Bishu Osafune Sukesada 1522

[Alex A]

A good write-up A BRIEF STUDY OF BIZEN BLADES OF THE MUROMACHI ERA - NIHONTO

 

As i said, if you see a low grade sword, you will know it.

 

A few weeks ago we saw signed and dated Sue Bizen sword, turned out it was gimei with a date to match, though looked Bizen. I am of the impression there may be a significant number of mumei Bizen swords out there with fake mei (WITH DATE), some of which get papered as the swords are obviously Bizen.

 

Blanket term "Kazu Uchi Mono", the bad ones that stood out to me when ive seen them don't even have a mei, have really rough hada with Masame and have no appeal whatsoever. 

 

If the smiths that produced them were doing stuff like saving on steel to make as many as they can then why the hell would they spend extra time chiselling a date out on junk for throw away utilitarian swords?

 

The good ones you come across are signed and dated, have well formed Ko itame/mokume hada with Jinie, utsuri. A lot of the time with horimono such as bo-hi, Futasuji hi. many made in or around Eisho

 

In between low grade and high grade a wealth of variety. Not all were bashed out in no time.

 

The term "Kazu Uchi Mono" can be a little irritating when the better ones get thrown under the heading, but that's how it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shugyosha]

To channel Guido from the other kazu uchi mono thread, what is it that is always said when someone asks if a signature is genuine? The response is that you need to judge the blade by the quality of its workmanship before considering the mei...

 

It does seem improbable to me that the entire workload of Sue Bizen smiths can be characterised by a split between custom ordered blades and kazu uchi mono: either top notch or junk. If a blade has survived 500 or so years without showing shingane or significant delaminations then the chances are that greater care was shown in the quality of the materials used and its making than for a blade to be given to the spear/ musket fodder of the era. Furthermore, as Alex says, if an effort was made to put a date on a blade it has to indicate a greater degree of pride shown in its manufacture compared to the unsigned or undated blades. Nicholas's blade is ubu which might indicate that it merited greater care in its use and keeping than a throw-away weapon which might take a beating and be shortened to remove the damage or simply thrown on the orishigane pile to be formed into a new blade.

 

Anyway, this being the military swords section of the forum I do find it a bit rich that when a traditionally made blade is found in military mounts there is a rush to denigrate it. Given the enormous quantity of mass-produced blades of the WW2 era or thereabouts, which are pretty much sword-shaped pieces of metal with no distinguishing characteristics between one and the next, it does seem a little ironic but we all like different stuff for different reasons and the world would be a dull place if that wasn't the case.

[PNSSHOGUN]

An important note from the article Alex linked:

"The blade shown here is by the smith, Katsumitsu.   It is dated as being made in 1513, the ninth year of Eisho (永正) ,the middle of the late Muromachi Era.  Please note that despite the form of the signature, this blade was made before the start of the production of kazu-uchi mono described above."