Kazu-Uchi mono

[Jean]

I have read this statement on Aoi-Art website :

 

First the link : http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/katana/07557.html

 

Then statement :

 

"The blade was made Eisyo era which is not mass production sword."

 

Is this statement relevant or not?

 

When did start, thrive Kazu-uchi mono production during the warring states period? Tai-Ei?

 

Can we say that a Bishu Osafune mei with a nengo is a Kazu-uchi mono?

http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/katana/06222.html

Can we say that a Bishu Osafune mei + original hi is a Kazu-uchi mono?

Where do stand niji mei blades (taking into account that I have seen blades with nijimei Tokubetsu Hozon)?

Is there a typical length for a kazu-uchi mono?

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Hi Jean.

 

Sengokujidai is usually considered starting with the Onin war (1467), so quite before the date of this sword.

50 years are more then enough to start a mass-production effort (if it wasn't already in act for export) even in medieval

times, but I'm nothing to correct Aoi-art.

Just saying that historically speaking that sword was produced well into the period is ascribed

to. Likely there weren't (yet) the gigantic armies that required so many Kazuuchimono as in the end of

Sengokujidai, and possibly this is what they mean here.

This could lead us in searching for "level of quality" among kazuuchimono, and possibly earlier ones

were, generally speaking and with exceptions, still better then later ones when they were cranked out in the ten of thousand.

[Stephen V]

Hello Jean

 

This is a subject that I have been following with interest lately as well.

 

Mainly because my only nihonto also happens to be a Eikyo Bizen o-wakizashi.

 

Am I to correctly understand that my blade which is signed Bishu Osafune Norimitsu (a style of signature that would usually equate to lesser quality as pointed out in this and other threads on this subject) dated 1465 with both bo-hi and so-hi, sufficiently predates the 1467 disturbances to be more likely to be of a better quality of workmanship in general than later Kazuuchimono blades despite the form of the signature?

 

Hope this is not too far off the subject.

[Paul Martin]

Could anyone point me in the direction of the original Japanese sources for the claim that all swords signed Bishu are kazu-uchi mono please?

[Ichi]

Hi Paul,

 

Maybe we've been reading repetitious quotes from Aoi Arts' bishu... sword description. Here's one from Darcy's reference archive on Yosozaemono jo Sukesada:

"The setting is Japan, in Bizen province. The time-frame is near the end of the Muromachi period. The country has been at war for decades, and will be at war for decades to come. The great artistry of the past, which began to decline in the Nanbokucho period, was on a continuing downward spiral. The seemingly endless war had sapped finances and desires for artistic and showy weapons. Instead, the rule of the day was for simple, quickly made, and almost disposable utilitarian weapons. Groups of smiths were working as teams in a near assembly line effort to crank out cheap weapons quickly in order to meet demand. Thus, in the haste of producing swords cheaply, and quickly as the Muromachi period unfolded, the old skills that made the finest swords in the past were lost. "

[Jean]

Hi Stephen,

 

Don't worry, it is not kazu-uchi mono as to implement a mass production, it takes some times. The phenomenom has been slowly increasing along the years and I entirely agree with Carlo' post.

 

dated 1465 with both bo-hi and so-hi

 

My friend,IMHO, Your blade being dated and having original hi you have no problem at all.

 

In fact, I think that Hi are very time consuming and are not in line with kazu-uchi mono blades concepts. Furthermore your blade is dated which was current with Eiko Bizen blades (I have a Bishu Osafune Yoshimitsu wak dated 1455).

 

Paul,

 

As I am at work, I cannot search in my documentation, but have a look at the Nihonto Koza Sue Bizen (Only 2 pages for this period ... before describing some lineage (Sukesada, Kiyomitsu, Tadamitsu..)

 

"the claim that all swords signed Bishu are kazu-uchi mono"

 

Paul, that is a very big shortcut, we are only talking of Warring states blades beginning with "Bishu Osafune ..."

 

My list of questions is longer :

 

"Can we say that a Bishu Osafune mei with a nengo is a Kazu-uchi mono?

http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/katana/06222.html

Can we say that a Bishu Osafune mei + original hi is a Kazu-uchi mono?

Where do stand niji mei blades (taking into account that I have seen blades with nijimei Tokubetsu Hozon)?

Is there a typical length for a kazu-uchi mono?"

 

 

Not all blades beginning by "Bisho Osafune ..." in this period were Kazu-uchi mono because one of them is Juyo but Nihontai is always full of exceptions, but most of them were.

 

As so far, I have no answers to my question list on "Bishu Osafune " blades :

 

Why inscribe a nengo on a kazu-uchi mono blade?

Why bother to carve a hi on a kazu-uchi mono blade?

