Questions about Muromachi Katana

[sc72]

Hi,

I believe that after this discussion I will not have materials to post here for a long time ...as I have run out of money.

I'm waiting for the arrival of my latest purchase: a "poor man's" NBTHK certified Muromachi (koto) katana (about from half 1500), I say "poor man" because it's a "suriage sword" and I know from this forum that for "late sword" is not a good thing...

I have some questions, but I can post a few photos for now.

1) Is the sword "suriage" or "o-suriage"? ...for sure the signature is removed and the cut-off the "nakago-Jiri" is clean ...so it should be a "keicho-suriage"... but I'm waiting for your opinion. The sign is totally missed.... so it could be an bigger "o-suriage"? 

2) I see a long horizontal line (parallel to the cutting edge) walking about 1 cm from it: is it a "kizu" or a "tired blade" or another type of scratch?

3) your precious observations 

Thanks for anyone who wants to talk and when it arrives I will send more photos 

[sc72]

[Lewis B]

I would say based solely on those images is that the line is a scratch or more likely an abrasion possibly inflicted by careless use of a saya. 

What is the length of the Nagasa? Might help determine is suriage or o-suriage.

What/who did the NBTHK paper it to?

[sc72]

Nagasa 67,4 cm, yes NBTHK

[Lewis B]

Yes, but which smith and/or school? Any pics of the sugata and boshi?

[sc72]

BUNGO, tenbun era
I don't want to involve the seller's site and I don't know well the rules of the forum here... well, but post my photos when it arrives

if I put the Smith's name here they will find it immediately. 

[sc72]

However, now in other photos I have noticed other horizontal scratches also in the upper part of the blade and therefore your saya thesis is plausible. It must have had some sandpaper in it

[sc72]

[Lewis B]

Is it in koshirae or sayagaki?

[sc72]

both

[ROKUJURO]

5 hours ago, Lewis B said:

Is it in koshirae or sayagaki?

SHIRA-SAYA ?

[sc72]

yes, the sword has both: the normal scabbard with a more flamboyant grip and the simple wooden (shirasaya)

[Lewis B]

6 hours ago, ROKUJURO said:

SHIRA-SAYA ?

ooops. I was drooling (figuratively, not literally :)) over my new 'Senjuin' which arrived yesterday and was a little distracted when I wrote that. Of course, Shirasaya.

[ROKUJURO]

Congratulations on the new one! Must be a nice one when you are so fascinated! Pictures are welcome.

We have a (allegedly) AKASAKA SENJUIN WAKIZASHI which is very nice.

[Lewis B]

I will be adding details and some photos soon on the thread I use for discussing the blades I own. What I can say is that its a fascinating blade with clear roots in both Yamato and Soshu-den. Masame hada, high and wide shinogi being the Yamato traits with abundant Ji-nie and chikei and consistent fine ara-nie along the hamon, which also has strong kinsuji and sunagashi activity. Very tight Itame-hada mixed with the Masame and some angular Mokume in places. Sugata is curious. More to follow on the other thread.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Nothing wrong with Bungo Takada at all. If your sword also has been attributed to a specific smith then it is most likely an interesting one.

 

One thing you can think about is, where is the original hole on the tang?

[sc72]

JUSSI I didn't understand your question, that is, what you're referring to, perhaps because I'm not very prepared. Could you be more direct in explaining to me?

[sc72]

If the older tang was removed with o-suriage how do I know where the hole was and thinking about it what concerns should I have?

[sc72]

Or perhaps you mean that since there is no visible hole (...the initial one) on the nakago, it is not credible that the blade has been shortened? So it could be a "mumei" blade?

Not even with "o-suriage"  could the old hole have been completely removed with the removed part of the tang?

Yes, the blade is attributed to a specific smith on the certificate

[Lewis B]

I think Jussi's question was rhetorical. If the Nakago only has one hole and its o-suriage it is interesting to contemplate what the original length might have been, without obviously knowing for sure. The Senjuin in the FS section also has one mekugi and is o-suriage. The same question could be posed for that too. Knowing the period the blade was made and Gokaden you might get an idea from the curvature and position of the curves center.

[sc72]

Ah well... I couldn't understand the meaning "behind" the rhetorical Jussi's question.

Well, you (and now Jussi also)  know (with the MP message) length and attribution of the (presumed) smith...

I'm not able to make estimates on this thing, can you?

 

[sc72]

But if I were to know the estimated original length and curvature of the blade, what would I need it for?

I'm not saying this ironically... I don't know. 

Perhaps to confirm whether it is truly from the Muromachi era or whether from the beginning, middle or end of this era?

[sc72]

SORRY for my pathetic drawing

Assuming that the part removed with "o-suriage" had the hole about 10 cm below the "hamachi step" (the original one removed), I estimate that the sword should have been long originally with more or less double the length of the current Nakago ? i.e. about 20 cm more than now.

Since now the blade alone is 67.4 then the original "nagasa" must have been perhaps 87 cm long (+20cm)? 

[sc72]

I don't have the sword yet and I don't know the actual length of the current nakago.

Is a longsword like my estimate compatible with the Presumed style/school of this sword ? ...and what degree of curvature would it have?

you started this "game"

[GeorgeLuucas]

28 minutes ago, sc72 said:

But if I were to know the estimated original length and curvature of the blade, what would I need it for?

Considering that you already know the attribution and era, you wouldn't "need" it per-se...

It would just be an exercise in the study of your sword. If the sword is O-suriage, it can be interesting to imagine what it might have looked like unaltered. 

If I am incorrect in assuming Jussi's meaning; hopefully someone will correct me.
Cheers,
-Sam

 

[Rivkin]

Its either o-suriage since it has one hole (meaning the original nakago is fully gone) or its ubu. Not with the best nakago finish, maybe moved hamachi and refinished, but mostly ubu. Hamon ending wide is not a reliable indicator of suriage unless its a very old sword or a smith who forged always with hamon ending sharp at hamachi. Sugata might help understanding whether its ubu or not, size-wise it is quite possibly near-ubu since at the time very long blades were uncommon. 

[sc72]

If the sword it were "ubu" (or almost) it would be "mumei" and therefore what is written about the attribution to the name of the alleged blacksmith on the "Hozon paper" is entirely incorrect. However, as soon as it arrives (tomorrow I think) I'll post the photos and we'll talk about it.

Just to know what I bought

[sc72]

 hozon paper issued  in  2003 year

[Rivkin]

4 minutes ago, sc72 said:

If the sword it were "ubu" (or almost) it would be "mumei" and therefore what is written about the attribution to the name of the alleged blacksmith on the "Hozon paper" is entirely incorrect. However, as soon as it arrives (tomorrow I think) I'll post the photos and we'll talk about it.

Just to know what I bought

 

NBTHK generally does not put "suriage", "o-suriage" etc. on papers. It is probably written "mumei (Takada)" and the rest is seller's narrative.

[sc72]

Ok but then if it was a nakago ubu and the attribution to the smith was still plausible could the two things coexist... i.e. an ubu blade and "mumei" and attributed to someone from the Hozon? And in that case it would be even better for the evaluation of the sword instead of the suriage... as a value?