Flaws and faults

[paulb]

Eric,

you are absolutely right and the weakness is mine not the swords. I agree that the sword has much to appreciate and should be valued for those features. There is a certain contradiction in what I am saying as it is as I said previously if you (me) are unable to accept faults you should collect new swords and yet most of my focus over recent years has been on late Kamakura period work. attribute it to the early onset of contrary aging

[Marius]

Battle scars or rust points are not forging flaws. man must not confuse apples and oranges.

 

Dear Jacques,

 

is hagire a forging flaw? I don't think so. Even the best forged sword WILL develop hagire under extreme stress. You cannot use a sword with hagire, lest it breaks, but should this be a reason to disqualify it as an art sword?

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Hagire is mostly a tempering flaw sometimes a polishing one; it would be very rarely consecutive to a chock against another blade.

[paulb]

Dear Mariusz,

I don't want to answer for Jacques but I think it is possible for hagire to be a result of manufacture as well as a battle injury. I choose the word carefully because it is not a forging problem but could occur when the sword is quenched. As you know when the blade is plunged in to water the edge cools much more quickly than the body of the blade. As a result the blade curves towards the mune and this introduces incredible stresses in to the hard edge. As a result (modern smiths quote a failure rate of at least 10%) the blade may crack at the edge.

So hagire can occur without a blade ever getting close to a battle/fight. However if this was to happen at this time it is unlikely the sword would ever be completed and enter the supply chain.

Best Regards

Paul

ps Sorry Jacques mails crossed in the post!

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Hagire is mostly a tempering flaw sometimes a polishing one; it would be very rarely consecutive to a chock against another blade.

 

Hagire can't be safely assigned to any of the possible explanations we have (hardening, shock in battle, polishing) unless it's noticed very soon after it happens.

 

On a pure theoretical level, you're right. Hagire is the revelation of a weak point in the blade, weak point produced during the smithing process.

The problem is that weak points are not all of the same weakness. *ALL* swords, even the strongest, have such weak points and, granted, they'll reveal them if stressed enough.

But a good sword should have the level of the weakest point higher then a poor one. Like a chain, the blade is as resistant as her weakest point.

 

The quenching is an extremely stressing process and many blades fails at this point. But if the hagire is big enough to be visible during the polishing process (usually it is)

the blade is discarded. Successive very poor Togi might as well produce hagire, but it need one of the following conditions : either the blade has (for any reason) already a very weak point close to

crack or the Togishi is a master dog. First occurrence being the most common, due to stresses received during the sword life, even good Togishi might encounter this unfortunate case.

However this weak point, if not detectable after the first polish,even rough, is at a molecular level until it's not revealed by an external event.

 

On the other hand, the blade can also be so well made that this weak point reveal itself only after a major trauma as a direct strike against a sturdy Kabuto, or hitting a stone because the target eluded the strike, or due to the force used when freeing the blade entrapped in wood, action that stress the blade in the opposite direction it's supposed to work. Parring a strong strike with the Mune also produce stress to the Ha (remember how the smiths demolish the unwanted blades ?). All these thing can reveal a weak point, in fact producing an hagire that *wasn't there before*.

Professional soldiers (and Samurai *were* professionals) always check the healt status of their equipment and a sword with evident Hagire wouldn't be carried (in most cases, exceptions occurs everywhere).

 

The present day enhanched polishing tecniques might tell us that many swords were carried when (or even if) cracked, but the reasons for this crack can't be limited to poor smithing

not revealed by the polishing in the past centuries. IMHO.

[Marius]

I would recommend an interesting article on nihontocraft.com about extreme tameshigiri:

 

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

 

Hagire is mentioned several times.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

I've forgot to mention lateral stresses.

 

http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_097.htm

[raven2]

I have to agree with the others, this is a very good topic. I have two shinto blades both of which are in fine shape. I feel like I got good deals on both of them and am very happy with them. Both have very, very minor flaws which you really must look hard to find.

If I was looking in a higher price range, I would still probably have found the flaws acceptable. However, if I was looking at a lower price range, I would probably find more obvious and larger flaws acceptable. You get what you pay for. I do understand the view of having a perfect blade but considering the ages involved and the polishing, I feel it is unrealistic to expect to find one unless you are going to pay a large premium and are very lucky.

[drbvac]

There are very few collectibles in which age and condition do not really affect price, porcelain and fragile object maybe more so than others. It is probably true that for some objects there are NO really great condition items available. In the case of Nihonto depending on the ability of the smith most of his work could be free of faults but considering the conditions under which blades were forged maybe not as likely as newer.

