Why cut the nagako?

[sanjuro]

  Quote

It is "junk" when the boshi is touched by the tip breaking: fatal flow.

 

not apparently to the NBTHK who have given some few of such blades Juyo status, if one is to give credence to preceding posts in this thread. A slight break on the very tip is only a fatal flaw to people who consider nihonto strictly as art. Both as a sword per se and as an artifact they are firstly still viable as a weapon, and supposing the break does not interrupt the hamon of the kissaki, then strictly speaking it is not a fatal flaw. If the boshi is entirely broken away then yes, its junk. Both as a weapon and also as a piece of art. Its still an artifact though.

 

To my way of thinking, considering a nihonto purely as art is rather like hoarding a bottle of good red wine because its rare. Its worth nothing to its owner above the monetary value until he drinks it! Only then can it be fully appreciated. Similarly, a nihonto is firstly a weapon. It may also be a work of art. A nihonto that is created as purely a work of art solely for the viewing is something of an anathema, and a waste of a fine edge and well forged kissaki.

 

I shall now stand by for the firestorm. :D

[Adrian]

  Jean said:

Adrian,

 

You should know by now.

 

It is "junk" when the boshi is touched by the tip breaking: fatal flow.

 

I know it Jean . The question is about the timeline, so to speak, I was wondering when this perception appeared.

[kunitaro]

If there is no Boshi (no hamon at Kissaki), the Tip is not hard.

you can not stab, so it is defect as a weapon. (that is why cutting Nakago when it shortend)

that is why we can call a sword without Boshi a Junk.

It is no value as a weapon.

I think that we still can enjoy by looking and study the material.

 

and we can always Re-temper the blade, make new full hamon.

the blade become functional weapon again,

but, it is no art value. because, Hamon is not original.

Burned blades (no hamon) as well.

a lot of defected blades were re-tempered in the past.

Therefore, there is a lot of re tempered blades are existed.

[Jean]

You are wrong Adrian, there is no time line, it is not a flaw to reshape the kissaki and not frown upon as long as it is not a fatal flaw. Now, if you want to know why, try to figure yourself in the middle of a battle with a sword with a fatal flow in the kissaki...otherwise look at NBTHK criteria for Shinsa

[Brian]

  sanjuro said:

Both as a sword per se and as an artifact they are firstly still viable as a weapon, and supposing the break does not interrupt the hamon of the kissaki, then strictly speaking it is not a fatal flaw. If the boshi is entirely broken away then yes, its junk. Both as a weapon and also as a piece of art. Its still an artifact though.

In every case here, when we are refering to a broken tip/kissaki...we are refering to a break through the hamon. Interrupted hamon.

We are not talking about chip that can be repaired.

Interrupted hamon anywhere has always been considered a fatal flaw. Papered if an important work, but only to recognise a significant piece.

 

Brian

[Marius]

  watsonmil said:

. With the advent of the Hadori Polish, .... dealers could have the polisher PAINT in a boshi using acid or other techniques thus making an ART Sword out of a utilitarian weapon ( just one of the reasons for my preference for the sashikomi polish ).

 

Ron,

 

I am sure you know how to look at the hamon in order to see nioiguchi. It does not matter if the sword is in kesho or sashikomi - the nioiguchi can always be seen very clearly. Of course the hamon may be shimi (blurred) by repeated polishing, but one can see it nonetheless.

 

Only a total beginner could be mislead by a fake hamon, which has been "painted", as you have expressed it, by a polisher.

 

1. A hamon cannot be faked, as producing it requires tempering

2. A blade that has lost hamon/boshi can be re-tempered, but the result is a real hamon and not a fake hamon.

3. A blade can be partially re-tempered. e.g. to reinstate a lost boshi, but in such a case there will be a nioi-gire (considered a fatal flaw)

 

For all those who don't know how to see the hamon proper (and not the results of hadori polish) here is a good article:

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/hamon.html

 

And here is a short info on yaki-tsugi (partial re-tempering):

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/episodes ... 0temperimg

 

Enjoy :-)

 

PS:

I tend to look at the nioiguchi under halogen light. It works so well for me, that I don't even have to point the sword towards the light source. Amazing how bright and beautiful the nioiguchi of my Sosho hitatsura tanto looks when hadori white is invisible. Yes, a hitatsura tanto got a hadori polish. Sad, but true.