 

Kazu-uchi mono have probably varied in length following the trend

 

I am sure some NMB members must have the answers in their documentation (Japanese sources)

http://www.touken.or.jp/english/nihon_koto_shi/(41)%20No.596.htm

http://www.hayashibara-museumofart.jp/m ... 0Bizen.pdf

http://www.nihonto.com/9.2.07.html

[Jean]

In fact, If I have quoted Aoi Art, it is because It was handy

 

Nihonto.com, comments from Fred :

 

http://www.nihonto.com/7.1.07.html

http://www.nihonto.com/9.2.07.html

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Am I to correctly understand that my blade which is signed Bishu Osafune Norimitsu (a style of signature that would usually equate to lesser quality as pointed out in this and other threads on this subject) dated 1465 with both bo-hi and so-hi, sufficiently predates the 1467 disturbances to be more likely to be of a better quality of workmanship in general than later Kazuuchimono blades despite the form of the signature?

 

Guess an in-hand judgment is still more important then date and details.

[Jacques D.]

hi,

 

According Malcolm E cox and Motohide Shimano there were several levels of quality.

 

Considering the different types of blades produced the quality of Sue-Bizen works can be broadly divided into three groups:

 

1. Highest quality

(a) custom-made to an order and verified by owner's name as well as smith's name

(b) dedicated to a shrine and verified by donor's name as well as smith's name

© blade with qualily carving( horimono)

(d) smith's personal name( zokumei) on nakago.

 

2. Average or common quality

-ready-made blades with date (nenki)

-often have a longer mei

-some good quality blades also in this type.

 

3. Non-art or poor quality

-kazu uchi mono made as weapons

-often shorter mei

-usually not dated.

 

Concerning the sugata, the kazu-uchi mono nagasa is mostly 65-70 cm and are slimmer in the upper part.

[Guido]

There are very clear rules in regard to the time of production, Kanji used in the Mei, dating, horimono, length and so on that determine whether or not a sword is a Kazuuchimono. And if there aren't, there should be, preferably a law or something like that. And now it's our duty to chisel those rules in stone. Never - I repeat: *never!* - try to judge the blade itself, it will only confuse you (and think about all the wasted time that it takes to study what makes a sword a "good" or "bad" sword. Pffft. ).

[Brian]

Guido..

 

I thought you killed that evil twin of yours? :D

 

Ok..ok, point noted. lol. Good to have you to bring us back down to earth when we need it.

No rules can substitute for hands on and educated examination.

 

Gotta admit though..if there are some characteristics that are more common traits in certain swords, it is handy to know them so that you can start with some advance knowledge.

Also handy when we see those out of polish, delapidated and rusted blades that we are taught to avoid but never do Sometimes the quality or lack of it is not immediately apparent.

But your point is a good one and noted

 

Brian

[Guido]

I'm not sure anymore. Maybe I only *think* I killed him. Look at Freddy Krueger, Jason, and all the other guys: you think they're done for good, and before long there's a sequel. Think "Guido III".

[Paul Martin]

I just come across this and thought about this thread. It is from Katana no Kansho by Nakahara Nobuo

*.....*

Loosely translated,

To call swords that begin with Bizen Kuni Osafune Ju chumon-uchi, and swords that begin with Bishu Osafune kazu-uchi mono has absolutely no basis and is nonsense.

Best

[Jean]

Hi Paul, I am very surprised by this sentence :

 

To call swords that begin with Bizen Kuni Osafune Ju chumon-uchi

 

No it is called Gimei, the syntax according Honma Junji (and all examples I have seen on papered swords) is "Bizen Kuni Ju Osafune ...."

 

There may be exceptions but Honma Junji has never encountered one ...

 

There was a topic about this and "Bishu Osafune...." mei

 

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2531

[Paul Martin]

I was just testing to make sure you were taking notice :D

 

If you read the original Japanese I posted, it reads correctly ( I did say it was a loose translation :D )

 

Also, Chumon uchi was a relatively unknown smith, often called Chu by his good friends.

 

Best

[Jean]

Naughty Paul

[Guest reinhard]

For all the newbies, who might got confused by this thread: A signature reading "Bishu Osafune + name" without nengo is not necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact many great blades were signed like this in Bizen during the KoTo-period. First you have to track down the period of making and see the quality on the basis of the sword itself BEFORE analyzing mei. Our french friends have a tendency to get lost in academic details and at the same time loose the general overview (no offence).

Following rules like the ones mentionned above, you might miss a sword like the one below (a Juyo bunkazai, without nengo BTW).

 

reinhard

 

old joke, most of you probably know it: A westerner leaves Shinsa with a bunch of swords. Gleaming with joy he shouts: You won't believe this: They're all by the same smith. His name is GIMEI !!!

[Jean]

My dear Reinhard,

 

Just to remind you that if you read carefully the posts, I have always been referring to Sengoku Jidai. The topic is Kazu uchi mono.

