Promising wakizashi

[Karusk]

Is the area there in the bottom photo on the flat part rough? Or is it a reflection? Hard to tell. 

[Karusk]

Yeah sorry i cant help you in the signature. They will all probably suggest gimei (forgery) due to it being a retemper. 

[Janrudolph]

Yep, they're all reflections. Johan.

[Bazza]

Gents,

 

If the hamon is intact and true to the cutting edge before the hamachi this isn't necessarily a sign of a retemper.  Though uncommon such a real temper exists and it is called yakiotoshi.

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

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/645991

 

Also, put yakiotoshi into the NMB search window for more on the Board.

 

BaZZa.

[Janrudolph]

Barry, thank you for your suggestion, very worthwile to follow. In the meantime, while waiting for kind debate on the mei issuei, I have been doing some desperate digging and found a kanji or two that seem to be identical to the mei characters on this wakizashi (photo previous page). These are the characters for the word YASUHIRO:   康  ('healthy')     廣  ('wide'). So, if I am on track, these two kanji are what's on the nakago and this is what they mean. I could interpret it to be the work name of the kami Yasuhiro. But is the a Yasuhito in the history of Japanese swordsmiths? If so, why he did not include other (normal) honorifics, is what I'm wondering about. It seems like I am not willing to accept gimei, but I would appreciate some thought exchange on this specific signature before I do.

Please advise! Johan

[PNSSHOGUN]

Johan you're way off base if you're trying to apply that sort of logic to the Mei, come back to planet earth !!!

[Shugyosha]

Johan,

There are a number of reasons why smiths signed in different ways. Two character Mei are common, particularly in koto swords and Yasuhiro is a common Mei. Longer mei often appear on custom blades and a shorter mei can be an indicator of a mass produced blade but it depends on the era and the smith. It probably isn’t something to get too excited about. 
 

The use of honorific titles (kami, daijo etc) was mainly a Shinto thing as it was administered by a family of sword smiths who were appointed to do so by the Tokugawa bakufu. The use of the names of the old aristocratic families, Fujiwara, Minamoto etc, was again more of a Shinto thing and was a claim made by the individual smith, presumably as a marketing strategy as there was far less need for new swords after 1600. 

[Janrudolph]

John and John J, thank you so much for coming in. Perhaps I can convince John that I purposely wandered off-planet to stimulate forumites to comment on the signature, as they were not forthcoming and I was anxious to learn more about my wakizashi. Or maybe I could try to defend myself by explaining that I am a scientist, retired now for 15 years already, and still have not unlearnt the harsh rules I have had to follow regarding scientific methodology. That requires (as I have heard it put) a person to be imaginative and a dreamer, to think things others don't think. Now look, John, I'm saying this stuff with a big smile on my face, because I actually appreciated your opinion and I don't think you were harsh at all.  

John J, thank you also for your input. You indicated that two-character Mei are common, particularly in koto swords and Yasuhiro is a common Mei. To me that means there are many swords bearing the same signature as mine. I have found it hard searching for examples of such mei to compare with mine. I'm at this stage not even certain what the correct kanji in the signature are. Those I have shown in my post #35 above are guesses. I only think they are the same as on the tang. Please could you look at the mei on the first page and tell me what your take is?

With great appreciation. Johan

[Shugyosha]

Hi Johan,

You are correct, it’s Yasuhiro with the kanji you indicated in post 35 above. Actually, I lied, while there are many Yasuhiro, there are only a few smiths signing with this “Yasu” and Hawley only lists one with a two character signature, reference number: YAS808 working in Suruga province between 1532 and 1538.

 

Unfortunately that’s all the information given so there are no details of workmanship to compare with your blade and so it may or may not be him. Also, Hawley’s reliability has been questioned of late but it might be a lead. 

 

For me, I would have guessed your blade to be later than these dates based on its shape, however, not all smiths are recorded and the odd one pops up now and again of which there is no record. 
 

Sorry to give you something and nothing, but that’s the game we’re in - definitive answers can be hard to find. 

 

[Janrudolph]

John J, the information you have given makes for very interesting reading, and I'm truly grateful.  Yet, against the backdrop of what I said in my last post above, namely that "I'm at this stage not even certain what the correct kanji in the signature are. Those I have shown in my post #35 above are guesses. I only think they are the same as on the tang", then your kind information is based on the belief that my kanji are correct. Please would you look at the actual mei, which I will try to post once more.

[Janrudolph]

[Shugyosha]

Johan,

I did - you are right 😬 (see start of previous post).

[Janrudolph]

13 hours ago, Shugyosha said:

I did - you are right 😬 (see start of previous post).

Whew! Then I am relieved. Thanks, John J.

It might interest you & all you other very dedicated nihonto guys how I as a small collector go about ordering my knowledge & understanding of what I acquire. I communicate with as many knowledgeable people as I can on any particular item I acquire, make notes of what I learn from them: eventually I summarise what I have learnt, order the information in logical, understandable text (or at least I try) and then insert the final summary in a flip file for that item, be it a katana or whatever. I re-read my ordered notes, for my pleasure, and  to keep familiarising myself to all aspects of nihonto. Of course I realise you all will have your own methods, probably much better ordered than mine.

