The importance of shape

[paulb]

In various presentations and articles I have often quoted many expert voices telling us the importance of shape and how it can tell us a great deal about a blade. I believe this to be true but for some reason have only just realised how much it influences my ideas regarding the desirability of a sword. On reflection I believe that in every case it has been the shape of a blade that has first grabbed my attention. If the shape looks good carry on looking if not walk away. I hasten to add this is not based on any criteria other than aesthetic appeal. I have posted an image below of a number of different blades, all are suriage so attempting to date them based on shape becomes immediately more challenging. They are very different but all  caused me to stop and look in more detail.

 

 

 

 

[Brian]

Have to agree, the shape, and symmetry all play one of the most important roles when I first see a sword. Awkward shape or curvature immediately takes it down a notch for me. This is way more than just the curve or length. The proportions and how it tapers all can add extra interest. Let's say someone saw the 4 swords above lying on a table, let's have a quick poll on which one (1 at the top) would you pick up first, before you looked at all the other factors?

[Matsunoki]

4 1st

1 last

[Tohagi]

2nd

[Brian]

Let's make it more interesting. Add which one you would pick up last.
Don't need to explain if you don't want to...not a test, there is no real right or wrong answer. Just for interest. And thanks Paul for starting this topic.
For me personally... 4 and 1.
Not including the tanto in the above for now.

[SteveM]

3rd for most-liked (because it is unlike any of my other swords).

4th for least-liked. Well, it's not that I don't like it, its just it is similar to one of my swords. So the other ones feel more interesting to me. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

1st pick would be N.3 - as I just appreciate big blades.

4th pick would be N.1 - to me it could pass as average size Edo period katana by shape and size on first glance.

[ROKUJURO]

No. 3 for me plus the TANTO.

But all are beautiful!

[Benjamin]

4 first

3 just near (that okissaki catch my eye)

2 last

[GeorgeLuucas]

4, the width and shape into the kissaki is what attracts me and makes me think “old”. 

 

Then the tanto 

 

Then 3, 2, 1 in that order. 
 

I agree shape is very important. I’m trying to fine tune my ability to recognize how shape can inform age. 
 

Cheers,

-Sam 

[Lewis B]

This is a very timely post. What I have come to understand is that my appreciation for a blade is dictated by how I react to it. The initial aesthetic impact is primarily down to the sugata and everything leads on from that. I have seen Masamune swords I wouldn't glance twice at and blades from lesser makers that have me hypnotised. It starts with the shape, then proportions, then the hamon and the finer forging detail in the jihada. My brain is going through a checklist subconsciously. 

 

These are 3 blades I have spent some time studying. I have my favourite even though at first glance all 3 look quite similar.

 

[Lewis B]

Accepting Brians challenge. My first choice would be #4.... no contest, but then I'm a sucker for Kamakura/early Nanbokucho era Koto blades. Last pickup #1

[Robert S]

First choice for me would be #2, last would be a saw off between #s 3 and 4.

[French nihonto]

4 first.
2 last.
The gentle shrinkage to kissaki catches my eye. 

[nulldevice]

4 first

3 second as it’s a bigger blade and I like big nanbokucho blades

1 last

[Natichu]

3 first, 1 last, but can't say I'd turn my nose up at any to say the least! 

[Lewis B]

I would take the Shintogo Kunimitsu tanto home though. What an absolute beauty. Full writeup here. 

 

http://www.nihonto-m...togo-kunimitsu-tanto

[Rivkin]

I always found the beautiful sugata/root of all nihonto aesthetic discussion to be a bit provocative.

The moment it starts there is lingering fear, you don't nod on time you come out as a fool who can't see a thing...

And you look.

And you look. 

And instead of the hidden beauty what lies in front of you is still something that has been cut off, overpolished and violated to such an extent Bungo Takada himself wrote to NBTHK swearing he did NOT make it.

 

There are blades which have such a graceful sugata which is noticeble all by itself: those by Chogi, unusual items like Kamakura kodachi, where the shape is often both profound and distinctively well done compared to a plain Muromachi waki, etc..

Frankly with these four I am a fool who does not see a single A+ sugata.

 

Critical kissaki theory suggests one needs to focus on #4 since its tip proportions and tapering towards it looks no later than mid Kamakura, carefully finished suriage suggests it was already owned by someone with more than half the brain towards the latter days of Muromachi, hi pressed all the way into ko-shinogi confirms the age and the fact that hi looks deep/consistently wide all across the blade despite otherwise clear polishing distortions in sugata suggests people who polished it at least from 1500 forward had more than a general idea of what they are doing. 

This is a kind of blade one first buys than studies when fishing at sword shows, hoping one day it makes TJ.

