Would One Call A Nagamaki A Special Order Item?

[Jacques D.]

Interesting, naginata naoshi tsukuri and ubu nakago

 

http://www.tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/f00199.html

[seattle1]

Hello:

 Does it appear to be "ubu"?

 Arnold F.

[Markus]

The description box in the link should be left out as it's a "copy and paste" error (referring to shinogi-zukuri, chu-kissaki, a ko-notare hamon, a sugu boshi, and bohi on both sides). The actual juyo paper, which is not linked, says o-suriage.

[Guido]

The description box in the link should be left out as it's a "copy and paste" error (referring to shinogi-zukuri, chu-kissaki, a ko-notare hamon, a sugu boshi, and bohi on both sides). The actual juyo paper, which is not linked, says o-suriage.

[Ray Singer]

Jacques, note how the hamon runs across the sabigiwa and into the nakago. Also, look at the freshness of the yasurimei for a sword which dates to mid Kamakura. 

 

 

Interesting, naginata naoshi tsukuri and ubu nakago

 

http://www.tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/f00199.html

[nagamaki - Franco]

According to Mr. Tanobe a refinished nakago on an old sword means that the o-suriage had been done in the Koto period. This nakago jiri being kiri on the linked sword leaves me thinking that perhaps it was shortened later. Below is another Bizen Kamakura naginata naoshi nakago with a refinished nakago jri.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by nagamaki

[Daso]

As a side note, How does one go about seeing if Mr. Tanobe will review and do a sayagaki on sword?  (please excuse any errors in the way I've proposed my question). Also, In looking at some of these example, it only further makes me feel that the (without fueling further debate) Nagamaki or Naginata that I presented was not heavily modified.  Also a few points I believe have some posters confused by photos.  The Bohi groove on the Ura side is not square on one end and round on the other, the Ura side starts with a wide round Bohi groove and tapers to a maller round grrove with an upwards swoop at the Kissaki. The opposite side has the standard Naginata square end with downwards point.  One other final point that a friend brought up in looking at the sword that no one has mentioned and I am curious.  The Mekugi-ana is on the bottom of the nakago, no second hole was added closer to the Mune-machi.  Would one have still mounted this as wakizashi with the peg on the bottom of smallerTsuka or possibly still an elongated tsuka more similar to a naginata since it was still cut down? or is that unlikely.

[Ray Singer]

There are individuals such as Mike Yamasaki (tetsugendo.com) and Bob Benson (togishi.com) who can handle the process of bringing your sword to Tanobe-sensei for a sayagaki.

 

As a side note, How does one go about seeing if Mr. Tanobe will review and do a sayagaki on sword?

[Daso]

There are individuals such as Mike Yamasaki (tetsugendo.com) and Bob Benson (togishi.com) who can handle the process of bringing your sword to Tanobe-sensei for a sayagaki.

Ray,  Thank you.

[Jacques D.]

Another one which is intructive...

 

http://www.nihonto.ca/saburo-kunimune/

[Guido]

Forever stuck at stage 3 of the Kübler-Ross model ...

[Ray Singer]

Jacques, if you would like to continue the discussion about why you believe the Katayama Ichimonji is ubu please do so here rather that sending me private messages. I stand by my earlier comment that the evidence shows that the nakago has been modified and is not what you would expect to see from an ubu mid-Kamakura nakago. If you look at the oshigata, the lowest part of the hamon shown is a continuation of the same saka-choji, and not what you would see from a hamon that ends naturally at the hamachi. In their photo it also appears that there is some continuation of the hamon into the nakago, even if it is not as clear as what is above the hamachi. I am not referring to the hadori work. When a sword is made suriage, heat is applied to soften the hamon and make the process easier. If I am seeing correctly, it appears that there is a trace of the hamon below what is shown in the oshigata. I have attached an image with the levels adjusted.

[Ray Singer]

Jacques, in response to your private message the nakago would have been reduced for the same reason that most of these earlier naginata we see were modified. They were adjusted to be used as daito or wakizashi.

[nagamaki - Franco]

Greetings,

 

If one learns nothing else when it comes to nihonto one should become fully aware that making blanket statements is risky business. To say or believe that modified naginata kissaki equals no boshi turn back is simply not always the case. Each sword needs to be assessed individually. Further, how many unaltered or for that matter altered pieces has one looked at and studied by the same smith or similar and from the same time period? And from the perspective of an expert to help guide and understand what one doesn't know or understand?