My Yasuhiro wakizashi flip file will not be complete if I do not enquire about the snapped off tang. Early in this thread Ian said he also has a blade with a snapped off tang. My own assumption as to how this could be, is that the tang had earlier been longer, to fit the longer handle of a katana. For some reason the blade must have then been shortened to waki length, taking away the kissaki & forming a new point. John might regard my reasoning as extra-planetary  . What other explanation could there be? Johan     

[Karusk]

They NEVER took off the point(kissaki) they always shortened from the nakago. It may have simply been filed down to change the balance and weight for a new owner A sword does need to be tailored to the owner. If the point is taken off they have to completely rework the blade and would probably just have melted it down if it broke there. Sort if outlandish idea yeah. 🤪

 

Im glad one of these guys says it could be the original hamon. 

[cju777]

There is some good information here with diagrams on the methods in which a sword was shortened:

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

 

It is less common, but there were reasons to shorten from the kissaki end, not a never proposition and probably more common in  naginata/Nagamaki-naoshi. Defer to those with more expertise on that though. 
https://blog.yuhindo.com/naginata-naginata-naoshi/

 

[Janrudolph]

Marvelous info, Karusk & Chris. My thanks for that. I'm learning, I'm learning! Of course it is a big bother for me to see my waki's tang end so roughly broken off. Ian earlier said he also has one like that.

I measured the length of the tang and found it to be 85 mm. The space made for the tang in the handle comes to a dead stop at 92 mm. So when fully assembled, there's only 7 mm space left over. My outlandish view is that the handle was made to fit that tang....?  And it does seem that the handle plus fuchi plus kashira are period to the blade and tsuba.  Johan

[Karusk]

You’re absolutely right too cju there are always exceptions to the rule. I seriously doubt it was done here though. 
 

Its not outlandish to think the tsuka was made for it, its actually most likely it was. Especially if its a good close fit like that. I would seriously doubt someone cut it to fit the tsuka, but it’s probably happened too. I have seen some ugly cutting to a nakago to make it fit a fancy bone like pin tsuka. (Or assumed it wasnt original forgive me) Its honestly even possible the blade is much older and longer and was broken above the nakago, then reworked although that would absolutely mean it was retempered as well as the original hamon would most definitely go into the patina of the nakago. (Interesting read bazza! Im here to learn too thank you!) Lets assume it was just shortened. 
 

@Bazza Is it possible this is actually a very shallow sori koto blade considering its yakiotoshi? That article pretty much says this is a trait of much older blades. Someone said this mei was a koto smith as well. 
 

 

[DoTanuki yokai]

With 7mm left space in the tsuka i think it is a refit. 

 

 

And i think yaki-otoshi on an old blade would always be with funbari.

[Jacques D.]

11 hours ago, cju777 said:

T

 

 

 

It is less common, but there were reasons to shorten from the kissaki end, not a never proposition and probably more common in  naginata/Nagamaki-naoshi. Defer to those with more expertise on that though. 
https://blog.yuhindo.com/naginata-naginata-naoshi/

 

 

 

Just for clarification, The Saburo Kunimune is not Mohora-zukuri (means 2 edges) but shobu-zukuri like this one.

 

http://sanmei.com/contents/media/K66923_S2094_E.htm

 

[Janrudolph]

Thanks for all this informed "back & forth", if I may call it that. I appreciate that, coming from you guys who have the experience and are able to sensibly do so. Much better than silly imaginings! Fact is, the curtain of time has dropped and the lights of the stage have been switched off...(There I go again!)  I'm happy if my waki is an original Nihonto blade which has been altered somehow. Thing is, the alteration is not recent, am I right? That ugly break at the end of the nakago is just as "rusted" as the rest of the nakago. Johan 

[historian2]

Nice stuff.

[Janrudolph]

It does look like this might be the end of this thread - much too soon for my liking, as I had wanted more comments. I had learned such a lot. And I want to especially thank forumites like Barry, Karusk, Chris U and Christian S who have gone to trouble to enlighten me in a nice, frank way. Although the picture on the tsuba is probably not worth trying to decipher in an academic way, Barry mused with me on the possible interpretation of the hunting scene. I very much appreciated such willingness to share. Karusk never hesitated to give me ideas on the possible age of my waki, without trying to pin a date down. He also said I had a decent starter blade with good talking points. He could have said I had a low-grade sword, not worth getting excited about. But wisely, he didn't - new collectors, young and old, don't need their blades shot down in flames by collectors who have reached the top. I really had looked forward to acquiring my first nihonto, after getting a few Chinese reproductions and learning from them what I could. I never thought a real nihonto would come my way. When I DID acquire one at a heavy price (for me), it was quite a let-down to learn that nihonto can vary from the spectacular down to rubbish (and mine was light-years away from spectacular). So in the interest of all new collectors/owners of nihonto I want to make a plea that forumites choose words judiciously when dealing with new guys. Most times the low-end stuff (tatty but genuine) are all that are within our reach.  Johan

[Bazza]

The real litmus test is how long "new guys" last in the pursuit.  Nihonto is a tough gig from front to back and top to bottom!!

 

BaZZa.