[Adrian]

Thank you guys, some very interesting info here .

 

However I feel that my initial question got somehow lost in translation, so to speak .

 

To rephrase it a bit: did (at a certain point in Japanese history) the poorer samurai ceased to buy re-tempered blades due to low demand and relativelly steady offer? Or this didn't occured at all and the "broken kissaki up to boshi = junk" is purelly a collector's agreement?

 

I'm thinking that it was much cheaper to re-temper a blade with missing tip rather then to forge a new one.

[cabowen]

The criteria that drives collectors of Japanese swords is based largely on traditional beliefs and values handed down from the past. The reason swords with certain defects are shunned today is because they were shunned in the past. They were shunned in the past because they were known to be unreliable when lives were at stake. Many, if not most, of the traditional guidelines used by collectors today are part of a continuum that can be traced back to the time when swords were used as well as collected. While undoubtedly there are "new" guidelines created by Western collectors, often out of confusion as much as anything else, for the most part, the core of the collecting canon is rooted in history.

[Marius]

  Adrian said:

To rephrase it a bit: did (at a certain point in Japanese history) the poorer samurai ceased to buy re-tempered blades due to low demand and relativelly steady offer? Or this didn't occured at all and the "broken kissaki up to boshi = junk" is purelly a collector's agreement?

 

I'm thinking that it was much cheaper to re-temper a blade with missing tip rather then to forge a new one.

 

1. Yes, it was cheaper to re-temper and many blades have undergone this procedure.

2. Lack of boshi was and is a fatal flaw and a sword without a boshi was regarded as junk by samurai and was/is regarded as such by collectors.

3. Re. 2: There are exceptions, of course, like very old swords, where the repeated polishes have caused a loss of boshi. If you have a Heian tachi, you will ignore the lack of boshi and study the steel and the tempering.

4. Chris has wrapped up the topic so well, that there is really nothing more to be said and this post here is just chatter

[Adrian]

Chris and Mariusz, I don't doubt that "The criteria that drives collectors of Japanese swords is based largely on traditional beliefs and values handed down from the past." Makes perfect sense.

 

However I don't see (from a logical point of view) why a re-tempered blade wouldn't have made sense for a poor samurai. Either as a repair of his own broken sword or as a purchase. So, if this was the case, I don't think that a sword with broken kissaki up to boshi would have been seen as junk back in the day. More likely it would have been either repaired by the owner (because of lack of funds for a new purchase) or purchased at very low prices by smiths who repaired and subsequently sold it at a bargain price.

 

Of course this is just from a logical point of view .

[Jean]

Stop speculating, Adrian...lost of time and energy as nothing has been written on the Topic and no statistics are available.

[Dr Fox]

Hi all

I have a feeling there are fingers, hovering over the locked button once again. Before that, may I just say that this subject on broken tips (which has been covered before) I felt bad the last time we visited this, and I feel even worse now on the second visit.

I recalled a gent showing me a splendid looking sword, he had dropped on to a tiled floor; the tip was a clean break. Asking for an opinion, I said at the time I was not sure that the sword was repairable, or if it were the cost would be substantial. It is to my regret that I didn't know then, what I know now, bad advice given without expertise.

Denis.

[sanjuro]

  Quote

(at a certain point in Japanese history) the poorer samurai ceased to buy re-tempered blades due to low demand

 

What's being overlooked in the original post is that not all samurai went out and ordered a blade to satisfy his weaponry needs. The 'poorer' samurai being outfitted at the expense of the lord they served, were at various points in history and in various hans, issued with swords rather than being required to purchase them as the richer samurai were wont to do. A broken or damaged blade under these circumstances (as in the first instance) would simply have been replaced from the hyogo or armoury.

I suspect that those swords that were repaired were either done so at the expense of the daimyo and reissued or were deliberately repaired as a favoured weapon by their owners at their own expense.

I seriously doubt many samurai would have been obliged to knowingly buy a repaired sword purely due to a lack of appropriate funds.

All of this however is speculative as has been observed. We cannot possibly know the extent to which swords were repaired and reissued or on the other hand repaired and reused by their owners.

