ebay echizen rai katana questions

[dyn]

Hello all,

 

I just won this katana off of ebay for a price that seems too good to be true? 1500$ for a Rai school katana with nbthk hozon papers. I hope that it ships.

 

How did I do? I'm still pretty new to the hobby so I try to stick with nihonto with nbthk papers. This is my second one.

 

Also, while I await my new purchase I see other swords by echizen rai such as this one  attributed to 千代鶴 instead of 越前来. Is there a difference between the two?

 

Thanks 

 

-Thomas

[John C]

Mike will ship promptly and it will be packed well. The origami is current and seems legit. He does mention the tsuka, and so probably the rest of the mounts, is mismatched. The only real question is whether or not something has happened to the blade since it was papered. You'll have to take a close look at it when you get it. I can't speak to value.

 

John C.

[Alex A]

Edit, not getting involved, sorry

[PNSSHOGUN]

Not too bad blade wise, the mounts are absolutely hideous. As the mounts are already cobbled together, look for a nice replacement Gunto Tsuka for display.

[dyn]

Thank you everyone. I will look for replacement mounts. I’m glad to hear you guys on the forum think the blade is genuine. Worst case I will store it in the shirasaya.

[Brian]

Don't mistake Echizen Rai with Yamashiro Rai.
 

[Rivkin]

 

i think its a good purchase, but nagasa is very short, into wakizashi range. 

It would be ok for late Muromachi piece, but an older blade thus shortened... A waki.

 

Generally there are about 4-5 attributions related to Echizen Rai with slightly different styles...

[Abaris]

60+ cm nagasa makes it a katana, anytime.

[Brian]

Actually, 60.6cm

[C0D]

The certificate says "katana" and nagasa 2 shaku, so 60.6 cm

About Echizen Rai and Chiyozuru, i'm doing some research lately on Rai Kuniyasu since i recently bought one.
Rai Kuniyasu (来国安) was a Yamashiro Rai swordsmith, said to be son or grandson of Rai Kunisue (来国末), he then moved to the village of Awaji (淡路) in Settsu´s Nakajima fief, therefore he is also referred to as Awaji-Rai (淡路来).
Then he (or his homonymous son, sources are not alligned on this) moved to Echizen, where he founded the Echizen Rai ha, that then became the Chiyozuru school.
From what i found if NBTHK attributes to Rai Kuniyasu means when he was in Yamashiro or Awaji (end of Kamakura/early Nanbokucho), if Echizen Rai it's his son work in Echizen (early to mid Nanbokucho), if Chiyorozu is the students of Echizen Rai (late Nanbokucho to Muromachi).

[Mark]

 

when i look at the pictures of the kissaki the edge has an unusual look.  Maybe the sword was 60.6cm when papered and then the tip was damaged and reshaped reducing the length?  Or possibly the seller did not measure correctly?  If the NBTHK says 2 shaku when papered that is reliable and it was that length then. I would measure it carefully when you have it and examine the kissaki.

 

If that is the case it is still a decent sword and the picture appear to show a clear boshi. Just possibly modified

[Jussi Ekholm]

I believe Manuel is correct with how the lineage goes.

 

The problem for me arises in that who would the smiths that the work is attributed towards, and how they come to that conclusion for a mumei item.

 

As I have been tracking down old items, I have found out only 1 ōdachi and 1 signed katana that would be work of Chiyozuru Kuniyasu. For Chiyozuru there is smith Morihiro that was for few generations. He is currently the only early Muromachi Chiyozuru smith for whom I have many signed items in references. NBTHK has many mumei attributions directly for Chiyozuru Morihiro. This is not the only school/attribution where this happens to me, I am often puzzled how things can be attributed as X when there are extremely few signed references of X.

 

I do think you got a very good deal. The negative of the blade is the short length but I feel it was more than compensated by the price you got it for.

 

[C0D]

I think they go with exclusions in these cases, for example on a Juyo "den Rai Kuniyasu" they wrote, the blade at a first glance look like Rai Kunimitsu but the workmanship is a step below. 

So they assume Kunimitsu did only top works, so if quality is slightly less they automatically assume is someone close, in this case Kuniyasu. 

In case of Echizen Rai, if sugata is Nanbokucho, style is like Rai but rougher then is Echizen Rai, if it's lower quality or later is Chiyozuru

[Jussi Ekholm]

I do believe you are correct with that Manuel. I remember Darcy also talking a lot about the qualitative attributions. I am just not personally a huge fan of that way. Over the years I have found out I would prefer more simple approximate age and province, I wouldn't need very specific attributions.

 

Of course as the attributions are judged by quality for mumei items, there would be a very big gap from Rai Kuniyasu to Chiyozuru, and it is financially big one too. I do feel there are good and interesting items that get Echizen Rai attribution that are financially possible for many people. I am liking the blade of the OP actually, I have noticed I personally like bit bolder items where craftsmanship can be seen easily more than super finely detailed items.

[C0D]

Yes, that's why study mumei blades can be quite tricky, i've seen blades with 3 certificates and 3 different attributions. When learning is always better to have signed blades, even better if also dated. But you can just enjoy a blade for what it is, the fun part can be making your own idea about a mumei blade as well