scratch in a sword was the result of a battle, or if it was the result of something else. I think we should be suspicious of cuts and scratches in swords. Our first reaction should be to discount the sword when we see these things. We shouldn't trust the sales pitch (or our internal bias) when it says, "these scratches are from a battle, and therefore the sword has a premium". 

 

Let me try to reduce the argument.

 

Kirikomi add mystique, and therefore they are valuable. ← This is a valid statement. It has a valid counter-argument. I don't think this is what the original poster was asking though. 

 

Rarity is objective. Mystique is in the eye of the beholder. Rarity can add value. Mystique can also add value, but you are taking a step away from objectivity, and are more into the realm of faith and salesmanship. The NBTHK and the Japanese sword dealers may well be impressed with the rarity of a sword, but they will never be impressed with mystique. Mystique is not a part of the evaluation process for the NBTHK. 

 

I think the discussion is a good one, though. Hopefully it is interesting to people. It has made me think hard about some difficult questions. I hope Jason doesn't think I'm picking on him for asking this question that has led to such a long discussion. It was a good question. And I like thinking about the past owners of my swords and their histories, so I'm not totally oblivious to the romance and mystique. I just think its better to quarantine those thoughts as much as possible when thinking about monetary valuations. 

[Darcy]

Ugh. Posted that on the iPad and should have known things like "Soshu" would become "so shut". Excuse the garbled terms in my post, I assume you all understood what I meant.

[Darcy]

The reason they do nothing for me is because I cannot authenticate them, and, unlike the soldier coming back from the field, the sword cannot tell me whether a cut or a scratch was made in battle, or was the result of a careless mistake, or worse, was deliberately added using a well-placed flathead screwdriver and a mallet by some unscrupulous trader who was trying to tart-up an otherwise featureless sword.

 

If it's a featureless sword, it's a featureless sword (worth zero) times 1.02 for having a kirikomi. Anything times zero is zero. 

 

You've got it entirely backwards if that is the standard you're using. Nobody is going to bang up a Masamune for the hell of it. Only out of need to use or ignorance. And a junk sword is a junk sword regardless of what's been done to bedazzle it.

 

 

I cannot place a value on a kirikomi. I cannot go to Kurokawa-san with a sword to sell, and argue that he should give me a better price for it since it has a kirikomi. Even the words "mark of honor" seem to assume too much.This, I think, is the crux of my argument to Jason.

 

Actually no you can argue all your points and whatever your points are DO NOT MATTER because he knows more than you. You're not in a room to make an argument with the guy but to listen to him. Because he looks at that sword, including kirikomi, and he knows what handful of clients want it for and what they will pay for it. He will measure the sadness and desperation in your eye and determine what you will sell it for. None of what YOU say to perk it up is going to change HIS mind because there is nothing you could say to change his mind on a sword. However what you say on swords is capable of him changing his mind on you very easily. He's a super nice guy. But look at his swords and that means something: he knows quality and he knows business and you, will not know quality or business as good as him. SO you are walking into another "cannot independently verify" situation where a true expert you're going to play a chess match over is going to spank your ass and you might think you belong on the board with him. Maybe because he lead you to believe that. Business is business and this man did not get what he has by being slow, or unable to recognize value. So, want to sell him something, show him it and the paper and his decision is based only on one thing: what he can sell it for. That's it. He's a dealer. Kirikomi is part of it so you don't have to explain. 

 

Mark of honor is what they call it. I didn't invent it. If you want to be the skeptical guy there is a lot more in the sword world to tilt at than kirikomi. You personally cannot validate a Taima because it could be Yukimitsu. So ... what then? A lot of these judgments are based on experience and learning and accepting a bit of what sensei had to teach. We have no choice because we do not have a clear book to read from to tell us all the facts.

 

So we need to kind of stitch it together. I can tell you a US based sword found with a farmer full of hacks, I look at it differently than one in Japan. However as I did say, the purpose of those is to show the sword did its job. Someone putting one onto a perfect sword with a screwdriver is ruining the sword and they will not increase the value. Kirikomi affect the value like 0.5% but it's more about if a buyer is presented with two identical swords he will want the one with the battle scars in general.