 

So for collectors Eric may have it correct and there is a price/age/freedom from flaws formula that we are all involved in and I wonder related to another discussion related to aquiring vs collecting everything becomes sort of muddy when one has no shortage of money. Buy the best available and enjoy - most of us are not in that boat and try to get better than we can pay for after we have it home. :lol:

[seppuku]

Hi everyone

Is pitting be considered a flaw

Thanks

[sanjuro]

Josh

 

Whilst there may be a few causes of pitting, the most common would be from rust. Rust pitting arises from neglect rather than from a forging fault or from use. Pitting of any kind would be considered a fault. A deep pit from a slag blister for instance may even be a fatal flaw, dependant upon depth and location on the blade. Usually such a sword would not find its way into general use, but would be destroyed by the swordsmith.

[cisco-san]

I would be happy to see a pic from a overpolished blade where you can see the core steel!

 

Many thanks

[Eric H]

I would be happy to see a pic from a overpolished blade where you can see the core steel!

 

Konuka hada is associated with swords by the Tadayoshis. Generally the kawagane of their swords is thin and after repeated polishing shingane can be seen occasionally.

 

Pic 1 from a Wakizashi by Tadayoshi III, Mutsu no Kami, in old but intact polish with a small hakobore.

 

Pic 2-3-4 are from a Wakizashi by the same Tadayoshi III, showing shingane, the blade exhibits also mune-ware and one umegane, though not seen in these pics.

 

The pics are enhanced

 

Eric

[Veli]

Personally, I find the small hakobore like in Eric's picture#1 very easy to accept. I'd rather have a hakobore than excessive loss of metal during polishing.

 

Extensive loss of Kawagane, on the other hand, makes me shudder...

 

Veli

[Clive Sinclaire]

Gentlemen

I currently have a shinto sword in for appraisal which is saiha and this is a "fatal flaw" that I don't believe has been mentioned so far on this thread. This sword has yakiotoshi some 12cm from the hamachi, an ugly mizukage effect and a heavily "encrusted" patination on the mumei nakago. The rest of the suguha hamon looks OK but there is some coarsness in the jihada. Such yakinaoshi was said to be a practical repair for a sword damaged in combat or more likely in this case, from fire damage. Is this not a justified reason for the process and, therefore, the modern opinion that it is a fatal flaw is unjustified? There is no doubt that with this paricular sword, the effect is not pleasing to the eye, but should this be a secondary consideration to the practical issue?

 

I also have a book, printed in the late 19th century for "private circulation" entitled FORTUNE TELLING BY Japanese SWORDS. This gives various diagrams and shows many faults and flaws and predicts what will happen to the owner if they appear on his sword. I cannot find hagire but for tate-ware in the ji it says "This is a certain mark that the owner will commit harakire or suicide , and even if you were to visit anybody who pocessed a sword with these marks it will even then be sure to bring you bad luck; it is therefore better to break it or throw it away". You have been warned!

Regards

Clive Sinclaire

[cabowen]

Is this not a justified reason for the process and, therefore, the modern opinion that it is a fatal flaw is unjustified?

 

Certainly from a practical standpoint, if you collect swords as artifacts and revel in the history and romance, there is nothing evil about yakinaoshi, rather, it might, like kirikomi, be perceived as enriching the historical significance of the sword and make it all the more desirable. Actually, taken to the extreme, those that shudder at the thought of dumping a gunto koshirae because it it part of the swords history should probably not have a problem with any sort of usage induced flaws. Even polishing a blade might be considered as removing some part of the history of the blade....But that is a debate for another day....

 

If you collect from a sword as art standpoint, yakinaoshi is indeed fatal for a blade as the most critical process in its creation has been done by a different, and unknown hand. It is no longer the work of the smith who signed the blade. Imagine a hole burned through the face of the Mona Lisa, patched, and repainted by an unknown artist....

[reinhard]

If you collect from a sword as art standpoint, yakinaoshi is indeed fatal for a blade as the most critical process in its creation has been done by a different, and unknown hand. It is no longer the work of the smith who signed the blade.

 

And again we're in the midst of a "art vs. artefact" discussion.

For consideration:

The famous "Ichigo Hitofuri"-tachi by Awataguchi YOSHIMITSU was retempered by shodai YASUTSUGU (not exactly an "unknown hand") after it was unfortunately damaged by fire at the fall of Osaka castle. This particular yakinaoshi had not been done in order to restore the blade's weapon-qualities, for Ichigo Hitofuri was a legend and far beyond practical use by then.

A tachi by Sanjo CHIKAMURA from late Heian-period was designated Juyo Token although its yakiba is yakinaoshi. Its genuine mei "CHIKAMURA tatematsuru" is of such (historical) importance that will compensate the loss of genuine workmanship.