 

I have already mentionned that even during Sengoku Jidai, blades should be judged "in hands", one "Bishu Osafune ..." being Juyo.

 

Our french friends have a tendency to get lost in academic details and at the same time loose the general overview

 

I am too old to be academic, in fact I am considered as being very pragmatic which is a good thing in my Job (no subprime in my portfolio)

 

To be clear, being very pragmatic, I seldom bet and if I bet it is only for a

never for money, it is too hard to earn/spare.

 

That is the reason why, I stay clear from e-bay, I buy only from reputable dealers when I can afford it.

Ex: My last purchase is a sue Muromachi Mino tanto not even papered, but instead of waiting for Shinsa (which it would have passed easily but would have prevent me to get it quickly), I asked if it was possible to have Tanobe sensei write a sayagakii, who has accepted.

 

That is what pragmatism is all about

[Guest reinhard]

 

Just to remind you that if you read carefully the posts, I have always been referring to Sengoku Jidai. The topic is Kazu uchi mono.

 

 

My dear comforumite de France,

 

Unfortunately the Kazu-uchi mono are not declared as such, which is somewhat misleading and should be prosecuted. Instead we have to focus on the blade's qualities. Not having the sword at hand, we can build up ("academic") criteria we can apply instantly, like the "Bishu Osafune..."-thing. Unfortunately again, these criteria don't work properly. What do we do now?

 

There are more than one Juyo-Token between 1470 and late 16th century with the "Bishu Osafune + name"- mei on them (without further specifications except a nengo on the sashi-ura) and many more genuine blades of good quality with lesser papers. As Paul said: This rule is nonsense, even for Sue-Bizen swords, Kazu-uchi mono, whatever. One last (minor) point: Bo-hi differ strongly in quality and can be an indication for overall quality. You do not waste time and money on a skillful engraver to carve a good Bo-hi on a poor sword. On the other hand, it is no big deal to carve a poor Bo-hi for whatever reason.

 

reinhard

[Jean]

My dear Reinhard,

 

Unfortunately the Kazu-uchi mono are not declared as such, which is somewhat misleading and should be prosecuted. Instead we have to focus on the blade's qualities. Not having the sword at hand, we can build up ("academic") criteria we can apply instantly, like the "Bishu Osafune..."-thing. Unfortunately again, these criteria don't work properly. What do we do now?

 

I entirely agree with you and if you read carefully the post you will see that is the conclusion

 

There are more than one Juyo-Token between 1470 and late 16th century with the "Bishu Osafune + name"- mei on them (without further specifications except a nengo on the I am not referringsashi-ura)

I entirely agree (though I'd like you to list the number) but there are lot of kazu uchi mono with nengo begining with Bishu Osafune so that does not prove anything.

 

So statisticaly speaking, there are probably more poor blades beginning by Bishu Osafune than Juyo.

 

and many more genuine blades of good quality with lesser papers

 

Definitely right and definitely out of topic.

 

One last (minor) point: Bo-hi differ strongly in quality and can be an indication for overall quality. You do not waste time and money on a skillful engraver to carve a good Bo-hi on a poor sword. On the other hand, it is no big deal to carve a poor Bo-hi for whatever reason.

 

Sue Bizen blades have (there are always exception) a distinctive bohi (which I was referring to) :

 

http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/katana/06222.html

 

I don't know if you have already discussed with a polisher the time it takes to make such a bohi. I have and I doubt that in wartime people will have time to waste to carve one.

 

What is the topic about and I fear you have missed the point which was intended for beginners:

 

Be very carefull concerning mei, there are no rules but you definitely won't find a Juyo on e-bay. By the way, concerning the mei "Bizen kuni ju Osafune .." it is still shoshin... :D :D :D

[Brian]

From my own personal point of view...

Swords should be judged on their own merits, looking at all the attributes we are taught to look for to judge a good blade. However not all blades come in good condition. Sometimes we see old blades in Gunto mounts with blades rusty or dark. Sometimes we come across a blade in a shop that doesn't show hataraki, hada or hamon. Not all blades are found in perfect polish. Some won't buy them in that condition, but it is not for us to say that all blades not in polish should be written off or left to die a slow death.

So in these cases, guidelines (I call them that, not rules) are always helpful.

Yes, there are always exceptions and will always be. But we need guidelines to assist us to get to the point where we can make a better judgement.

With tsuba there are pointers that lead to a certain school. Not rules...but they help. Sometimes it is not as it seems and goes to another school. The same with swords.

Nothing wrong with having guidelines, just as long as we recognise them as such, and not rules.

I for one appreciate these things to look out for.

 

Brian

[Guest reinhard]

Once more a thread is slowly drifting into the arena of the unwell and I can literally see Brian getting uncomfortable. I suggest we close this "theatre of the absurd" right here.

 

reinhard