 

He wants a sword that has evidence it has been used in anger. If the counter argument is that those are all fake then the extension of the argument is that everything is fake so why buy anything. Papers are all written as bribes and favors. Judges all need 2 inch thick glasses, what can they see. 300 year old documents come from people with no education compared to us so let's dismiss them. Hideyoshi liked Yoshimitsu only because they had the same name. Masamune didn't exist at all, nor did Go or Sadamune (who made all those utlimate quality blades then? We can all them SwordsmithX and Happy Fun Swordsmither, and SwordsmanX Jr. ... but it's the same thing. We're putting a handle onto stuff that's unsigned so to reject Masamune or Sadamune based on signatures doesn't explain who made those blades. Someone who made stuff like that would become famous. They can't walk out of a cave one day and make it and leave without signing unless they were a kami. 

 

So that to me is the only plausible counterargument that all the top swords of the Soshu tradition were made by kami. If not, and made by men, the best candidates we have are the smiths hailed through history as great. And working right there where they were made. And sometimes putting their names on them. 

 

But it still requires a little bit of faith that the whole thing can hold together. We're still building on it now.

 

And honestly in the end, if something being possibly faked is a reason... don't buy a sword with horimono. Don't buy a sword with a hamon (might be retempered, the only way you know for sure is if it has no hamon because it has already been through a fire). Don't buy swords with signatures because those can be faked, and don't buy papered mumei swords because we can't verify if the decisions were made via corruption or just bad judgment. 

 

At some point you draw the faith line. Kirikomi exist and if the polisher was of the opinion it should be kept, and they are good and trained, they will keep it for a reason as it's an honorable battle scar. That's the beginning and end of it.

 

It can mean zero to you, nothing wrong with that, but the rationale you've provided falls apart completely once you point it at other parts of the sword. Rather it stays intact but it tells you that you should get out of sword collecting because there are two many on-faith judgments to make. 

[Darcy]

 

I am trying to answer the original poster's question as objectively as possible, and lead him away from the romantic or mystical aspects of nihontō. I don't deny these things exist (I'm repeating myself here), I just deny that there can be any objective consensus as to how the market should value "mystique". In the case of Yasukuni swords and such, I think you mistake rarity and quality for mystique. Rarity and quality are objective things, and the market attributes a value to these. I have yet to see a valid argument that kirikomi add monetary value. If one kirikomi is good, are two better? Are five even better? Should we expect swords with a lot of kirikomi to have consistently higher prices? Should the beginner be steered towards swords with kirikomi, because (presumably) these add value? 

 

Ultimately we like what we like, regardless of whether or not those reasons make sense to anybody but us. But the question is not: "Does anybody like kirikomi?", or "Are there swords with kirikomi that are highly valued?". These questions hardly require any input from us. Instead, the original question is one about the monetary value of kirikomi. 

 

Art is subjective, and so the question of why anything in the art world has value leads to divergent views. In this case I don't disagree with Darcy. He says kirikomi are a physical manifestation of the sword's history, and this is something that should be valued. I have no argument with this. I just don't think this is what the original poster was asking. I also don't think we can know whether a scratch in a sword was the result of a battle, or if it was the result of something else. I think we should be suspicious of cuts and scratches in swords. Our first reaction should be to discount the sword when we see these things. We shouldn't trust the sales pitch (or our internal bias) when it says, "these scratches are from a battle, and therefore the sword has a premium". 

 

Let me try to reduce the argument.

 

Kirikomi add mystique, and therefore they are valuable. ← This is a valid statement. It has a valid counter-argument. I don't think this is what the original poster was asking though. 

 

Rarity is objective. Mystique is in the eye of the beholder. Rarity can add value. Mystique can also add value, but you are taking a step away from objectivity, and are more into the realm of faith and salesmanship. The NBTHK and the Japanese sword dealers may well be impressed with the rarity of a sword, but they will never be impressed with mystique. Mystique is not a part of the evaluation process for the NBTHK. 