 

I should hedge all the above and below statements since its a crazy guess without knowing the actual dimensions (maybe these are all waki), but that's how it feels to me. Often one has to make buying decision based on such feelings.

 

#3. All sexy kids with o-kissaki are supposed to have less taper, more uniform curvature and kissaki curvature should be more natural. I almost want to vote for Kambun shinto, but B&W pictures always make me suspect its Chogi which has been a bit traumatized by a polisher. Why would someone photograph o suriage Kambun in B&W? Plus its a bit more graceful than Kambun shape, less "sticky".

If I were to encounter this blade with zero polish I would check the kasane. If its thin and the blade swings well, maybe it has potential.

 

#2 is most likely a Japanese sword. Can't tell anything more.

#1. Full fukura is considered an auspicious sign by some who believe such blades were tempered in the blood of virgins and exemplify ko-ikubi forms in their healthy state (???). On practice its usually cursed by witches, and after polishing comes out laughing as mid Muromachi Bizen blade. If this was out of polish I would not prioritize the restoration based on this picture alone. 

 

[paulb]

I am not sure how to respond Kirill.  I mentioned in the original post that shape was the feature that originally attracted or deterred me. Whether ubu or suriage the shape has to have some aesthetic quality that appeals to me and what appeals to me may not appeal to you (as it obviously doesn't). I di not suggest that these were examples of A+ sugata although thankfully in at least two cases the NBTHK think they are.

The piece you suggest might be bought fishing at sword shows has been described as " A masterwork of the Kamakura period"  

Theblade you decxribe as a traumatized Chogi received Juyo papers and has a sayagaki by Honami Kozon both describing the blade as "despite being suriage having a typical shape of the period"

It is of course incredibly difficult to make a judgement based on a single image (B&W or otherwise) and this is made more difficult without any suggestions of size. This wasn't the purpose of the post.

[paulb]

I think it is probably time to offer an explanation of what was behind the original post and I am grateful to Brian for suggesting people select their first pick up. It helped illustrate the point I was hoping to make.

The majority of participants selected no.4 as their first preference with no.3 coming in close behind.

No.4 has been taken to a number of exhibitions and study days for people to examine. Sitting alongside other pieces it has been largely ignored. It is very conservative, the hada is not immediately visible and the complexity of the hamon needs close study. As a result people tended to leave it on the table and gravitate to the larger and more flamboyant pieces that were also on show. However when restricted to focusing on shape something people saw in no.4 drew them to it.

The somewhat laboured point I am trying to make is that we should, as Walter Compton said in his 100 masterpiece volume, look at shape before we look at anything else. I still maintain that regardless of whether it is ubu or suriage a good sword will never have a bad shape. Once we have studied the shape move on to the other features that can tell us a great deal more.

For those who want to know what they were looking at:

1. A mumei shin-shinto piece attributed to Aizo Tadamasa by the NTHK

2. O-suriage katana with old NBTHK papers to Daido. I think this falls in to what Darcy so eloquently described as a typical "bucket attribution" .  it could be the work of a number of smiths and Daido was a safe choice.

 

3. Has a shumei and sayagaki attributing it to Aoe Tsunetsugu. The NBTHK Juyo papers from the 13th session attributed to Aoe and dated it to the late Kamakura period. Interestingly they do not describe it as having O-kissaki leaving it at extended chu-kissaki. They also mention the shumei but state that this does not refer to the Ko-Aoe master of that name.

 

4. This blade has three separate attributions to the same smith Awataguchi Norikuni who was working in 1220 and one of Go-Toba resident smiths. It has Hozon papers and as far as I am aware it has never been submitted for higher papers. It does however have a sayagaki by Tanobe Sensei in which he describes it as "A masterpiece of the Kamakura period". Awataguchi work is not common Norikuni's pieces are rare and highly regarded I think at the last count there were seven of his blades awarded Juyo certification and four of those were tanto. There is one national treasure piece which is suriage but retains the mei. This piece has a great many similarities to that work.

This is amongst the finest examples of sword making I have had the opportunity to study in the past 40 years.  However it requires time to look and appreciate it. looking at the shape first and in detail gives the observer that little extra time to start to see the detail.

[Gakusee]

The Awataguchi is the superb blade clearly - not just because of the name but due the very graceful sugata. 

I also prefer old blades and emphatic curvature and my modest collection has mostly such blades. That was the whole purpose of the post - not to opine on quality or polish etc as that is not particularly visible here but focus on proportions. 
 

The proportions plus curvature make it stand out. 
 

Thank you Paul for posting this mental exercise. 