So endeth my contribution to this speculative thread.

[cabowen]

Have you ever seen a sword that has been rehardened? It takes an expert smith to do it right. A lot of steel is removed in the process as the edge needs to be taken down to roughly 1/16" in thickness. Usually, unless a sword is very healthy, it will end up a shadow of its former self. It needs a new polish afterwards as well. It is probably not economically viable in most cases, that is, it is cheaper just to buy another sword....

[Adrian]

No, I haven't But tbh, from what I read about the whole process of making nihonto, I think your argument applies more to a sword that has a deep chip interrupting the hamon somewhere on the ha. Indeed such flaw would probably require so much work to fix that it wouldn't be economically viable and the resulting sword would be, as you very well put it "a shadow of its former self".

 

At this point we would probably need the opinion of someone trained in the art of nihonto making, as someone with this kind of knowledge could easily figure out if re-tempering a sword with a broken kissaki would make sense from an economic point of view.

 

Not sure if any of today's licensed smiths is a member here tho (I'm far from finishing reading all the useful material on this forum at this point - but I'm on my way, this is how I found this topic ).

But judging from kunitaro's message, re-tempering the blade wasn't a rare choice:

 

  kunitaro said:

a lot of defected blades were re-tempered in the past.

Therefore, there is a lot of re tempered blades are existed.

[cabowen]

You aren't getting it: any sword, to reharden, needs to have a lot of steel removed (as I said, the entire edge needs to be taken off until it is about 1/16" thick at the edge) and be repolished. I have seen it done several times. Unless the sword is by a well known smith or an heirloom, it usually isn't worth the time and trouble. Like I said, it is usually cheaper to buy a different blade. There probably were times when it was expedient to reharden a blade due to need, as is always the case in times of war but more likely most often the tip will be reshaped, a boshi "drawn in", and the sword retired from service. Saiha, or rehardened blades, are seen from time to time. Often they were in a fire and lost their hamon.

[hybridfiat]

My inexpert observation is that; there are more than one or two philosophys at work here and not all directly derived from the 'samuria' way of life.

The 'Art Sword' concept has been arond a long time sure; but was made most prominant when Gen MacArthur was in charge of Japan and was convinced to class Nihonto as art works not weapons. This was vital for the survival of these historical and culturally important artifacts. This veiw is much stronger today I suspect than it was during the time of the samuria.

Next is the concept that an object that has a functional value should be without functional flaw to retain that value. This is quite utilitarian but valid to collectors in many other fields of collection, eg; tractors, handplanes, marine navigation instruments...etc.

Then we should also factor in the Japanese paradigm of perfection in functionality and form, it is present in our Western culture but not as deep seated or dare I say it institutionalised as in Japan.

The Japanese can be compared to the Germans in their obsession with perfection in creation. It overran the West's car industry like a battletank during the 70s and 80s and America has not recovered from the intense drive to create products with not simply buyer appeal but the highest functionality and durability possible.

This paradigm or philosophy can be seen quite clearly in the manufacture of their swords, their fittings and indeed almost any household artifact from the past. They are made well BECAUSE it is possible to make them well.

One of the things a beginner to 'Nihonto spotting' learns is that no matter how cheap and nasty, no matter how lowly or functional a Japanese sword is; it WILL have clean lines (almost perfect in most cases) and a form that is not easily reproduced. This makes spotting a fake so much easier. The same cannot be said for European swords, the best are good, the foot soldiers often rough and ready.

So the debate about the value WE place on these swords will continue because in some way we all will stress one measure of value over another.

My hope is that it will never lead to the loss of a sword.

[Adrian]

  cabowen said:

You aren't getting it: any sword, to reharden, needs to have a lot of steel removed (as I said, the entire edge needs to be taken off until it is about 1/16" thick at the edge) and be repolished. I have seen it done several times.

 

Chris, are you saying that re-tempering a sword in order to make another hamon due to a broken kissaki requires removing the entire ha up to the former hamon ? If yes, then you are correct, I didn't got it . If not, then you probably were a bit too fast to tell me that .