 

Basically I agree with Chris

 

reinhard

[cabowen]

The famous "Ichigo Hitofuri"-tachi by Awataguchi YOSHIMITSU was retempered by shodai YASUTSUGU (not exactly an "unknown hand") after it was unfortunately damaged by fire at the fall of Osaka castle. This particular yakinaoshi had not been done in order to restore the blade's weapon-qualities, for Ichigo Hitofuri was a legend and far beyond practical use by then.

A tachi by Sanjo CHIKAMURA from late Heian-period was designated Juyo Token although its yakiba is yakinaoshi. Its genuine mei "CHIKAMURA tatematsuru" is of such (historical) importance that will compensate the loss of genuine workmanship.

 

Basically I agree with Chris

 

reinhard

 

This shows that swords can also be valued for their historical significance. As has been rightly pointed out, there are indeed yakinaoshi Juto and above. The sword has to have highly significant historical importance to reach such a designation. Few blades have the history necessary to overlook yakinaoshi in the main and thus the overwhelming majority are considered to be something less than art....

[cisco-san]

 

Konuka hada is associated with swords by the Tadayoshis. Generally the kawagane of their swords is thin and after repeated polishing shingane can be seen occasionally.

 

Pic 1 from a Wakizashi by Tadayoshi III, Mutsu no Kami, in old but intact polish with a small hakobore.

 

Pic 2-3-4 are from a Wakizashi by the same Tadayoshi III, showing shingane, the blade exhibits also mune-ware and one umegane, though not seen in these pics.

 

The pics are enhanced

 

Eric

 

Many thanks !!!

[sanjuro]

If by definition a fatal flaw is one that compromises the PRACTICAL integrity of a blade, then Yakinaoshi in the absence of other serious flaws cannot be termed a fatal flaw. To the collector of swords as art it may be undesirable and regrettable but not 'fatal'.

I dont wish to play on semantics here, but merely be accurate in the definition, since that was the original query of this thread.

 

As Reinhard points out, we are once again in the midst of the art versus artifact discussion, and it will I suspect, always be so to a greater or lesser degree. Art and Artifact are after all, the two primary collecting motivations that we as a group embrace .

[nagamaki - Franco]

Let's be careful not to create confusion.

 

NBTHK Shinsa Standards

Translated material provided by nihontocraft.com

Hozon Token

3) For Nambokucho and earlier zaimei blades by famous smiths, re-temper can be permissible if the blade is valuable as a reference, and if the jiha and nakago are sufficiently well preserved. However, this has to be documented in the paper.

 

Tokubetsu Hozon Token

b. Re-tempered blades may not receive Tokubetsu Hozon paper unless they were made by famous smiths and their values are extremely high as a reference.

[Clive Sinclaire]

As Reinhard points out, we are once again in the midst of the art versus artifact discussion, and it will I suspect, always be so to a greater or lesser degree.

 

Gentlemen

I know we have been down this torturous path before, but I cannot let it pass without saying that I do not subscribe to the notion that a sword is either art or artifact. I am sure you are all aware that even the shinsakuto of today must be valid as a sword and be able to cut without bending or breaking, otherwise it is not even considered as an "art sword". Without a keen ha-saki it is pointless making the sword and it would not be necessary to go through the whole quenching procedure or even producing a hamon. It is also worth remembering that a part of the polishing process is sharpening the blade. This in no way detracts from the beauty or art of the finished sword, but does provide a raison d'etre for its very existence.

It is interesting that Reinhard suggests the reasons for Yasutsugu's restoration of swords by yaki-naoshi was not to restore the "weapon-qualities" of famous swords damaged by fire at Osaka castle. I am unsure from where such inteligence originates but I would have thought that neither he nor I can know the precise reasons behind the restoration. I suggest that the sword was not considered "complete" without a hamon and therefore needed one re-instated. If this is also considered as restoring the swords "weapon-qualities", then so be it.

In summary and conclusion, I think swords have to be BOTH art and artifact.

Thanks for your indulgence.

Regards

Clive Sinclaire

[cabowen]

Gentlemen

I know we have been down this torturous path before, but I cannot let it pass without saying that I do not subscribe to the notion that a sword is either art or artifact.

 

I would contend that swords can be either, both, or neither.

 

An old sword has history and is an artifact. It may or may not possess the qualities that make it also art.

 

A new sword has no history and thus is not an artifact. It can, if it possess the right qualities, be art.

 

Artifacts become such simply because time has passed. All old swords are artifacts. It is an objective quality that can not be argued as it is simply a function of time.

 

Art is entirely subjective. Collectors/connoisseurs decide which swords are art and which aren't. Age has no relevance.

[sanjuro]

Clive.

