Questions about Muromachi Katana

[GeorgeLuucas]

13 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

Just because it's mumei does not mean the attribution is incorrect.

It would help if we could see the papers to determine what the NBTHK said versus what you and the seller are saying. 

The NBTHK are very skilled with an incredible depth of knowledge and resources. I'd trust their attribution whether or not it's mumei, suriage, etc..
 

Edited October 9 by GeorgeLuucas

[Rivkin]

6 minutes ago, sc72 said:

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?

 

Maybe a bit better. It matters a lot if its a prime level smith or very old sword, otherwise plus-minus.

Yes, mumei ubu can be made and attributed.

[sc72]

2 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

 

Maybe a bit better. It matters a lot if its a prime level smith or very old sword, otherwise plus-minus.

Yes, mumei ubu can be made and attributed.

Ok in my Hozon paper "mumei" word  end presumed smith's name ....are togheter write inside

[sc72]

thanks to all for your help 

tomorrow  I go with fotos

[Jussi Ekholm]

Sorry for the bit cryptic message but the discussion got the idea I was after, that sword would either be greatly shortened or original length.

 

Now this following is just purely speculating from measurements and pictures alone and perhaps far from truth. I personally would think the sword being greatly shortened. As the sword has massive motohaba measurement and fairly large sakihaba measurement, I would think it would have been sent to shinsa as potential Nanbokuchō blade. It is my personal guess that several wide mumei swords that get attributed to various Takada smiths might have been sent in with hopes of them passing as Nanbokuchō work. That is just my own speculation with no facts to back that up. I like the item regardless of the attribution and NBTHK panel sure knows lot more than me. The unfortunate thing financially is that there is quite a large price difference between mumei late Muromachi sword and mumei Nanbokuchō sword is similar condition and comparable level of attribution.

 

I see it as nice and wide blade that I think would have been 80+cm in original length. Hamon looks wild and interesting on this one. As there is not too much curvature in general I think it would have been similarily curved originally. Of course I could be completely wrong in this line of thought if the sword would be in original size currently. 

[sc72]

Ok,
I'll post photos tomorrow if the sword arrives

[ROKUJURO]

Stefano,

making good photos of swords isn't easy and takes a lot of experience. I suggest your images should be:
 

- well focused, not foggy or blurry
- made with a dark, non reflective background for good contrast
- made with light from the side (may not apply for HAMON photos)
- made directly from above (not at an angle)
- made with correct orientation (vertically tip-upwards, especially NAKAGO photos and TSUBA) 
- without HABAKI but showing the MACHI and NAKAGO JIRI 
- made in high resolution to see details
- showing details (in magnification) like BOSHI, HAMACHI, HAMON, HADA, NAKAGO JIRI etc. or the fine work on TSUBA
- presented as cut-outs so very little background is shown
 

If you cannot provide good photos (..."these photos are all I have from the dealer...."/..."I do not have a good camera but only an old mobile phone...." ), DO NOT POST BAD ONES. They will not be helpful.

[Nihonto student]

I saw this blade online, but I clearly respect Stefano's choice, I only say that the Hozon certificate attributes the blade to a specific Bungo Takada swordsmith.

 

Stefano the certificate is valid (NBTHK) so I don't think there is any discussion about the attribution.

 

Regarding the suriage I had the same doubts expressed in the previous posts, I didn't have time to do much research but I found a Juyo Token with a 81cm upper nagasa by the same author, the description (NBTHK) says:"From the first impression made by the shape, this tachi seems to be from no later than the Kamakura Period, is just a guess, but with the long tachi style, the smith seems to have made a katana modeled after Kamakura period classic masterpieces".

 

This makes me think of a certain attitude of this swordsmith in taking previous sugata as a model, in your specific case (Having seen photos of the blade in full) I would say that the blade recalls the Nambokucho period therefore the perspective of a nagasa superior to the standard of its time seems plausible to me and therefore I think that the shortening was notable on your blade. (Only deductions, no certainties).

 

Regards,

 

Giordy

[sc72]

Thank you,
could you send me this description of a sword from the same craftsman and similar to mine ...if it is online?

So if I understand correctly this swordsmith produced long katanas in the muromachi inspired by the previous period, it is plausible that later (Edo?) even more so they wanted to shorten them

[sc72]

I bought this sword as a production of this swordmaker "X" and from this Muromachi era and as a "suriage" sword, the certificate says all this, the blade (nakago) suggests an "o-suriage" (long cut).

It doesn't bother me at all to think of a craftsman who was inspired by previous blades nor that in a later era (I think Edo) the blade was shortened to make it suitable for the fashions and styles of the time.

I also think that if the muromachi is famous for blades produced "on a large scale" and of poor quality, this reconstruction of my sword may instead suggest a not so poor product, for the time both for the name of the alleged creator and for the inspiration of the sword as a style-project.

The observation of the presence of only one hole on the tang led us to the dissertations on suriage.

There are some scratches on the polish as we noticed at the beginning, perhaps from "rubbing", otherwise it's fine for the price

Stay tuned for the fotos

[Nihonto student]

3 hours ago, sc72 said:

 

So if I understand correctly this swordsmith produced long katanas in the muromachi inspired by the previous period, it is plausible that later (Edo?) even more so they wanted to shorten them

I don't think this can be considered completely truth, the fact of having a precedent does not mean that this author only produced blades with non-standard nagasa, there are many blades that do not fall within "the standard" of the period in all periods, simply the fact of having a precedent for this author gives rise to thinking that it is not impossible.

 

Takada school has "copying" in its dna even if with distinctive features, this without discrediting Bungo since my general opinion in this regard reflects that of Jussi, and personally I consider the blade in question a good example in relation to the school, its rustic nature aimed at practicality shines through.

