Daisho questions

sanjuro · July 30, 2011

Yes..... And to be honest, so would I. What use is a Meiji period koshirae on a Momoyama daisho? Is it original? No. Does it add any historical value to the Daisho? No. In fact it corrupts the historical relevance of the daisho. Since the original koshirae was lost, then the matched blades were all that was left of the original pair, and indeed all that was relevant. Its all about the blades, and whilst that is probably a little harsh to most peoples way of thinking, I can sympathise. In this philosophy, anything other than a period koshirae is unacceptable. There are no appropriate replacements for the original koshirae. They are lost and cannot be either replaced or recreated. A Meiji period koshirae whilst good quality in its own way, adds nothing to the blades apart from a set of more modern clothes for them to wear. Better shirasaya than an innapropriate mounting.

Radical? Perhaps, but a very serious criteria to apply to a collection. The collection of this individual incidentally, is small and specific in period, but it is by any standards, magnificent.

cabowen · July 30, 2011

By that logic, a Kamakura blade in a Nanbokucho mounting would be historically inaccurate and sold off.....

It is almost unheard of to find anything other than maybe Shinshinto or kindaito in original koshirae.

Koshirae was meant to be replaceable. It is natural that a blade would have many sets over the years. It is a continuum- in several hundred years, quality Meiji era koshirae will be thought of as we think of Momoyama today, and treasured. Your collector friend is messing with the stream.....

Collectors are indeed an odd bunch.....

sanjuro · July 30, 2011

Chris.

Yes, collectors are an odd bunch and some are fairly radical, as is the case I quoted. Is he messing with the stream or is he merely calling a halt to the continuing degeneration of the swords we have in trust??????

I confess a certain sympathy with his view. I also appreciate the value of a fully mounted sword even though the blade and the koshirae are historical periods apart. What concerns me most is that there are some so called, self styled and ill informed collectors out there constructing not only daisho but also single weapons from diverse and disparate parts, in the dubious and much abused name of restoration, that will then be onsold to others who may think or assume they are original. One extreme is the cessation of the rot and the other extreme is the contribution to it. There are no perfect panacaea............ unfortunately.

Jean · July 30, 2011

A blade Daisho, as far as I remember, when submitted to NBTHK must be on the same kanteisho. A katana and a wakazashi by the same smith in the same year does not make a Daisho

The exercise has its limit as nobody will be sure that the metallic parts of the daisho have been made on purpose for this daisho blades and not pick up in an artist shop, nobody shall never be able to testify this. Concerning the katana kake, how some one can testify it was made on purpose for the daisho? Because it is lacquered as the koshirae in the same motives? This does not prove that koshirae and katana kake are original to the blades.

BTW, I have never seen a kanteisho from NBTHK having on the same kanteisho blades and koshirae.

In Japan, there are two kinds of Daisho: blades or koshirae. No mix up.

Toryu2020 · July 30, 2011

In answer to Mark's other question a quote from the To-Ron, newsletter of the Northern California Japanese Sword Club;

"突兵拵　– Toppei Koshirae; In response to growing threats both internally and from the west, the Tokugawa Bakufu under French influence established the Rikugun-sho, or Ministry of War, in 1866. The students and curriculum of the Kobu-sho were absorbed at this time and became the Army training school. French instructors were employed to teach close order drill, artillery and European military science. A uniform based on the French model was employed and swords were required to be carried in a type of leather frog. Because of the particular shape of these leather frogs, scabbards were remade with thin pointed tapering kojiri that reminded the soldiers of a Toppei kabuto. The kurikata became a simple loop on a swivel, sometimes attached to the mune side of the saya, to allow for the sword to be worn in the redress position while in western uniform or through the obi in traditional style. Because these were employed when wearing pants, “zubon”, they are also sometimes referred to as Zubon-zashi and may be thought of as the last stage in the development of Samurai accoutrement as their world would soon disappear with the advent of the Restoration."

If made for the Bakufu these items were naturally for the Tokugawa elite and were popular for a very short time indeed. Some are seen with simple locks like that later found on Gun-to koshirae. Mark - I wonder if you aren't confusing the dress and equipment of the regular infantry-man with the Toppei? Images from the Restoration wars and later rebellions show soldiers on both sides with rile and bayonet and often a wakizashi...

-t

sanjuro · July 30, 2011

Jean.

