Fujiwara Yukinaga: Why no info?

[Alex A]

Change the record, your climate nonsense was boring years ago.

[Rayhan]

2 hours ago, Jacques said:

Ask the NBTHK experts...

 

What's interesting is that collectors have the same mechanisms as climate skeptics: they think they know, when in fact they've only scratched the surface of the subject. Studying nihontö also means learning about the history of Japan and its civilizational practices (religion, castes, etc.).

Ok the correct thing to do when cups are full is stop pouring. Like any intrinsic art, I have my own view on Bungo swords and will just sit comfortably with that.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I have the "Bungo book" and this is the lineage from the Kaimoto smiths. There are few pages of text about them, as well as maybe 10 different swords by Yukinaga smiths in the book.

 

 

Sorens post had excellent graph that I think was probably made by Markus Sesko as it seems to have similar format that he uses, and to me it seems great. I would trust Markus over myself on these things.

 

My personal feeling is that Japanese top level sword appreciation is actually quite narrow minded. Of course I at least like to say I understand a bit why it is like that but I personally follow different view when it comes to swords. You'll just see the top and good level smiths featured in every publication and to me it gets bit boring. I like to find interesting and unknown stuff. But in traditional appreciation I think Takada smiths are seen as quite unimportant.

 

There is Tomoyuki (友行) during Nanbokuchō that is seen as a good smith. Unfortunately In person I have only seen one work attributed to him, National Treasure ōdachi of Ōyamazumi-jinja. It is absolutely spectacular supermassive sword but I have no opinion nor skill to say if the attribution would be correct. After that Nagamori (長盛) during Muromachi and Sadamori (定盛) are pretty much the only better regarded Takada smiths I know on top of my mind. I do think the appreciation gap between Tomoyuki and everyone else in the school is massive.

 

You can search 藤原行長 to find some reference work. There is actually a lot of variation in work.

[Jacques]

8 hours ago, Alex A said:

Change the record, your climate nonsense was boring years ago.

Sorry but no, it's exactly the same behavior and you can extend it to all subjects. Human stays human with all his cognitive biases.. The worse being that he will never admit it.

[Gakusee]

18 hours ago, Jacques said:

No sword is unbreakable; the Japanese swords broke on the Mongols' boiled leather breastplates, leading Masamune to devise new forging techniques. Most of the swords that have come down to us were never used in combat - many were hoarded as soon as they were made, and were only worn for informal ceremonies (which is to be expected, given their price). The vast majority of kazu-uchimono were made during the Sengoku-jidai, and are therefore koto. An art sword is functional because the quality of the workmanship makes it a work of art. A sword of art is not a sword with a flamboyant hamon, but a sword perfectly made at every stage of its manufacture. Quality of steel, uniqueness of the hada, homogeneity of the hamon, layout of the nie, etc.

 

Robots and machines make cars, not people, so there's no comparison.

 

The Mongol attire consisted of leather, chain mail and thick cotton chemise underneath. My understanding is that the theory is that Japanese swords did not necessarily break (of course some of them did break) but they failed as they could not cut through the three different materials. If you think about the standard thick niku mid Kamakura blade, it was meant to both cut (ito, fabric) and crush/cut the metal armour lamellae. But leather and the heavy garment underneath produced a different challenge than crushing metal. 
Hence, swords became thinner but wider into end-Kamakura / Nanbokucho to facilitate the cutting element through the thicker leather outer of the Mongolians and also the protections underneath. 
But as some above have said, that is just one theory. And that Nanbokucho transition to wider/thinner swords really happened some 40-50 years after the Mongol invasions of 1274-81. But if the Japanese swords failed so badly in the 1280s, the change would have been much swifter than in the 1230s and later. 
So, personally, I am not a big believer in that explanation of the change in the manufacture due to the low speed of evolution. However, that theory persists. 

[Matsunoki]

9 hours ago, Jacques said:

What's interesting is that collectors have the same mechanisms as climate skeptics: they think they know, when in fact they've only scratched the surface of the subject.

Bizarrely sweeping generalisation that adds nothing constructive to the discussion……as is often the case.

[Rivkin]

Many things produced by Bungo smiths, Yukinaga and his lineage included, are simple, utilitarian and rough.

At the same time they were making higher end blades in distinctively old styles - Rai, Aoe, Soshu and Bizen.

Couple of people in Muromachi Bungo produced excellent Aoe. Their Bizen is passable (kozori level), their Soshu is busy but average.

Yukinaga was one of very few people in all shinto who produced quality utsuri and chikei. He made many average utilitarian blades and even his artistic blades have a tint of harshness and crispyness which some might find artificial, but I would consider those a good and interesting work and of all shinto Bungo he was probably the best.

 

Other interesting shinto smiths are Bungo Noriyuki and Motoyuki who went full Soshu, though they occasionally copied Rai-Hizen as well. Their lesser blades have very plain featureless hada and harsh hamon like second generation Naokatsu (though obviously much earlier). The better works are interesting though not the top grade.

 

I am not very fond of Bungo Tomoyuki or any of the smiths till mid-Muromachi post Bungo Yukihira and Joshu's generation. Their work style is however peculiar, with shifts between Soshu, Yamato and Bizen inspirations.

[Natichu]

6 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I have the "Bungo book" and this is the lineage from the Kaimoto smiths. There are few pages of text about them, as well as maybe 10 different swords by Yukinaga smiths in the book.

 

 

Sorens post had excellent graph that I think was probably made by Markus Sesko as it seems to have similar format that he uses, and to me it seems great. I would trust Markus over myself on these things.

 

My personal feeling is that Japanese top level sword appreciation is actually quite narrow minded. Of course I at least like to say I understand a bit why it is like that but I personally follow different view when it comes to swords. You'll just see the top and good level smiths featured in every publication and to me it gets bit boring. I like to find interesting and unknown stuff. But in traditional appreciation I think Takada smiths are seen as quite unimportant.

 

There is Tomoyuki (友行) during Nanbokuchō that is seen as a good smith. Unfortunately In person I have only seen one work attributed to him, National Treasure ōdachi of Ōyamazumi-jinja. It is absolutely spectacular supermassive sword but I have no opinion nor skill to say if the attribution would be correct. After that Nagamori (長盛) during Muromachi and Sadamori (定盛) are pretty much the only better regarded Takada smiths I know on top of my mind. I do think the appreciation gap between Tomoyuki and everyone else in the school is massive.

 

You can search 藤原行長 to find some reference work. There is actually a lot of variation in work.

I've seen the "Bungo Book" mentioned in a few posts, but have not yet seen mention of the title or author to allow me to track down a copy. Any chance you could provide a reference? 

[Toryu2020]

B732. Zusetsu Bungo To by Yamada - Japanese sword books and tsuba

[Natichu]

30 minutes ago, Toryu2020 said:

B732. Zusetsu Bungo To by Yamada - Japanese sword books and tsuba

Fantastic, thank you very much!