 

We cannot know when the blade was shortened and the reason... we can only speculate about it, it is also complicated to establish in monetary/percentage terms how much an (Possible) O-suriage affects blades price in this market segment (If we talk about market in general, Bungo blades are certainly not among the most sought-after blades), some person more expert than me will perhaps be able to provide an indication based on their experience, but in addition to the intrinsic value I think we must consider also the general sales appeal and certainly a ubu blade with nagasa 80+cm it would have much more appeal.

 

Regards,

 

Giordy

 

 

[sc72]

[sc72]

Yes Giordy, but I assume that "ubu" would have cost more.

 

I concentrated the photos on the nakago part, some photos I won't upload because they are too heavy.

the tang tapers towards the lower part which is cut "cleanly" with o-Suriage, without restoring the shape of the nakago, which I believe is defined as “Kiri”, also known as “ichimonji”

[sc72]

[sc72]

I thank everyone for their contributions ...and the photos may not be a masterpiece but they are not blurry.

Just out of curiosity, the sword weighs (with koshirae grip mounted, but without sheath) 1,040 kg

[Rivkin]

Ok, probably the first photo there was some weird angle which made it look like nakago has a proper finish, this is as o-suriage as they come.

[sc72]

I found an article by M. Sesko in which he says that "o-suriage" is divided in 1 "tenshi" and 2 "keicho". The first, after shortening, reconstructed the nakago by restoring the jiri, the second was a clear "cut off" of the kirijiri without any aesthetic ambitions.

Well the first type was in the period 1573-1592, while the second in 1596-1615. I don't think it's something to read as safe and rigid, but it could perhaps lead us to assume that the "cut offs" are for later "o-suriages", when the shortening was no longer something to disguise but normal.

[Lewis B]

As Jussi said, an interesting looking blade. Needs a lot less oil though. Mekugi appears punched and not drilled.

[sc72]

what does this suggest about mekugi?

[sc72]

sorry for big writing

[GeorgeLuucas]

It suggests the mekugi-ana MIGHT have been done earlier; because drilling is viewed as a more modern method.
But drilling is ancient, so it's far from indisputable...

Although, trying to determine exactly when an old sword was suriage, might be a fools errand because it's impossible to confirm.

Fun to think about, and wonder though.
Cheers,
-Sam

[Lewis B]

Yes, I believe the tooling needed for drilling was available in the Edo period. 

[Franco D]

2 hours ago, GeorgeLuucas said:

Although, trying to determine exactly when an old sword was suriage, might be a fools errand because it's impossible to confirm.

 

If it had no real importance why would Mr. Tanobe have talked about it at a Florida sword show?

 

If it had no real importance why would there be mention of it in a Marcus Sesko article?  

 

In the overall evaluation of a sword, sometimes it's the additional small details that confirm or deny one's conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GeorgeLuucas]

2 hours ago, Franco D said:

 

If it had no real importance why would Mr. Tanobe have talked about it at a Florida sword show?

 

If it had no real importance why would there be mention of it in a Marcus Sesko article?  

 

In the overall evaluation of a sword, sometimes it's the additional small details that confirm or deny one's conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I’m a little confused, and maybe putting my foot in my mouth with my novice understanding. 
 

I have no doubt of the importance of determining if a sword is shortened or not. And telling if it’s punched or drilled. But is it actually possible to determine exactly when the shortening happened? 
 

With respect,

-Sam 

[sc72]

I enjoy posting new threads precisely to get these ideas from forum regulars, when I said that I didn't understand exactly what was behind a statement or observation said in a cryptic way, this is because I'm a novice.

I sincerely thank everyone who helped me.

Regarding the "clean cut" of the tang without its reconstruction, I spoke of an idea, of a tendency that led me to hypothesize the shortening in the EDO period, not of a certainty. Rightly there was also the aspect of mekugi-ana and the technique with which it was made....another thing they were ignorant of, but I also understand that this aspect does not certainly exclude shortening work done in the EDO

Thanks again everyone

[Bugyotsuji]

Following outrage after famous incidents like public killings, laws were passed limiting the length of swords. The dates of these laws are generally known, and can help you narrow down when the work was done.

[sc72]

M. Sesko said: "(...) The honzashi of the samurai, i.e. the katana, was limited to a blade length of 2 shaku 8 sun (~ 84.8 cm) and the wakizashi to 1 shaku 8 sun (~ 54.5 cm). However, these measurements were slightly adjusted later".

I also knew (in my ignorance) that only samurai could carry longer swords beyond a certain measure to distinguish themselves from non-samurai soldiers and this distinguishes a katana from a wakisashi.

I suppose that after the law Sesko talks about there were other laws that further shortened the maximum size of the katana. Which is a bit funny, I dare say, because you can kill even with a shorter sword.

I ask you first to research better if you know that in any case they are still in 1600 and I deduce that you too are thinking of a shortening in the EDO.

Except that I was thinking for reasons of change of styles and fashions and peacetime without wars (= shorter swords), instead there is also the fact of these laws on the maximum size set by law

[Franco D]

 

FYI, https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/25760-interesting-mino-juyo/#comment-260547

 

 

 

 

[sc72]

Ah..

 

Franco, can I ask you your personal opinion about o-suriage of my sword?

your opinion about when it might have been done, as the most likely hypothesis

[Lewis B]

12 minutes ago, sc72 said:

Ah..

 

Franco, can I ask you your personal opinion about o-suriage of my sword?

your opinion about when it might have been done, as the most likely hypothesis

Can you post a pic of the nakago perpendicular and vertical without flash or bright light. The pic in the first post is deceptive due to the lighting used. The color of the Nakago should give an idea when it was shortened. Also regarding the mekugi there are usually telltale signs inside the hole to say if its punched as its a 2 step process involving the hammering of a punch from both sides.