 

 

  cabowen said:

Unless the sword is by a well known smith or an heirloom, it usually isn't worth the time and trouble. Like I said, it is usually cheaper to buy a different blade. There probably were times when it was expedient to reharden a blade due to need, as is always the case in times of war but more likely most often the tip will be reshaped, a boshi "drawn in", and the sword retired from service. Saiha, or rehardened blades, are seen from time to time. Often they were in a fire and lost their hamon.

 

 

Here there is a clear contradiction. In times of war and trouble no-one will go for anything but the simpler and less time-consuming solution. If re-tempering a sword in order to fix a broken kissaki was done in times of war, I'd say it definitely proves that such repair makes sense from an economic point of view (and is also probably efficient when it comes to the time and labor involved).

 

I think at this point this discussion requires a bit more historic research and maybe access to some Japanese sources that aren't nihonto-related.

[cabowen]

  Adrian said:

 

Chris, are you saying that re-tempering a sword in order to make another hamon due to a broken kissaki requires removing the entire ha up to the former hamon ? If yes, then you are correct, I didn't got it . If not, then you probably were a bit too fast to tell me that .

 

Yes, that is nearly what I am saying. The whole blade is filed to make it rough for the clay to adhere, and the edge is filed down because a thin edge will crack easily when quenched. Are you familiar with what "ubu-ba" is? This is the original edge of the blade prior to quenching. The whole blade needs to be reshaped to blunt the edge. A lot of steel is removed and the width of the blade reduced.

 

  Adrian said:

Here there is a clear contradiction. In times of war and trouble no-one will go for anything but the simpler and less time-consuming solution. If re-tempering a sword in order to fix a broken kissaki was done in times of war, I'd say it definitely proves that such repair makes sense from an economic point of view (and is also probably efficient when it comes to the time and labor involved).

 

I think at this point this discussion requires a bit more historic research and maybe access to some Japanese sources that aren't nihonto-related.

 

Depends on what you consider a proper repair. You are assuming that war time repairs were done with the same care and methods as used in other times. That is not true.

 

I talked to a smith who was in China repairing swords during the war. Swords with broken tips had the tip reshaped roughly with a file, then placed monouchi forward in what was basically a camp fire. The lower half of the blade was wrapped with a wet towel or whatever was at hand. The tip was brought to temp and stuck into a can of water. Now the tip was hard again. Not exactly how it is done when done properly. But it is quick and many can be done at once. They weren't able to forge new swords to replace all the damaged ones and they couldn't just buy new ones, so they worked with what they had. Clearly they were only concerned with function and the swords lost any value, other than practical value as a result. Properly rehardening a blade with the goal of ending up with something true to the original is, again, a time consuming, difficult, and ultimately costly endeavor.

[Adrian]

  cabowen said:

Are you familiar with what "ubu-ba" is? This is the original edge of the blade prior to quenching.

 

Yes, if I got it right this can still be seen on blades that only had very few polishes since they were made.

 

I fully understand your argument but I'm not sure if it applies on all swords and circumstances. For example a relatively wide sword that has a not so wide ha (I've seens quite a few even with my limited experience) would not lose so much material in the process.

 

 

  cabowen said:

Depends on what you consider a proper repair. You are assuming that war time repairs were done with the same care and methods as used in other times. That is not true.

 

I talked to a smith who was in China repairing swords during the war. Swords with broken tips had the tip reshaped roughly with a file, then placed monouchi forward in what was basically a camp fire. The lower half of the blade was wrapped with a wet towel or whatever was at hand. The tip was brought to temp and stuck into a can of water. Now the tip was hard again. Not exactly how it is done when done properly. But it is quick and many can be done at once. They weren't able to forge new swords to replace all the damaged ones and they couldn't just buy new ones, so they worked with what they had. Clearly they were only concerned with function and the swords lost any value, other than practical value as a result. Properly rehardening a blade with the goal of ending up with something true to the original is, again, a time consuming, difficult, and ultimately costly endeavor.

 

That's a solid argument indeed. But does it apply to repairs made in ancient times? When the number of combatants were smaller, the numbers of smiths were far larger and the sword was the primary weapon of many fighters?

 

I think the historical context was totally different. Not to mention the social and military ones.

