Ko Uda Spectacular Example

[Surfson]

Although there is something to the swagger argument, I figure that not all of the fixation on sword length is libidinal.  Longer swords are harder to make without a flaw, I would presume, and therefore a perfect long sword is more of an achievement than a shorter one.  Also, on display, longer swords are more impressive and visible from a distance.  

[Marius]

@Surfson

 

Yes, part of it must be some kind of modern swashbuckling

 

I agree that a longer sword is harder to make, but do 6-8 cm make a big difference?

 

Besides, with osuriage swords, we can only estimate the original length of a shortened blade, so if we hold a 62 cm daito that we guess was originally 70 or 78 cm long, the effort and craftsmanship that went into this blade remains unchanged, we just can't see the part of the blade that has been cut off. 

 

Also, what do we make of tanto masterpieces? Are they somehow inferior to a daito? There were some makers who made no daito, or no daito made by them has been preserved. Will we dismiss an Awataguchi Yoshimitsu because his blades don't have a 70cm nagasa? 

[paulb]

 

Will we dismiss an Awataguchi Yoshimitsu?

If you do send them to me I will get rid of them for you

[Surfson]

All good points Marius.  I actually don't like to have swords over about 78cm as they are too heavy in the hand unless they are quite slender, and then.......

they are quite slender!  One of the kantei swords, #1 is 82 cm, and I bet it is a beast to hold up.  

[Jussi Ekholm]

There were good posts made there above.

 

I would also point out that there are not too many super long signed tachi left today by early Uda smiths. For the ??? I am unsure of the designation (but they are high cultural designations I believe) but as it is middle of the night and I have to get up to work really early I don't have time to spend on them tonight. I will read them later when I document swords from that book.

 

Tokubetsu Jūyō / Uda Kunimitsu / suriage 69,1 cm, sori 1,6 cm

Jūyō Bijutsuhin / Uda Kunifusa / suriage 64,2 cm , sori 1,8 cm

??? / Uda Kunifusa / suriage 71,8 cm, sori 2,1 cm

??? / Uda Kunifusa / suriage 63,9 cm, sori 2,1 cm

??? / Uda Kunifusa / ubu 88,2 cm, sori 3,2 cm

Jūyō Bijutsuhin / Uda Kunifusa / ubu 70,3 cm, sori 1,8 cm

Jūyō / Uda Kunimune / ubu 70,9 cm, sori 2,3 cm

 

So I think the sword discussed being 62,2 cm is no problem at all as it is very high quality. However given my own fascination of swords that are near ubu I do think bit critically about large suriage as I feel it alters the sword a lot. And given the choice between 65 cm ubu tachi and 85 cm ubu tachi I would go for the longer one as I do appreciate big early swords. But give me the choice between that 65 cm tachi and 77 suriage katana from same smith I'd rather go for the short tachi. People are just sometimes weird in things that they appreciate when they collect. For example I get really hyped when I see really wide (3,3 cm+ motohaba) and long 70 cm+ suriage Nanbokuchō swords that have little profile taper.

[Surfson]

I am reawakening this thread since my best sword in the TH shinsa papered to Uda Kunifusa, who is thought to have trained with Norishige and, as discussed above, is one of the two de facto founders of the Uda school.  As Jussi posted, these early Uda go juyo.  Jussi, can you please tell me how many Uda Kunifusa there are that are juyo and above?   I will be submitting this one for the next shinsa.  I don't recall exactly, but believe that it is about 70 cm or so and is osuriage.  It has a very nice bonji horimono and the nakago is very appealing with several ana, including one near the jiri.  

[Vermithrax16]

Would love to see that sword Robert! 

[Gakusee]

Bob, sounds exciting and well done for the great judgement. Would love to see it. 
by the way, not many people think that many ana are a good thing. Sometimes multiple ana might work against you 

[Vermithrax16]

Ray has an archived sword for that maker, spectacular work:

http://swordsofjapan.com/project/ko-uda-kunifusa-wakizashi/

[Ray Singer]

This sword in my collection is also attributed to the same smith. 

http://swordsofjapan.com/project/uda-kunifusa-tachi/

 

Ubu tachi measuring 2 shaku 6 sun 2 bu.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I have expanded my statistics on Kunifusa a bit since that last post of mine in this thread. So far I have 4 Jūyō Bijutsuhin - 3 tachi and 1 Tanto & 15 Jūyō for Kunifusa 6 Tachi, 1 Katana, 1 Wakizashi and 7 Tanto. Only one of these is mumei, a tachi of 78,6 cm. However there are lots of mumei swords at Jūyō level attributed to just Ko-Uda.

[Rivkin]

9 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I have expanded my statistics on Kunifusa a bit since that last post of mine in this thread. So far I have 4 Jūyō Bijutsuhin - 3 tachi and 1 Tanto & 15 Jūyō for Kunifusa 6 Tachi, 1 Katana, 1 Wakizashi and 7 Tanto. Only one of these is mumei, a tachi of 78,6 cm. However there are lots of mumei swords at Jūyō level attributed to just Ko-Uda.

 

Jussi, do you have statistics regarding which shinsa years those would be? I can understand Uda Kunifusa mumei daito making it to Juyo with reasonable frequency, but its not a too common attribution to begin with. 

Ko Uda going Juyo in a "modern" session is something I, maybe ignorantly so, would be cautious about. I don't feel like anything typical for 20s sessions applies today. But then again I don't have your experience of actually studying the sessions in detail.