 

It was actually me you were quoting in your previous post, and I couldnt agree more with what you say regarding the duality of the sword, rather than its art and artifact aspects being divorced. In theory this is true but not in practice. There is an undercurrent in this board and indeed in the collecting world that favours one or the other, and this is most likely because there are two somewhat divergent sets of criteria in operation. On the one hand the art collectors if I may call them that, are interested primarily in the aspects of the sword which is art and also the smith who made it. Level of polish and the finer points of the hada and hamon take precedence. The artifact collectors are somewhat less concerned with general appearance and sometimes even the mei, but rather more with the functionality of a blade and its relevance to a historical period or event. The tolerance for fault and flaw differs between these two groups.

 

All swords however do not fit into both categories. A sword can be art without being an artifact, and vice versa. A sword in fact can fall outside of both these categories if it does not possess qualities that would place it in either category.

 

Oops....... Chris beat me to it! (he also said it better than me)

[Eric H]

Shodai Yasutsugu was an expert in performing yakinaoshi, determined not only to restore the swords beauty but also its functionality...if this was needed, that goes without saying.

 

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

 

Yakinaoshi (re-temper), a very interesting article on the topic.

 

Eric

[nagamaki - Franco]

ar·ti·fact

   /ˈɑrtəˌfækt/ Show Spelled[ahr-tuh-fakt] Show IPA

–noun

1.

any object made by human beings, esp. with a view to subsequent use.

2.

a handmade object, as a tool, or the remains of one, as a shard of pottery, characteristic of an earlier time or cultural stage, esp. such an object found at an archaeological excavation.

3.

any mass-produced, usually inexpensive object reflecting contemporary society or popular culture: artifacts of the pop rock generation.

4.

a substance or structure not naturally present in the matter being observed but formed by artificial means, as during preparation of a microscope slide.

5.

a spurious observation or result arising from preparatory or investigative procedures.

6.

any feature that is not naturally present but is a product of an extrinsic agent, method, or the like: statistical artifacts that make the inflation rate seem greater than it is.

 

 

art

1    /ɑrt/ Show Spelled[ahrt] Show IPA

–noun

1.

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2.

the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

 

Greetings,

 

By definition "all swords are artifacts", is a true statement. Which means, neither, by definition is not an option, sorry. When it comes to "nihonto as art" the lines can be just as clear for those willing to subscribe to "Japanese" shinsa rules for judging nihonto. Which would then make "some nihonto are art", also a true statement. But, of course, the stark reality is that humans are uncontrollable, rendering the idea of "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not there own set of facts", truthful, but useless, which is probably the main reason why these swords were invented in the first place. And, let's not leave out the observation that inevitably someone's junk will end up as another man's art. Which is also why that above 50% failure rate at shinsa will be safe for years to come!

Good grief!

[cabowen]

ar·ti·fact

   /ˈɑrtəˌfækt/ Show Spelled[ahr-tuh-fakt] Show IPA

–noun

1.

any object made by human beings, esp. with a view to subsequent use.

2.

a handmade object, as a tool, or the remains of one, as a shard of pottery, characteristic of an earlier time or cultural stage, esp. such an object found at an archaeological excavation.

 

 

Greetings,

 

By definition "all swords are artifacts", is a true statement. Which means, neither, by definition is not an option, sorry.

 

I disagree. Modern made "art" blades fail with respect to the first definition of artifact given above as they are not made for subsequent use.

 

The definition of artifact that I apply in this case is the second one above, i.e., handmade and characteristic of an earlier time.

 

I would also argue that this is the definition most people would give when asked.

 

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it is entirely possible for a modern made blade, for example, an iai-to, being neither an artifact nor art.....

[nagamaki - Franco]

Chris, subsequent use is not defined, which leaves subsequent use open to the imagination does it not? And, surely, you're not suggesting shinsakuto are not made as fully functioning "samurai" swords, regardless of whether someone chose to actually use one or not?

[cabowen]

Chris, subsequent use is not defined, which leaves subsequent use open to the imagination does it not? And, surely, you're not suggesting shinsakuto are not made as fully functioning "samurai" swords, if someone so chose to do so?

 

I think it is only rational to assume that "subsequent use" must mean the use for which they were originally intended and designed, that is, as weapons, not as paperweights, wall hangers, etc.

 

Indeed, modern made art blades are fully functional. The key in the definition is "subsequent use", not "potential" or "possible" use. They are not made to use. They are made for collectors. As we all know, swords can no longer be worn and the use of one is now illegal. They have become an anachronism....In time, they will become artifacts...

 

I have to believe that few would call anything newly made an "artifact", even though it may meet the first definition above. In common usage, "artifact" carries a nuance of age. That is why, in my interpretation, there are swords that are neither art not artifact.

 

We can surely agree to disagree.....

[loui]

I can't find that smilie of the dead horse being beaten, can someone please add it to my post. Would be nice to move on from the artifact vs. art opinion, I think we get your position on it Chris:)

 

Cheers.

 

Louis