In the case I quoted, only the blades were submitted for shinsa. (They came complete with shirasaya and tsunagi for display). There were two seperate papers issued, one for each blade and a subsequent third paper which I never saw. The blades however were paired in as much as the the hamon, the hada, yasuri mei and signatures were all identical (or at least as identical as could be expected in hand made blades), as was the date which was in the old style of nengo. Again both identical even to the placement on the nakago. Unfortunately, I have no way of discovering what the third paper was for, if it were a kanteisho for the blades as a daisho I cant swear to, as I am no longer in contact with the owner who now lives in Abu Dahbi, and whom I have not heard from in several years. The katana kake was as I recall only associated with the daisho koshirae, not ensuite, and was supplied with it at purchase. There is no way of knowing if it was originally part of the set. Sorry if I gave the impression that this was so, it was mentioned only in passing as part of my narrative. It was however a very nice, four rack katana kake.

Jean · July 30, 2011

A four rack Katana kake has 95% chance of being late 19th or 20 th century.

Daisho = 2 rack katana kake, I have seen spendid ones.

Unless I am mistaking there is only one kanteisho issued when blades are true Daisho. True Blade Daisho are scarce and Kanteisho scarcier. Either because they were separated along the time but mainly because the samurai was offered the short sword by his Lord and has to buy thelong one - From what I have read somewhere. Few people were able to pay for a true Daisho

takakage · July 30, 2011

Lovely, isn't it ?

http://nihonto.com/shinkaidaisho.html

Jean · July 30, 2011

Blades by the same smith but not true Daisho.

It is the second or third time that Fred has it on sale on his website (for the same price). Things going back and forth

estcrh · July 31, 2011

Blades by the same smith but not true Daisho.

Why would this not be a daisho, just because the blades have separate judgement papers or are the koshirae modern?

Jean · July 31, 2011

Eric,

All what is written herebelow is only based on observation and good sense

As long as the blades have not been submitted together for Daisho certification and come back with one kanteisho, I presume it is not a Daisho. Let's be clear, you don't send Daisho blades separately to shinsa.

But here, it is even easier, I let you find why. You have not looked carefully at the blades

I am not a great expert in Nihonto but when I look at something, I do it thoroughly.

Fred's comments are very honest as he says a Daisho and not a true Daisho.

Now Eric I want you to give me one reason why it is not a true Daisho

There are several ....

estcrh · July 31, 2011

Now Eric I want you to give me one reason why it is not a true Daisho

There are several ....

Jean the problem is that you and I do not agree on what makes two swords a daisho. You as a nihonto enthusiast are basing your judgement on a different set of parameters than I as a collector of samurai objects would. There is no information on whether the koshirae are original to the blades which I think should be listed on the description. One thing that I think you would be looking at is the fact that one blade has one mekugi-ana and the other blade has two mekugi-ana.....yes?

I believe that you subscribe to the school of thought that the blades make the daisho, I subscribe to this school of thought>>

From Darcy Brockbank http://www.nihonto.ca/index.html life member of the Nippon Bijutsu Token Hozon Kyokai (NBTHK)

Daisho Token

There is some discussion that goes on about what exactly makes a daisho. There are several definitions.

To begin the discussion, most times samurai did not get their swords as a pair, unless they were well off and could order a matched pair from a swordsmith. Often times, their lord would present them one sword and they would be expected to get another on their own... if they were lucky they would be provided the long katana and their purchase would be a wakizashi.

Sometimes they would just forego the paired swords if another could not be had, and other times a tsunagi would take the place of one of the two blades.

In general then, a daisho is considered by the koshirae as the swords may be naturally from different makers. Provided that the koshirae are antique and made for the two swords, that the swords belong to the koshirae is the important thing.

In some rare cases, swords can be found that were made to exist together by the same hand. In this case, if they are clearly intended as a pair, they may be considered daisho token. This is quite rare and unusual to find. Most times when you look at a "daisho" offered for sale, you will find two separate papers. This often means that the vendor found two swords by the same smith, one a wakizashi and one a katana, and united them and are now selling them as a pair.

This is simply two swords. Even if koshirae are made for them now, they are not a daisho because no samurai wore these swords as a pair, and they have nothing to do with each other outside of the fact that they are made by the same smith. They do enhance each other's value somewhat, but they lack the rarity and collectability that a true daisho has. It is usually considered that a "true" daisho will increase the value of the pair 100% over their value as individual swords.

sanjuro · July 31, 2011

Jean.

A question for you if I may, and one by which I intend no disrespect. At the outset I'll state that personally I have not been fortunate enough to own a true daisho (Matched blades of course - Daisho Token), so I cannot speak from experience.

