Daisho at last

[Ooitame]

5 hours ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

It is more about preserving authentic history, not creating it to satisfy selfish delusions.

Can you iterate selfish delusions?

 

 

[Ooitame]

8 hours ago, Alex A said:

The way i look at it, if the Many Samurai were able to live with Daisho that did not match then its good enough for me.

Great point, I agree.

[Alex A]

6 hours ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

It is more about preserving authentic history, not creating it to satisfy selfish delusions.

 

Hi John, im also confused, what history is being created and what's selfish ?

[Baba Yaga]

This look at this from a different angle of thought. 

 

Would a long and short Chinese reproduction sword sold at some shopping mall be considered a Daisho, because it's advertised that way? BTW, they are all over the Web.

Does the meaning come from the top down, bottom -up, or a lot of grey from the middle? I've seen people write this is "over thought" when it's not thought of enough. 

 

Wikipedia The daishō (大小, daishō)—"big-little"^[1]—is a Japanese term for a matched pair of traditionally made Japanese swords (nihonto) worn by the samurai class in feudal Japan.

 

 

[rematron]

My gut says the term ‘daisho’ has been used since the Muromachi period (at least the latter part) but we are right not to assume that’s the case. I tried to track down its original usage on the internet but haven’t had any luck. I’m wondering if the translated Tokugawa sword length mandate has the word ‘daisho’ in it.  Alas, I do not have that. 

[Alex A]

Going round in circles here

 

We all know what a true Daisho is.

 

But the FACT is, not all Samurai carried TRUE daisho.

 

That should be the end.

[rematron]

DAISHO 

 

[rematron]

26 minutes ago, Alex A said:

Going round in circles here

 

We all know what a true Daisho is.

 

But the FACT is, not all Samurai carried TRUE daisho.

 

That should be the end.

I agree, Alex.  Although now I am curious to see the word ‘daisho’ in actual historical context. 
 

‘True Daisho’ seems like a strange qualifier considering how extremely rare they are.  
 

“But the FACT is, not all Samurai carried TRUE daisho.” 
 

Indeed.  More correct would be to say:  “Hardly ANY Samurai carried TRUE daisho.”  The vast majority of samurai back in the day were walking around with ‘FALSE daisho’. What an insult! 

 

I think the word ‘true’ is not correct here.  ‘BEST daisho’ is more apt. 
 

Sorry, couldn’t resist semantics. 
 

 

[Ynot]

A  daisho is only  a big and small sword nothing else matching or not, carried by a samurai. 

 

Today we dont know wich swords were carried together with the exception of dated blades and matching koshirae.

 

Thats why its so much fokus on koshirae and dated blades.

 

All types of daisho are true.

 

This is how I see it until there is more information. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ooitame]

29 minutes ago, Ynot said:

A  daisho is only  a big and small sword nothing else matching or not, carried by a samurai. 

 

Samurai: One who serves, is in the millitary/warrior class. Historically serving, Daimyo, Shogun, Emperor. This is why I also choose a sword from WW2, worn and made for battle, serving the emporer and of military family. 

 

Or is that a miconeption of the term Samurai?

[Baba Yaga]

 Muromachi period - 1550's is a good date I'd take the redundant word true out and just go with Daisho. I don't think all Samurai had Daisho.   

[Baba Yaga]

8 minutes ago, Ooitame said:

Samurai: One who serves, is in the millitary/warrior class. Historically serving, Daimyo, Shogun, Emperor. This is why I also choose a sword from WW2, worn and made for battle, serving the emporer and of military class.

 

The Samurai were abolished in around 1870. 

[Ooitame]

Thanks @Baba Yaga, I was just to make an edit about the systems changing over eras. I am pretty sure many in WW2 took up the Bushido code, served a master the Emporer, were of military family/class, which to me puts them to me as Samurai; using family/class taxonomically. Or is this over thinking?

[rematron]

18 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

 Muromachi period - 1550's is a good date I'd take the redundant word true out and just go with Daisho. I don't think all Samurai had Daisho.   

Then, what would you call the set of long and short sword that most samurai walked around with?  Back in the day would you tell most samurai that they weren’t wearing daisho?  That seems silly (and suicidal). 

[rematron]

Back when @Ooitame started this post I thought to myself “Oh, cool.  He saved up his money and now he has a daisho.”  I knew what he meant.  I think we all knew what he meant.  He has a long sword and a short sword.  He obtained what any samurai would consider and call a daisho.  That’s what he meant.  All the other qualifiers for daisho are terms collectors (probably starting in the Edo period are even earlier) have created to establish a hierarchy of monetary or cultural value. 

[Ooitame]

@rematron exactly my intentions and I agree. However, I am happy that this has turned into a fantastic discussion, and some question the term and have done the research, some provided documentation and their thoughts; I am grateful for this!

[Seth]

Have enjoyed this thread thoroughly, thanks Eric! 

 

Going by the actual definition it would be any long & short combo carried by a samurai. Then the collector definition is a matched pair of blades in matched koshirae? Does that sum it up?

 

So unless we know an actual samurai carried said exact combo (not to include koshirae) we can't actually know if it's a daisho in the general definition sense. What if the dated and matched blades weren't carried by samurai?  

[PNSSHOGUN]

We can prove what a true Daisho is today because they have been made specially together, mounted together or have had records kept of their existence for centuries. Now what about the other Daisho that certainly existed and didn't fall into what collectors/purists/historians call "true Daisho"? Beyond the scant texts like the list of the 47 Ronin's swords, or other similar evidence, we can't realistically prove that two swords are a Daisho today. There isn't anything wrong with collectors and members here making their own Daisho to fit their tastes and enjoyment but it is vitally important to understand what the true definition of Daisho is, continue to hold that definition quite clearly and not hijack it to fit our circumstances.

 

Selfish delusions aren't directed at anyone, we all have them and this hobby is far less exciting without them.

[Alex A]

Lets not forget that carrying two swords (as in daisho-long /short sword) did not become the trend up until around the end of the Muromachi period or thereabouts.

 

And on that note think I've said everything i want to say on the subject.

 

Horses for courses as they say.

 

 

[Guest Simon R]

Here's a 'perfect' daisho: same smith, same date and matching koshirae.

 

At ¥2,200,000, I couldn't afford it.

With those koshirae, I wouldn't want it.
(The tsuka Ito looks like it came off a deckchair.)

 

https://www.toukenhataya.jp/goods/sword/sword_s2037.html

[Ynot]

If they are daisho  shouldnt  they be on the same paper?

 

Is there more information about the  koshirae?

Edited May 22, 2023 by Ynot

[shakudo]

Hi all

Joining this a bit late but Im reading 'carried by a samurai'- so matched swords- same maker and matched koshirae made this century dont qualify as daisho? Was one for sale on this forum last 6/12 mths 

doesnot qualify-  not carried by a samurai? Think it was mukasa smith aswell?

Think some are "Romancing the stone" - sorry its a daisho regardless of period.

[Brian]

This really isn't so complicated as we are making it out.
Traditionally, a daisho is a pair (wakizashi and katana or tanto and tachi) that were carried as a pair by a Samurai.
Now there isn't a lot of ways to determine if a pair were carried as such, so if they were completely unmatched, but had definitive provenance that they were carried as a pair, they could be called a daisho. This is how most daisho were carried by real Samurai. They didn't focus too much on whether they matched or not. But if you can prove they belong together, you have a daisho. If they were matching (same/similar fittings) and clearly a pair...then they could be called a daisho. If they were signed and dated the same, by the same smith...then they were likely owned and carried together...hence a daisho.
But the easiest way to determine they are a pair, is if the fittings match enough to show they are a pair. And this is usually what is used if they are paired as a papered daisho. Fittings matching...same age...enough to show that they were not force matched.
 

[Baba Yaga]

8 hours ago, Ynot said:

If they are daisho  shouldnt  they be on the same paper?

 

Is there more information about the  koshirae?

Yes!!! And IF anyone "believes" they have a Daisho, they should submit for Daisho papers. ALL the collectors who are always suggesting papers for authenticating mei should be in agreement. Good luck. 

[Baba Yaga]

This reminds me of collecting 69 Z28, or the Shelby 427 Cobra Roadster. Just because it looks like and acts like, doesn't make it so. 

[Franco D]

Daisho at last, 56 pages of prior discussions .... search .... hint, hint,  

[Baba Yaga]

16 hours ago, Ooitame said:

Thanks @Baba Yaga, I was just to make an edit about the systems changing over eras. I am pretty sure many in WW2 took up the Bushido code, served a master the Emporer, were of military family/class, which to me puts them to me as Samurai; using family/class taxonomically. Or is this over thinking?

 

I don't know much at all about Japanese Military Swords. I can ID if they are handmade, or not, if in hand.  That's about as far as I can get.

[Ooitame]

6 hours ago, Franco D said:

Daisho at last, 56 pages of prior discussions .... search .... hint, hint,  

Apologizes for trying to post and expand my knowledge, and gather thoughts about Daisho. As it seems the term is somewhat convoluted, thus the conversation preceding this post. Please Franco, do by all means, contribute your thoughts and evidence for the term!

[Franco D]

Hello Eric,

 

Nothing to apologize for. Simply pointing out that there are 56 pages on this topic available using the search feature. Including a number of posts by very knowledgeable people, some of which unfortunately are no longer with us.  Take advantage, that's all.

 

Regards,

[Jussi Ekholm]

Unfortunately I don't have many books focused on koshirae. However Uchigatana Koshirae book, features pretty much most famous uchigatana koshirae in Japan. There are 9 daishō in the book that have their blades mentioned, 0 of them are matching and these were owned by some of the most pretigeous people in Japan. Many of these Daishō however predate Edo-Period and have swords made or attributed to famous smiths.

 

To me personally daishō is about the koshirae.

 

I decided to take a look into the dates of dated Jūyō daishō blades, and here they are. It is easy to see that c. pre-1800's are extremely rare to see. I think I missed one daishō in my earlier Jūyō calculation, added it here.

 

1626

1671

1795 - 1795 (2 different daishō by same smith)

1802

1803

1808

1817

1828

1836

1837

1838

1840

1843

1844

1845

1848

1849

1852 & 1853 (same daishō but blades dated to different year)

1854

1855

1859

1865