Katana suriage to wakizashi?

[Avidmark]

Hi there, I’ve got a question about a wakizashi I’m very loosely considering buying. This is not a “should I buy” post but adding the link to the post will just help to answer the question.
Since this wakizashi is right at the brink of being a very small katana after being cut, would I be possible it was a katana and cut? Possibly to adhere to length regulations of the time? What I mean is once a Muromachi katana and then cut to an Edo wakizashi? I’m trying to envision what it would be like before it was cut. 
 

https://www.aoijapan...olnbthk-hozon-token/

 

[SteveM]

Yes, that is one possibility. The sword has three mekugi-ana in it, so it was shortened several times. It may have been shortened due to the changing fighting styles. It may have been further shortened to better suit the size of a new owner. Or it may have been shortened to remedy some defect in the machi area. Or some combination of all/any of the above. 

[2devnul]

Hi,

 

My opinion on this. Blade was Muromachi Katana for sure, maybe even Tachi. You can see that now it has 55,5cm in Nagasa and it is O-Suriage (maybe that is also the reason for being Mumei). If you add what has been taken based on third/bottom Mekugi-Ana, then it seems that sword could originally measure 65-70cm in Nagasa. 

 

It looks like a decent blade and price is a bargain. 

[Rivkin]

It has significant curvature so if it was a very long blade it would have looked strange. Also hamon calms down towards the nakago.

On the other hand - 3 mekugi ana with the bottom one placed very low...

I would say it lost 5 inches? Which makes it a respectable sword.

In regards to katana versus tachi, Shimada made a lot of ko wakizashi and a few katana. I actually think its a good beginner's sword which is interesting, easy to read and as of now is priced competatively. To the point I would wonder if there are worse kizu than what we see.

Hitatsura can be very kizu prone, but on the other hand there is not much hard nie here.

[Nihonto student]

Hello Mark,

 

I agree with Kirill assessment, I add that considering the suriage the mekugi at the bottom would seem too high to be considered as shinobi ana therefore I would be inclined to think that the original mekugi is the central one...we will therefore have a nagasa around 65 cm which would fit perfectly with a classic mid-Muromachi uchigatana...if the last ana was the original one, the shape would actually be a bit strange.

 

Regards,

 

Giordy

[Avidmark]

8 hours ago, 2devnul said:

Hi,

 

My opinion on this. Blade was Muromachi Katana for sure, maybe even Tachi. You can see that now it has 55,5cm in Nagasa and it is O-Suriage (maybe that is also the reason for being Mumei). If you add what has been taken based on third/bottom Mekugi-Ana, then it seems that sword could originally measure 65-70cm in Nagasa. 

 

It looks like a decent blade and price is a bargain. 

So in most cases the lowest mekugi ana is the original? Or are there case a blade is shortened so much the original is gone?

[2devnul]

It's all speculations, assumptions, opinions now. I think that lowest Mekugi-ana is the original one. However, there are cases where 2 Mekugi were used on Tsuka. My bet is this was originally Katana, around 65-70cm in Nagasa (lowest Mekugi-ana). Then it was shortened to either Ko-Katana or O-Wakizashi (around 60cm, middle Mekugi-ana). Then the last stage where it was shortened to current state. I wonder if you could see significant differences in patina on all 3 insides of Mekugi-ana. 

 

Also, if someone put effort/resources in order to shorten the sword (probably twice), then it was considered as a decent/worthy blade. 

[Avidmark]

Thank you to all that posted. It seems someone has jumped on this blade as it’s now on hold for someone. Valuable info though, thank you.