 

I think the discussion is a good one, though. Hopefully it is interesting to people. It has made me think hard about some difficult questions. I hope Jason doesn't think I'm picking on him for asking this question that has led to such a long discussion. It was a good question. And I like thinking about the past owners of my swords and their histories, so I'm not totally oblivious to the romance and mystique. I just think its better to quarantine those thoughts as much as possible when thinking about monetary valuations. 

 

 

And on this if you want to lead him away from the mystical aspect of it, then you probably kill the main reason we each have for owning swords. We want to be connected to these in Japanese history. We love the art form (others challenge it and we ignore them). We like to be connected to Japanese history. We like to think of these as having fulfilled their purpose. Evidence of them fulfilling their purpose should not knee jerk be taken as the opposite: That it never did anything and someone hit it with a screwdriver. That is a rabbit hole as mentioned above and you can go right down to saying prove to me this wasn't made yesterday. 

 

You can't if you throw away every faith based argument.

 

So no, don't go and put a bullet in the head of his romance. Encourage it. But he can't be LEAD by it. Adult you has to tell teenager you what he can and can't have. But Teenager you is the source of the, "But I want it because I love it."

 

Your approach to trying to use a simple yardstick to judge is a bad, bad one for ANYTHING. One mekugiana is good? Is two bad? Not really how old is it? Is three bad? OK I really need to know the age. This sword has more holes in the nakago than steel left. Ok, this one is probably bad.

 

If you want to ask dirt simple questions you can't get a dirt simple answer. 

 

Here's another:

 

This sword has chikei. Are Imore better? If I get more are more again better? Well the answer is to smack the guy on the head and say look at it. YOUR FRICKING EYES WILL TELL YOU IF IT HAS AN IDEAL AMOUNT OF CHIKEI BECAUSE YOU WILL GO "OH... BEAUTIFUL... AND SHED A TEAR."

 

We do not count chikei and put them in a spreadsheet as a form of rating a sword. But the use of chikei in the jihada is a case by case basis that demonstrates skill and good steel. 

 

Going back to kirikomi, yeah if a sword had three good chunks out of it and was of the age and time period in which it could be expected to have seen battle, the value goes up for me and for a lot of people I know. That's fine, you may be looking at Ko-Mihara and thinking the value is really high to you because they are "almost as good as Enju and Enju is almost as good as Rai." That's fine, opinions make a market. 

 

A grandmaster made blade that has battle damage on it most likely saw battle. Those battles survived is part of what gets a legendary swordmaker his legend. People don't go back to shop with you when your swords break dude. You go out of business fast. If your sword comes back with a kirikomi and the other guy's broke, you probably got more business from that customer. And this is one way a smith can become famous and make a lot of swords. We don't use them so we forget about their primary use sometimes. 

 

They didn't sit around for 600 years doing nothing and having guys hit them with screwdrivers to make fake damage. They were used. If they failed critically so did that smith. If they didn't fail critically, the smith went on to being someone. If they obtained other types of great features then he became recorded in history as someone special.

 

But that all comes back to a customer coming back to the shop with his sword covered in nicks and the swordsmith, shocked, says what happened, and the customer says, you should have seen the other guy. Make me another two or three of these.

 

My opinion. Form follows function. And I'll repeat lastly if a polisher thinks it's BS and he's a reliable guy he's going to try to remove it.

[Darcy]

 

Rarity is objective. Mystique is in the eye of the beholder. Rarity can add value. Mystique can also add value, but you are taking a step away from objectivity, and are more into the realm of faith and salesmanship. The NBTHK and the Japanese sword dealers may well be impressed with the rarity of a sword, but they will never be impressed with mystique. Mystique is not a part of the evaluation process for the NBTHK.

 

And this too is plain wrong. Where are you sourcing this from? 

 

When you attribute a sword to Sadamune, you have no other signed Sadamune to work with. You are working 100% on mystique. Same with Go. And yes a sword that took a beating does impress them. They mark it in the oshigata, they don't gloss it over like they would a kitae ware or another flaw. In fact, it is highlighted. That says that yes, it means something. Mentioned in the setsumei sometimes. Writers write about it. Yes it does matter.