[Gakusee]

Jussi, if I am not mistaken, almost most Uda Kunifisa recognised by the NBTHK or Bunka-cho are signed, hence there is little left to the imagination. 
 

Kiril, I have identified two mumei blades, one a Juyo from the early 1990s and the other one in the Kanto Hibisho but seemingly not a Juyo (yet?). Given that the latter is in volume 2, it must have been written about by Honma sensei also in the 1990s. So, we cannot speak of mumei Kunifusa going Juyo with any “reasonable frequency”. 
 

As to more generic, unnamed or unattributed, Ko-Uda, these are indeed rare lately but there was a 2018 Juyo blade ascribed only to Ko-Uda. In fact, in the last 30 years or so there seem to have been only around 10, or thereabouts, Juyo mumei Ko-Uda attributions by the NBTHK. I might be out by a couple items here and there but the broader point stands. Ko-Uda as attribution is not frequent in the recent times. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Yes I Michael is correct, I believe this is the only mumei tachi by Uda Kunifusa that is Jūyō 39: https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/V-1742.html However I must say just by looking at the available pictures I would personally prefer the one above that Ray has in his collection over this one. They seem to be quite similarish in shape & size.

 

I have info on 2 Tokubetsu Hozon katana with attribution to Uda Kunifusa and I believe Robert has one above too. And I have info on 2 mumei tanto but they are Hozon. But it seems mumei attributions to individual Uda smiths are quite rare and instead tend to go to Ko-Uda in general.

 

Gakusee is on point also how Ko-Uda passes have faded in recent times. There seem to be 1 Katana and 1 Wakizashi passing in session 51 and then big gap until a katana passed in session 64. Of course many generally thought "tough" sessions hit during that gap. So similar effect might have hit other schools as well.

[Rivkin]

Thanks!

I've never seen anything attributed to ko Uda as Juyo in real life, no wonder if they are so rare.

[Surfson]

It's very odd that there are 10 of them, but none recently.  I wonder if there were one or two Ko Uda lovers on the team that retired.  Otherwise, it's hard to imagine why they would just stop.  

[Ray Singer]

A few improved photos of the Kunifusa tachi ( which is still difficult to photograph well due to the old polish

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think I worded it out bit badly. There are about 10 mumei Ko-Uda Jūyō in fairly recent sessions. In total there are 50+ that have passed. There has been a fairly regular Ko-Uda pass(es) in sessions between 9 to 51. Of course the few very large sessions had the largest number of Uda passes in total. Session 23 being the largest of this school by numbers, 4 signed ones and 8 mumei passing in it, so 12 Uda works in that session.

[Surfson]

Wow, 50 passes is encouraging Jussi, with 10 of them being recent.   I haven't seen mine since Mishina San polished it, but I expect that it is quite beautiful and has tighter hada than the later Uda swords that we typically see.  Since it was kantei'd as Uda Kunifusa from Nambokucho, does that by definition put it in the Ko-Uda attribution?  

[Gakusee]

Bob, Shodai Kunifusa should be Ko-Uda, as the son of the Uda founder. Nidai Kunifusa is more towards Oei. 
What is certain is that Kunifusa is the top name in Uda. Therefore, an attribution to Uda Kunifusa means attribution to the top of that school. 

[Surfson]

That was my presumption Michael, especially since there are no known examples of the work of his father as I understand it.  It would be nice to finally find a sword in the weeds and have it go juyo!  

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here are the extra additions I've seen on Mumei tachi & katana attributed to Uda Kunifusa

 

Ray's tachi has: 時代南北朝末期乃至応永 - Late Nanbokuchō - Ōei

Jūyō tachi has: 時代南北朝 - Nanbokuchō

Tokubetsu Hozon katana with: 時代南北朝末期 - Late Nanbokuchō

Tokubetsu Hozon katana with: 時代南北朝末期 - Late Nanbokuchō

 

There are some items that are signed by Uda Kunimitsu and some mumei that are attributed to him (even 1 dated tanto to 1321 that is thought to be his work). However it might be difficult to define the generations. The most famous signed tachi is Jūyō 23 & Tokubetsu Jūyō 7, and it is written to be by 1st gen in TokuJū. You will find this tachi featured in many publications. I believe the signed tachi in Jūyō 22 might be 2nd gen and Nanbokuchō. There seem to be signed Jūyō tachi in sessions 34 & 45 and a mumei tachi in session 41 (that is attributed to 1st gen). but I haven't got more detailed info on them so far. There is also a tachi that is Toyama Prefecture Bunkazai but so far I have 0 info on it aside from designation and signature.

[Gakusee]

Thanks, Jussi, great sleuthing, as always. 
To summarise, apart from the founder Kunimitsu (who by definition should be Ko-), the shodai worked broadly around 1370-1390. So, notice that while his work period is described as Nanbokucho in the books, he might have forged swords in Oei (1394-1428) but we do not know. The midpoint of the shodai Kunifisa’s career is mentioned as Eitoku (1381-1384), which is Nambokucho. Very few blades are dated and the oldest dated is a tanto going back to 1389. The second oldest dated is a tanto with 1405 nengo (could be the nidai). 
 

The nidai is described as being firmly in the Oei era. There are swords signed and dated to 1445-1455 or thereabouts but I think these are described as ko-dai, later generations. 
 

Therefore, an attribution to the Nanbokucho period or early Oei is great. 

[Surfson]

Jussi and Michael, you guys are great.   We all benefit from your diligence!  By the way, Happy New Year to all.  Bob