[Brian]

Great exercise Paul, has really been informative. Would love to see more of this sort of post, as it doesn't even cross over to that touchy subject of online kantei, but more of "gut feel" and what attracts us initially. More like this would be wonderful, and even more discussion in this particular thread. Really fun.
Now when it comes to wakizashi...this gets even more tricky.

[paulb]

Just as a final piece I think I'd feel a little guilty talking about shape if I didn't include the example below. It is Ubu, exhibits fumbari and has one of the smallest ko-kissaki I have seen on a tachi.

I think it is stunningly beautiful

 

[Matsunoki]

5 hours ago, paulb said:

Paul, thanks for this thread. Most of us took it as intended. Not as an online Kantei but as a simple question…”which shapes appeal to our eyes” and most answers addressed it accordingly.

Brians suggestion to pick most vs least appealing added an extra enjoyable perspective.

It made me look and think focussing not on who/where/when/what but simply on what my personal taste is. 
Great fun with no risk of making a twit of oneself!

Many thanks. 
Colin

6 hours ago, paulb said:

This wasn't the purpose of the post.

 

23 hours ago, Brian said:

Let's make it more interesting.

 

[Lewis B]

54 minutes ago, paulb said:

Just as a final piece I think I'd feel a little guilty talking about shape if I didn't include the example below. It is Ubu, exhibits fumbari and has one of the smallest ko-kissaki I have seen on a tachi.

I think it is stunningly beautiful

 

The Samurai Museum in Berlin brought a Heian/Kamakura era sword that had a very similar sugata, to the Japan Art Expo. Wish I had taken a photo and got more details re maker etc. It was quite short but the overall shape and tiny kissaki was aesthetically very appealing. Maybe someone else who attended the show remembers it sitting on the shelf at the back of the booth.

[paulb]

Lewis, I use this as an example of "shape doesn't tell you how old a sword is but it can tell you how young". This is trying very hard to be a Heian/ early Kamakura period work but it was actually made about 200 years later in the Oei period. There was no attempt to deceive by the smith he signed it with his own name, Yasumitsu. The shodai was working in the Oei period at a time when the incumbent Shogun was attempting to move away from what he perceived as the excesses of the Nambokucho period and attempted to return to the more subtle forms of the early Kamakura.

I do think the shape really does illustrate what first attracted me to Japanese swords there is a severe elegance that I am challenged to describe in a meaningful way but that really grabs my attention.

 

[Deiro]

1 hour ago, Lewis B said:

The Samurai Museum in Berlin brought a Heian/Kamakura era sword that had a very similar sugata, to the Japan Art Expo. Wish I had taken a photo and got more details re maker etc. It was quite short but the overall shape and tiny kissaki was aesthetically very appealing. Maybe someone else who attended the show remembers it sitting on the shelf at the back of the booth.

Yeah, though I was a bit more invested into looking at the Ken. I had too little time to be honest.

 

o, as to partake with the original topic

 

Fav 3, it looks meaty, I like the size of the kissaki, makes one wonder how it originally looked.

 

Worst 1, unlike 4 it doesn't that much going for it.


 

[Gakusee]

So, indeed shape is one of the first aspects that grab us, probably followed by proportions etc. 
 

But sometimes it might be misleading as to dating the blade. Paul’s Oei Yasumitsu is a case in point as it is shaped like an earlier sword. 
 

I attach an image of an early Kamakura kodachi, which typically people could probably not guess dates to 1245-1250 by looking at the sugata. Yet it is ubu or very nearly ubu. While the shape is not one of those curvaceous beauties, the sword’s hataraki and other activities more than make up for what the sugata does not offer. 

[Rivkin]

I find many ubu kodachi to have exceptional sugata. Miniaturized mid Kamakura tachi where the slightest deviation would stand out and therefore distortion free shape is a perfection.

Unfortunately a typical moved hamachi and squared nakago is more than enough to remove the harmony and produce a blade which is ugly shaped... even though there are still kantei features even sugata wise which suggest its kodachi and not a waki.

For ubu piece it is often just simple. For example, in kodachi the curvature continues at the nakago's mune side. In a waki there is usually none, even if there is some above the nakago. 

 

Otherwise I think a considerable portion of the confusion here comes from NBTHK stating "its Kamakura shape" versus "its a great sugata". Though obviously I never seen the actual papers I don't feel the second option is the actual case.

I don't think any of Kamakura period blades retains a great portion of its "shape aesthetic" in o-suriage. It can still be attractive, but not nearly as much as ubu.

It can still be kantei-ed by kissaki alone, yet it remains butchered, in the harshest cases to the point it becomes a straight and flimsy stick affixed to a bizarre curved foundation.