 

Rarity is not objective. Rarity is a matter of counting something. If it is in the vast minority, it is rare. 100% objective. 

 

Mystique is in the eye of the beholder but if your eye is trained and indoctrinated you will see the same things. Benson liked Soshu. Kurokawa liked Soshu. I like Soshu. Is that an accident? No. Those guys infected me. I look at it now how they look at it. So yeah it's in the eye of the beholder but your teacher is going to infect your eye with the same virus he has. And you will not fall so far from the tree, if you learned anything at all. 

 

I think there is room to smack newbies in the head and say don't get carried away, but it shouldn't be beaten out of them. If you beat it out of them then all you see is fakery and scams and "prove to me this is really 500 years old" and "how do I know someone else just didn't copy that other blade really, really indistinguishably well." The answer to those is we can't and we don't. Muramasa was thought into the 1800s to be a Kamakura smith. Didn't stop his blades from being good. Some of the stuff you just accept.

 

But for me, a good sword with a good history of owners showing kirikomi is a real warrior come home. Not someone jacking with the sword. Because generally I want to believe that they're not all out there jacking with every sword every day. From what I see and know of these guys, drinking sake and making jokes is that yeah, everyone loves money, but all these people smart enough to make a business (which is a really, really hard business. My salary is 0 for 7 years now), is that they do it basically because they love it. For most of them. Always there is a bastard who breaks something up to sell it. But his point is that has something valuable and the customers are asswipes who whine about the cost of the koshirae if they want the blade and will buy the blade from someone else. And those that want the koshirae whine about the cost of the blade so buy a koshirae somewhere else. That guy snaps and breaks it up and sells it to the two guys and washes his hands of it, saying someone would do it sooner or later. 

 

I do my best to keep them together but it doesn't always work out that way for me either. Nobody with a heart in this wants to do it but some don't have a heart and will do it. But those guys I know who do it by reflex, they are not going to take a screwdriver to their Awataguchi Yoshimitsu and start bashing the hell out of it trying to create a kirikomi. And on a junk sword it's not worth the effort, it's junk before and junk after.

 

Just, don't kill people's dreams. Their dreams will be killed at a few sword shows when the guys on the tables get at them and make them "pay their dues." 

[Ken-Hawaii]

Darcy, that brings up an interesting question: If a Muromachi togishi who made battle-tested blades got one of his back for resharpening, would he have likely tried to remove the kirikomi? I would think so, if for no other reason than to ensure structural integrity.

 

But then I wonder that we see valid kirikomi at all these days.

 

Ken

 

[Surfson]

Here's one that didn't seem to lose too much value due to a huge sword strike!

http://www.nihonto.com/7.8.14.html

[Chango]

This has been a really interesting ongoing discussion; I never thought kirikomi could be such a deep subject!

 

The general "mistique vs clinical analysis" argument is especially interesting to me as it's a tough thing to balance out, especially for a newbie to Nihonto like me.

 

Perhaps the old saying: "leave an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" is applicable here...

 

Anyway, what I've learned here is that kirikomi generally doesn't make a good sword "bad" but it doesn't add anything (tangible anyway) either.

 

Also, kirikomi can't truly be traced back to actual battle damage unless the blade comes with a recorded history... and since most swords outside museums don't, it's really just a sliding scale of probability based on the era of the sword and nature of the damage.

 

Am I pointed in the right direction?

[seattle1]

Hello:

 Nice opinion exchange between Ken and Darcy. While the question of whether a Muromachi era togi-shi would or wouldn't remove a kirikomi "...to ensure structural integrity."  was directed to Darcy, I wonder about the premise of the point being made. Most kirikome found on a blade edge, if they don't grossly compromise the ha, one would expect to be removed to increase cutting efficiency if nothing else, however I suspect - but don't have the data to prove - that most kirikomi are actually found on blades that survive battle to be on the mune or the sides of the blade. In those cases I would guess that no stock reduction process would be used to remove them for isn't it an axiom of engineering that you do not strengthen a metal form by removing metal? If the togi-shi is constrained by such an understanding, of course the traces of kiri-komi are likely to be preserved.

 Arnold F.