 

Anyway, you obviously know much more then me on the manufacturing or repairing process of nihonto so I hope you're not taking offense in this debate (as I've seen with others on other topics). My idea is based more on historical and logical considerations but may (of course) be proved wrong by strictly technical arguments like the one you presented.

 

I'm wondering if there are any sources about the techniques used for blade repair in war time by the smiths of ancient Japan?

[Jean]

Adrian,

 

This topic concerns Koto swords.

 

Most of the swords which were repaired on battlefields and the repairing shorcuts as the one described by Chris apply.

 

There were far more soldiers on the field than swordsmiths. Swordsmiths following the army campaigns were not Masamune, Kagemitsu, Sadatsuna ....They were practical/experienced smiths able to mend quickly swords.

 

Study well the suguta of Kamakura blades and their length....

[Jussi Ekholm]

Adrian I will recommend getting a copy of this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Japanese- ... 54-1937109

 

It's an excellent book which will teach a lot of the craft of the Japanese sword.

 

Hopefully this picture will explain further what Chris explained earlier about retempering.

[Alex A]

Out of curiosity, how many smiths would an army take with it to a battle?.

 

Alex.

[cabowen]

  Adrian said:

 

 

I fully understand your argument but I'm not sure if it applies on all swords and circumstances. For example a relatively wide sword that has a not so wide ha (I've seens quite a few even with my limited experience) would not lose so much material in the process.

 

That is why I said "most of the time". Sure, some blades that are perhaps wider than normal would be fine afterwards. They would still lose the same amount of material when moving the edge back but would have more to lose. Most older blades have already lost a lot from repeated polishing.

 

I am speaking from experience, having seen it done several times. If it was "economically viable" and thus, common practice to reharden blades, we would certainly see an abundance of them. Again, in most cases, it is and was done in the past mostly for blades of historical importance that were then retired. For example, Yasutsugu, the Tokugawa smith, is known to have rehardened a hundred or more famous blades on the order of the Shogun that had been burned. For run of the mill swords, it wasn't, and still isn't, worth the time and trouble. I have explained, from a purely practical and economic standpoint, why it is not common. Not sure what your point is or why you continue to belabor the issue.

[Adrian]

  cabowen said:

Not sure what your point is or why you continue to belabor the issue.

 

 

I thought that was obvious: to gain more knowledge on the subject

 

The discussion resulted in very clear explanations about the process of re-tempering nihonto, sure this cannot be a bad thing. For this I thank everyone who took the time to bring something new to the table, so to speak

 

 

As for the rest, I will try to dig trough the material available in the historiography on the Sengoku period. I'd expect that, considering the size of the armies that clashed on the various battlefields of this period, the demand would have exceeded supply by far and the subject of sword repair may be at least touched in some historical documents.

[Jean]

Good Luck Adrian and if you find something interesting, feel free to post it

[Dr Fox]

Adrian

 

 

  Quote

I'd expect that, considering the size of the armies that clashed on the various battlefields of this period, the demand would have exceeded supply by far and the subject of sword repair may be at least touched in some historical documents.

 

 

Yes consider the size of the armies, but also consider the amount of fatalities, literally hundreds. Swords and armour were gathered up by all and sundry, if anything I would imagine this would be a time of plenty. A vast many of these 'gatherers', had their eyes on the resale market, and even dispatched the wounded to acquire these items. (if history is to be believed).

Denis.

[Adrian]

Denis,

 

I'm not sure you understand very well the way wars were fought during the Middle Ages. Hand to hand combat results in a lot of damage to the weapons used and this is why each army was followed by a number of smiths, as Jean already mentioned a few posts ago.

So, unless a battle turned into a rout at it's very early stages (and therefore taking a minimum toll on the equipment), even the winning side would always have a lot of work to do to get the weaponry in usable condition. After a hard fought battle the situation was far worse, of course.

 

This is one of the reasons why scavenging the battlefield was a lucrative thing to do. Any weapon found in good (or at least usable) condition would immediately fetch a good price.

[Adrian]

  Jean said:

Good Luck Adrian and if you find something interesting, feel free to post it

 

You seem certain that I have more chances to win the lottery :D Which is wrong, because I never play :lol:

 

Anyway, if I dig up something you'll be the first to know.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

About yakinaoshi

 

http://www.nihontocraft.com/Yakinaoshi.html