[nagamaki - Franco]

Forever stuck at stage 3 of the Kübler-Ross model ...

 

We each make up our own reality to a certain extent, some more than others.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I wonder how the blade feels in hand because of the offset of differing sides. I believe the long hi on one side is compensating the weight reduction on the other side. Would be very nice to get a feel on how your sword feels in hand. Of course it's not too big factor when considering artistic merits or quality of worksmanship of the sword but for me it is important how the sword feels in my hand.

[Daso]

I wonder how the blade feels in hand because of the offset of differing sides. I believe the long hi on one side is compensating the weight reduction on the other side. Would be very nice to get a feel on how your sword feels in hand. Of course it's not too big factor when considering artistic merits or quality of worksmanship of the sword but for me it is important how the sword feels in my hand.

 

Jussi,  This conversation has gone so far beyond my blade, I'm not sure if you are referring to my original post and blade.  If so, what I can say is that the sword has an incredible amount of heft, especially for its length of 22". It outweighs my Kiyomitsu Katana at 27".  That being said, it feels extremely balanced with no odd weight to one side.  Heavy and neutral would be how I describe it.  I also think the heft of the blade plays into that feeling of balance.When I pulled it out of the shipping box originally and just felt the weight in its shirasaya my first fear was that it was going to feel unwieldy, I was happy to be wrong.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Yes I was referring to your sword as the thread was mainly about it. The one problem that converted polearm will have to go through is re-establishing blade design. Creating proper feel & balance to the new form

 

Now when Kunisuke made this in the beginning as a naginata he created this as a polearm and geared proper blade design for it. Shaped and sized it so it would function and feel as it should when used as a weapon it was originally designed.

 

The problem begins when you cut off a lot of the tang yet the blade remains the same size. This will completely change the dynamics of the weapon. Therefore you need to compensate this as much as you can with naoshi. You create new harmonics for this newly established weapon. Altering a sword will always change the dynamics of the sword, sometimes more sometimes less.

 

Of course back in the day they did the best they could to remodel polearms to be used as swords. They knew how they needed to adjust the weapon to make it more wieldy in it's new use. However they had to face the limitations sometimes.

 

*EDIT* used a bit wrong term as it's 1.40 so I had to correct a bit

[Daso]

Yes I was referring to your sword as the thread was mainly about it. The one problem that converted polearm will have to go through is re-establishing blade design. Creating proper feel & balance to the new form

 

Now when Kunisuke made this in the beginning as a naginata he created this as a polearm and geared proper blade design for it. Shaped and sized it so it would function and feel as it should when used as a weapon it was originally designed.

 

The problem begins when you cut off a lot of the tang yet the blade remains the same size. This will completely change the dynamics of the weapon. Therefore you need to compensate this as much as you can with naoshi. You create new harmonics for this newly established weapon. Altering a sword will always change the dynamics of the sword, sometimes more sometimes less.

 

Of course back in the day they did the best they could to remodel polearms to be used as swords. They knew how they needed to adjust the weapon to make it more wieldy in it's new use. However they had to face the limitations sometimes.

 

*EDIT* used a bit wrong term as it's 1.40 so I had to correct a bit

 

Jussi,

 

I absolutely understand and taking into consideration (Based solely on a in hands feel) I feel that Kunisuke must have taken this into some consideration when designing it as a pole arm as it has converted so nicely into a sword (at least in this modern age). When you hold the sword, you will understand what I am trying to explain.  I am by no means a warrior type (I'll leave that to the comic-con people, but I highly respect those that take the study or swordplay seriously, please do not confuse my statement)  and might have swung my Katanas once or twice (pure fantasy) to imagine what the mechanics of swinging these blades are like.  I actually am signing up for a Kendo class for fun and the learning experience.  What I can tell by feel is that my Katanas are nimbler swords, but holding and looking at this blade in person, most would not look at it and automatically assume it was a polearm.  It holds well as a Wakizashi and although I was scolded by a board member for my liberal use of the words "designed for a brutal attack" Historically, broadswords in medieval times (I collect as well) were not nimble things, they took more force and did more damage upon impact with much longer recovery.  In a much lesser version of this Idea, this wakizashi (or Nagamaki, or modified naginatao naoshi)  is still a balanced and easy sword to hold and swing, but it is more of a one handed affair and I would anticipate that it was intended to go through armor or leather with more force behind it.  I'm not a swordplay expert and far from the experience that people have here but i am learning quickly and this piece is really quite a pleasure to hold, look at and handle.  Again, the one big curiosity one off my good acquaintances on this board brought up was the mekugi-ana position.  I have not seen one in its original position as this is and either it was mounted on a very long tsuka when shortened or with the peg at the bottom which I ask the NMB members , would that be odd or not that odd?  At the end of the day, I feel  that it still has a sword dynamic although the length of tsuka it had originally been mounted in would play heavily into how it was used. Regards, Darius