You make judgements concerning what is and what isnt a daisho set of blades, and state categorically that a daisho set would not be submitted separately for shinsa.

Let's be clear, you don't send Daisho blades separately to shinsa.

Really? And why not? Based on what reasoning? If its personal opinion then thats fine- we all have opinions, but from my point of view, if I owned a set of daisho blades I would want papers for each blade and also papers for the blades as a daisho if that were at all possible. If that meant submitting them seperately, then as a daisho, I think it would be worth it. So rare are these matched blades that all certification would be essential to substantiate the fact that they were in fact dai and sho.

Jean · July 31, 2011

Really? And why not? Based on what reasoning? If its personal opinion then thats fine- we all have opinions, but from my point of view, if I owned a set of daisho blades I would want papers for each blade and also papers for the blades as a daisho if that were at all possible

Keith, we are talking of a Shinkai Daisho. You did not even had a look at it before posting or you would have noticed the following facts

Let's focus on the blades

These blades are not a true Daisho as mentionned/defined by Darcy. A true Daisho are two swords which are manufactured at the same time by the same smith - I should say twin blades - and intended as to make a pair.

The daisho we are talking about, though forged in 1669, were not forged in the same month:

Dai: second month

Sho: eighth month

Talking about the kanteisho they are both TH but not of the same era, the katana certificate is dtd Heisei, the Wakisashi certificate is dtd Showa, so clearly the blades were assembled to make a daisho but it is not a true one .

You will notice that there is no certificate presenting both swords on the same Kanteisho.

Sayagaki were not made at the same period.

Now the hamon : In the katana there is a hint of gunome not in the wakisashi. Hamon are absolutelly not the same in the Katana and the wakizashi.

A true Daisho by Shinkai will be much more expensive.

But to get back to the start : a Daisho of blades is a set of swords of different length worn together( forged or not by the same smith and intended to be or not twins from the start) generally in matching koshirae, but not always ...

Illustrated in Dr Stein website: The Japanese sword index - Japanese swords article - Swords of the 47 Ronin

Jacques D. · July 31, 2011

Hi,

Talking about the kanteisho they are both TH but not of the same era, the katana certificate is dtd Heisei, the Wakisashi certificate is dtd Showa, so clearly the blades were assembled to make a daisho but it is not a true one .

I disagree, the blades (in case of a true daisho) can have been separated during their history and submitted separately at shinsa.

You will notice that there is no certificate presenting both swords on the same Kanteisho.

Sayagaki were not made at the same period.

It's not a proof (see above).

Now the hamon : In the katana there is a hint of gunome not in the wakisashi. Hamon are absolutelly not the same in the Katana and the wakizashi.

Agreed, In case of a true dasiho i think the smith would have done the same work, kitae, hamon etc....

I also agree with the date.

Jean · July 31, 2011

I disagree, the blades (in case of a true daisho) can have been separated during their history and submitted separately at shinsa

:lol: :lol:

Jacques,

I love fairy tales, but be serious, considering the rarity of real Daisho, of the number of Daisho made by Shinkai (who knows how many he made) what are the chances that 2 blades of a real Daisho, separated by the vicissitude of life , poor orphans separated during their youth, can be gathered over centuries in the hand of the same foreigner.

Just for the fun, quote me a case

Furthermore, what are the chances that a merchant selling a real Shinkai Daisho would not want it on the same kanteisho multiplying its value by 2?

Lets talk statistic: 2 swords made as Daisho are made by a given smith and separated during the centuries. Given several million swords are still existing, what are the odds they be gathered several centuries later in the hand of the same individual - foreigner?

Possibility exists Jacques but you are playing again the odds and only the shinsa for Daisho can give the answer, this will be the only proof to validate your theory and in this case it does not exist.

You are talking theory, I am talking reality

Jacques D. · July 31, 2011

Hi,

You are talking theory, I am talking reality

It's only your opinion, nothing else.

About daisho, look at number two.

http://www.choshuya.co.jp/1/0711/thanks_sword.htm

http://www.nihonto.ca/takashige/index.html

And this one which shows that i (and Jean too) said about smith's work is wrong.

http://www.choshuya.co.jp/1/english_tra ... aotane.htm

Jean · July 31, 2011

Interesting, all these true daisho, are from the 19th century, and certified as. They were all submitted to shinsa as daisho.

If the Naotane one has a TH kanteisho as true daisho it is for good reasons. The workmanship being different, when submitted to shinsa, evidence has certainly been provided for, the date not being sufficient (origin, letters, koshirae being original...) and you are right both of us was wrong concerning the twin blades. Now how many daisho were made on this model, it will be interesting to know.