[nagamaki - Franco]

Jussi,

 

I absolutely understand and taking into consideration (Based solely on a in hands feel) I feel that Kunisuke must have taken this into some consideration when designing it as a pole arm as it has converted so nicely into a sword (at least in this modern age)..................... . In a much lesser version of this Idea, this wakizashi (or Nagamaki, or modified naginatao naoshi)  is still a balanced and easy sword to hold and swing, Regards, Darius

 

Darius, pardonnez-moi s'il vous plaît but when you say "some consideration", do you think the blade length and the naginata hi and bo hi vs tang length were all simply for show, by chance, or guess work? Have you stopped to consider that due to the significant modifications that the original bo hi might have been adjusted to further counter balance the weight shift in regards to the new design as well as fighting style? The tip, too? 

And, Darius, perhaps you should go back and re-read this thread from the beginning again as you seem confused as to exactly what it is that you have when you say "this wakizashi (or Nagamaki, or modified naginatao naoshi)," which I thought was clearly explained.

[Daso]

Franco, you make me laugh (in a good way) Thank you. For your tenacious thoughts. You remind of a teacher I had at the Lycee Francaise NY. I still mean in general design and shape. I have no problem believing some changes were made to it, may not as much as you. I'm holding the sword in hand, am I not? So give me some advantage in perspective for that alone.

[Darcy]

I'll insert my two bits (8 bits, byte?)

 

1. Nagamaki is a koshirae classification, not a blade classification. This is stated by Sato Kanzan and as well it is backed up by NBTHK papering practice. You have a similar thing with tachi, people want to call an old blade a tachi even if it is suriage mumei and it is no longer a tachi once it is made suriage mumei. But, if you put it into tachi koshirae now you have a tachi again. If you have enough nakago left that it is super close to original, you can call it a tachi, or if it retains its mei. But tachi refers to the style of wearing it, and the condition of the blade makes implications to how it's supposed to be worn. So, this is not a nagamaki. Similarly too daisho is a koshirae classification, the blades by themselves will not be considered daisho-token without the koshirae unless it's absolutely certain they were made as a matched pair, but if you match any old swords with proper koshirae you have a daisho. By themselves they are very, very rare (daisho token) and the NBTHK only designated 26 as Juyo and one as Tokubetsu Juyo (free beer for an evening at DTI to the first person to guess who made it).

 

2. The blade then that goes in a nagamaki is a naginata. The blade is not a nagamaki. Since there seems to be a remarkable difference in the shape of the blade that has gone into each, it becomes a confusing topic because we want to give it a special name. For a topic that has a couple thousand terms for micro-observations it's surprising that this is something that is glossed over. But in the end neither naginata nor nagamaki, especially ubu ones, are all that common in what has been left to us. One thing to bear in mind though is that there are old Kamakura period blades that are difficult to classify as being intended for one use or another. When we see something like the one here with a yokote the gut instinct is nagamaki and you see something like the Tadayoshi naginata on my site and it's clearly naginata.... but this is Edo period stuff and doesn't cover the whole history of naginata. A lot of which was lost. So in their refusal to make a clean distinction other than by pointing at what is very obvious (koshirae) there may be some wisdom, because those old examples that do exist but that we rarely see, are a classification issue. The Kunimune on my site is ubu in the kissaki and suriage in the nakago. it's not 100% clear what that blade would have been set up to be used as. It could have been in nagamaki koshirae (there are similar ubu blades that are Jubi and in nagamaki koshirae) so it would have been a nagamaki. If we want to look at the "sword like" upper and use that, we could say it has no yokote so it's not a nagamaki, but that then is backwards from the classification ("long wrapped handle") and what it means. So, my feeling is just that in the end you had polearms and you could mount them how you wanted to use it and probably there was some utility in making a blade that you could mount longer or shorter. Then your product can sell to two different customers with two different needs. From the swordsmiths' perspective then... it makes no sense to  *always* have a clear cut boundary between one or the other. And it seems that differentiation is something that may start in the Nanbokucho period. Modern naginata fighting also seems to be set up more as we would imagine nagamaki fighting, which further blurs any rationale between separating them based on whether the upper is "sword like" or not. If you put a sword like thing on a super long pole for keeping cavalry at bay it's going to be used for a purpose that is different from a flared head on a long tsuka meant for hand to hand combat. What the user prefers is probably what the user prefers rather than you must have one vs. the other if you're going to do this. 

 

3. The NBTHK never used "Nagamaki" on any Juyo blade. They have on koshirae. Three times. The commonality in these is that the tsuka is shorter length than the nagasa of the blade. However this has happened on koshirae classified as naginata koshirae. More would pass if they existed probably. There are a lot more Edo naginata koshirae than nagamaki koshirae from all periods. Does this tell us something? Probably. Maybe. Another side note is that the oldest nagamaki style koshirae have no wrap. Nor do many old tachi koshirae. No same, no wrap. So it tells us something, that nagamaki is a term that comes about long *after* the invention of this type of polearm mounting. This is another strike against using the term to describe the blades. 

 

My opinion: consider nagamaki to be a style of koshirae and if anything, informally, consider the blades a proper subset of naginata. 

 

4. Naginata Naoshi: Jacques is kind of right in my opinion but he's technically wrong (the worst kind of wrong). Naginata-naoshi does not mean the tip has been modified. If you take a naginata and make it suriage, it would seem to logically follow that what you have is a "suriage naginata" but that would still be a polearm. If you cut 10cm off of a 60cm nakago, what do you have? Suriage naginata. Still goes in a pole. If it has been converted to katana use, now you have a naginata-naoshi katana. The term is not complete without the thing it's been converted to. In this case the papers say naginata-naoshi wakizashi. If it were longer it would be a naginata-naoshi katana. These classifications remember are based on intended use of the blade as it is. Like tachi becoming katana if you have nothing left on it that indicates it was to be used, now, as a katana. This is a naginata converted to wakzashi use: naginata-naoshi wakizashi.  This says nothing about the boshi whatsoever. It may be original, or not. Similarly a katana is a katana regardless of modifications to the kissaki. All we care about is that the boshi is not interrupted. 

 

5. The NBTHK where they have been lax is in documenting the naginata-naoshi-ness of a blade, not the nagamaki/naginata divide. On that they have been clear, though I can't speak for lesser papers. Just 13,000 Juyo papers. The laxness then is in that a blade will be sometimes described as a katana and it is a naginata-naoshi katana. The intent is not clear: changes in attribution style over the years, or uncertainty that it was made like this or not. I think personally having looked at this stuff time and again is that it is just changing attribution style over the years. Mid 70s they would be more likely to just call this a wakizashi and today it would always be a naginata-naoshi wakizashi. 

 

6. I tend to think the boshi is OK and this is how it was made -however- Franco is speaking from I think a general sense that an Edo period naginata is going to be about this size with a flared head, and something in this shape is kind of an oddball if this is the original length. It doesn't quite fit the model for sitting on the end of a long pole nor in a nagamaki koshirae. That doesn't mean this is not legit ubu kissaki, just saying I sense the roots of his disquiet. 

 

7. I can't speak to naga-gatana directly but sounds to me like a typical Japanese contraction (Juyo Bijutusuhin mouthful becomes Ju-bi, Tokubetsu Juyo mouthful becomes Toku-ju, Naginata-naoshi katana mouthful becomes naga-gatana, much easier to say... I am just guessing though).

 

8. Always keep in mind that a lot of this stuff is a moving target. When we refer to old books or references you need to teleport back in time to whatever was the convention at that time when that thing was documented. When looking at Juyo Bijutsuhin they will commonly call blades tanto though they are in the 30-35cm range. These would all be called wakizashi currently *though* there have been exceptions to that (again depending on who was piloting the ship at the time). I'm just  pointing out that conventions change and people will stray from trying to conform to something that is a logical, objective standard, like a wakizashi is between 30 and 60cm (or, 30.3 and 60.6cm), period, and we need to be blind as to what we're seeing... because nobody can argue about the length and we want to have objective classifications. That is one side of the argument, and the other side of the argument, is, "Please don't tell me that this blade at 29.9cm is a tanto, and this one at 30.1cm made within 5 years of the other is a completely different classification as a wakizashi." So you need to keep the dualities in mind whenever you're looking at what is written and reported. If you get locked into the paper or the page in the book or Dr. so-and-so said this so it applies to everything through all time then you blow yourself up. As a side note people in the west like to call 30cm ko-wakizashi "sunnobi tanto" and that actually means tanto that are more than 0.85 sun. So to be consistent if you like to use that term, it applies if the length of the tanto is more than 25.6 cm. After you hit 30 now it's up to you if you want to go old school or new school. 

 

For what it's worth I think overall naginata/nagamaki are very under appreciated. They are rare and interesting. And if you watch the videos of Japanese female naginata masters going up against Japanese male kendo masters you can get a lot of appreciation for how scary they could be. They are just a lot less convenient to carry around. But every bit as good as a sword in a fight (if not better).

 

...

 

One addendum there are bare blades presented as Juyo Bunkazai classified as Nagamaki. These are also massive (93cm - 95cm cutting edges), Katayama Ichimonji. It may be that the length of the blade completely rules out dangling it at the end of a long pole so they classified it like this. Also sometimes these things have koshirae and are not presented in the photos so it's not clear why the inconsistency. But this is not an NBTHK call. There may be more than these two I saw.  AND they are not sword-like in the upper but they are identical to the Kunimune on my site. 

 

[Daso]

Darcy, thank you for your in depth perspective on the topic. I understand now more than ever that the category leaves one with many options of what might have been done or ways the blade might have been intended to be mounted or used. I really wish I had a few to compare in hand. I do have to say that had I not taken the chance obtaining this one, I could have never known how much I actually appreciate the form.

[Guido]

By themselves they are very, very rare (daisho token) and the NBTHK only designated 26 as Juyo and one as Tokubetsu Juyo (free beer for an evening at DTI to the first person to guess who made it).

 

I accept

I think we both saw it at the DTI special exhibition room: Kiyomaro,

[Darcy]

Damn too easy. Well beer is owed!

 

As a followup, I kept reading yesterday after posting. A few more data points on super big naginata for what it's worth to round out my post:

 

Omia Morikage: 130cm, Juyo (also Juyo Bunkazai) and seems to have been through a fire and seems to have no hamon whatsoever. Juyo Bunkazai calls it an O-NAGINATA. NBTHK calls it a NAGINATA. Flared head type but at the end of a reallllly long blade. End Nanbokucho. Illustrates an exception 

 

Kanabo Masatsugu: 100.4cm, seems to be "sword like" upper with yokote. End Muromachi. Naginata.

 

Shikkake: 83.1cm, slight flare but hard to tell since it's so big and so little can fit into the oshigata. Kamakura/Nanbokucho boundary. NAGINATA.

 

Kanabo Masatsugu: 95.8cm, "sword like" upper again with yokote. End Muromachi. Has the koshirae still and appears to be nagamaki with no wrap. NBTHK calls this a NAGINATA and calls the koshirae NAGAMAKI.

 

There is a set of three Juyo Bijutsuhin photographed together, one of which is attributed to Mitsutada and is the same style again as the Kunimune. It is in nagamaki style koshirae with no wrap on the handle. It's 92cm. Tsuba is about right at the  50% mark. The other two with this are smaller, about 70 and 60, and one is Ichimonji, need to find the other. No koshirae on the others. This is listed as NAGINATA but fits the equipment pattern of the nagamaki layout. All three Kamakura.

 

Hojoji: 80.6cm and Juyo Bunkazai. Deeply curved head, listed as O-NAGINATA. Nanbokucho.

 

Morimitsu: 107.4cm, Juyo Bunkazai, beginning of Muromachi and O-NAGINATA again. The nakago is longer than the blade so this whole thing is about 2.3 meters. 

 

Aoe Ietsugu: 116cm, Juyo Bunkazai, Nanbokucho, O-NAGINATA. It's hard to tell but this one looks like it is getting close to 3 meters. 

 

The two Katayama Ichimonji mentioned at the end of my last post are laid out basically the same, maybe a bit more flare and curve in the top, as the Mitsutada  and Kunimune except at Juyo Bunkazai they are called NAGAMAKI as mentioned above. It seems the Jubun departed with some of these terms from Jubi and NBTHK. As a side note these two are rusted out. 

 

It's not clear with the super big ones if they are ever intended for use or were shrine donation types of things.