We are far from the Shinkai story, different dates, different shinsa, never submitted as true Daisho and 17th century blades

cabowen · July 31, 2011

I know of a collector who found a nidai tadayoshi katana with an unusual marking on the bottom of the nakago. Many years later he found a wakizashi by the same smith. The wakizashi had the exact same marking on the bottom of the nakago. Both blades passed shinsa. This mark is not known on any other tadayoshi work. Odds are extremely high that these two blades were in fact a daisho at one point-they are identical in every way except size. I agree with you Jean that the odds are astronomical that two blades would be reunited like this, but strange things happen.....

sanjuro · August 1, 2011

Chris.

Would it have been a common practice to mark a pair of blades like this, so that they were identifiable as a daisho. I guess what I'm asking here is have you seen many similar examples of the practice?

Jean.

Sorry.... you are correct, I missed the post concerning the Shinkai daisho..... This thread was moving a little faster than I was obviously.

Jean · August 1, 2011

Hi Chris,

I presume that the blades were presented together to Shinsa? But yes, the odds are against such things.

Now, you make my point: there was a distinctive mark that indentified them as Daisho.

In the case of Shinkai, swords by him are not frequently on Sales.

Forget the Shinkai, which undoubtedly is not a true Daisho, and let's talk about the Naotane daisho from GC.

Were it not for distinctive marks or evidence how could Shinsa have issued a Daisho Kanteisho? Date is not enough. Probably koshirae from the same era was acting as a evidence as for Darcy's Ozaki Daisho, and of course there is the Naotane name ...

Fred has a niji mei wakizashi Yasumitsu on his site (very fine, Btw,as all his swords)

Suppose I buy it, will it made a daisho with my Yasumitsu, which is suguha (the wakizashi being gunome midare choji). No, I don't think so, so the Naotane case was surely sustained by evidences we are not aware off (where is it coming from ...)...

takakage · August 1, 2011

http://www.tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/a00066.html

Jean · August 1, 2011

Patrick,

I know this One, it is dated same year and same month (unlike the Shinkai) and you will find it in several NMB posts.

The story does not say how it came to Shinsa, it is quite rare as the shoto is a sunobi tanto or a ko wakizashi

Jacques D. · August 3, 2011

Hi,

I wonder why in all Japanese swords books i've seen, when daisho is in question, it's always koshirae and never blades. I wonder also why i've never seen one in oshigata books. I think that beyond the fact daisho is a generic word, it mostly indicates koshirae.

Clive Sinclaire · August 3, 2011

Gentlemen

I am sure that mostly daisho are defined by koshirae although the Tadayoshi's mentioned by Chris sound very special indeed.

I have reunited a daisho (koshirae) about 15 years apart. I had a beautifully mounted Omori wakizashi and many years later the daito turned up at Sotheby's in London. Fortunately the cataloguing was screwed up, the wrong Lot number was put on the illustration and I was able to buy the daito. I still own it. An overseas buyer bid on the incorrectly labeled picture and unwittingly bought a different Lot for about 4 x what I could afford (it was returned about a year later). I understand that the 2 swords had been split in some probate deal many years previously. I guess the great Gods of sword collecting were on my side that day!

Clive Sinclaire

Kronos · August 11, 2014

This was a very informative topic to read. Sorry to necro but I was just wondering if anyone knew the requirements to pass shinsa as a Daisho?

For instance these are by the same smith and practically identical: http://www.ricecracker.com/japanese_swords/katana/Past%20Katana%27s/sk6-1_daisho_tadakuni.htm yet have 2 papers. So would they have to be dated or in period Koshirae/what exactly to pass shinsa?

nagamaki - Franco · August 11, 2014

requirements to pass shinsa as a Daisho?For instance these are by the same smith and practically identical:

Either fittings must match on both swords, and/or swords must have been made as a set.

Two swords simply made by the same smith doesn't cut it.

Jean · August 11, 2014

Evidence they were made as a pair.

Kronos · August 11, 2014

It seems awfully difficult to do as Koshirae was meant to be replaced while not many smiths dated all their work. Outside of historical records I can't see how you could provide sufficient evidence.

Jean · August 11, 2014

James,

It has been done.

Find someone who submitted successfully a daisho to Shinsa and ask him what kind of evidence he has provided or ask NBTHK what kind of evidence they are ready to accept to paper a daisho (koshirae or blades).

Sign In

Daisho questions

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation