True tachi or katana mounted as a tachi?

[runagmc]

Should insist on proper terminology :lol:

 

Back to the topic of funbari and the pic of the mino blade with "no funbari" so that I may compare and see what I "think" you are talking about if the blade were shortened as it appears to be would the area where it is slightly wider not be eliminated? :?

 

Yes it is obviously shortened and machi-okuri which would cause it to lose its funbari (if it had it before shortening). But for this purpose I thought it illustrated the difference well. I could post a pic of an ubu blade withouy funbari for you if that would make more sense.

without funbari:

 

with funbari:

 

I always thought any blade that flared at the machi was said to have funbari.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

I think there is no funbari on the Tadatsuna, i think it's an optical illusion.

[Viper6924]

Chris; I read the same description for funbari, except the word "man" was changed to "Sumowrestler". Probably just to give the importance of funbari some more weight :lol:

 

So I guess this blade falls under the "funbari" classification? Or.....

 

/Jan

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Here one with a true funbari it seems that description makes the difference between tapering and funbari (correct me if i'm wrong)

 

 

[Ted Tenold]

Jan,

 

No, the sword you illustrated is o-suriage which would mean any funbari has been long since lost.

 

What many would define funbari as the difference in width from base to tip, is more accurately defined as "distal taper". The percentage of distal taper varies in conjuction with widths depending on the maker and period and is subsequently disturbed by centuries of damage, repair, alteration, polishing, etc.. Mathematically speaking the Sakihaba is a percentage of the Motohaba in width. Yoshindo Yoshihara explained that the percentage for good balance and appearance is around 70%. In other words, a sword with a motohaba of 3.2 cm would have sakihaba of 2.24 cm by this factor. If we did have a perfectly healthy Heian blade to measure from, this calculation would also be difficult to apply to because healthy funbari "flares" at the machi to about 1 inch or so above it, settling into a more uniform taper through the rest of the blade.

 

I have seen funbari reproduced in utsushimono, such as one by Shibata Ka, who was both avid student and wealthy collector with access to many fine swords to study.

 

Here's an illustration of funbari. As a Heian/Kamakura feature, it's little wonder many folks don't know what it really looks like. Even a slight suriage or machi okuri would remove it. Extant works that are ubu will display funbari which can be seen, but in diminished form.

[cabowen]

What many would define funbari as the difference in width from base to tip, is more accurately defined as "distal taper".

 

 

That is also not correct....."distal taper" is the difference in the kasane, or thickness, of the blade from mune machi to the kissaki.

 

"Profile taper" is the term you are looking for....this is the difference in the width of the blade from edge to back.

[Ted Tenold]

Not how I learned it, but I'd agree that the kasane also has distal taper.

 

distal: farthest from the point of attachment.

[cabowen]

Not how I learned it, but I'd agree that the kasane also has distal taper.

 

distal: farthest from the point of attachment.

 

 

Check any of the following as a start.... If you google, everything reads the same: distal taper is a reduction in cross sectional thickness from the base to the tip.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_geometry

 

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/sword-terms.htm

 

http://www.fredeenblades.com/tutorials.htm

[sanjuro]

One problem we have in this discussion about funbari is that those of us that have been fortunate enough to have had swords in hand that exhibit this feature, know exactly what it is, having seen it first hand, regardless of how we later try to describe it. Seeing it on a blade can be something of an epiphany. (having a sword that old in hand is epiphany enough). Those that are not so fortunate are trying to visualise it from an academic viewpoint only, having read about it or seen non definitive pictures or diagrams of it. Theres nothing wrong with that, because there are comparatively few examples extant. However, funbari is very difficult to photograph accurately since it is usually somewhat degraded by age and wear (polishing). There are no examples extant that have a pronounced degree of fumbari, and it is sometimes a subtle feature rather than an obvious one, for the reasons given. I have a blade with this feature and it does not show definitively in photographs. Closeups are not satisfactory and pictures of the entire sugata which would show it clearly are not close enough to define it clearly. Hence it could appear to be an optical illusion, although it is not. Whereas the blade in the hand that has funbari is usually obvious. Its another one of those 'Handle as many swords as possible' scanarios, that once seen first hand is understood and never forgotten.

[cabowen]

Not to be argumentative but I have seen plenty of examples of blades with pronounced and easily identifiable funbari. It is nothing more than a rapid decrease in the width (no thickness) of a blade from the ha/mune machi towards the tip of a blade over the first 4-6 inches of the blade, followed by a more gradual tapering in the width forward through to the tip. The problem is most people seem to think it is a tapering of the blade from the ha/mune machi all the way to the tip, like what is seen in Kanbun shinto. Again, think of a man standing with his legs spread, or an inverted letter "Y".....

[sanjuro]

No argument perceived........I dont doubt you have seen these blades at all Chris. You however have extensive contacts in Japan and have lived there where most of these swords are more readily available to those with contacts. The rest of us have limited exposure to very old blades. I hear what you say though and although I too have been fortunate to a lesser degree in seeing and handling such swords, I can remember how difficult it was way back when all I could do was try to visualise such a thing as funbari and a whole host of other blade features. The minute I got to see these things first hand it was so obvious that I wondered how I could have not imagined it. Easy for those with the experience and easy to forget also what it was like prior to that experience. There are of course shinto and also shin shinto swords with funbari made in deliberate emulation of old styles in which funbari can be seen, but my point really was that it is easier to understand once seen in hand than it is to visualise when one has never seen it first hand.

[cabowen]

but my point really was that it is easier to understand once seen in hand than it is to visualise when one has never seen it first hand.

 

 

Absolutely......

[estcrh]

Here is a perfect example of the type of blade I was talking about in the first place, obviously old,

unsigned, being called a tachi, can anyone with some knowledge of the subject point out any identifying factors which would show this blade to be a tachi as opposed to a uchigatana or just a daito. Since this is a current ebay auction I am not looking for a discussion on the merits of the blade just information on what would or would not identify this as a tachi, thanks.

 

Japanese Sword Tachi Yamato School Kamakura period 74.3cm

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Japanese-Sword- ... 645wt_1032

[sanjuro]

Eric.

 

Deep sori, lineal taper, ko kissaki, projected length prior to O suriage, all point to this being a tachi. Also if the period is correct then by definition it must be a tachi since there were no uchigatana or katana (or for that matter daito) at that point in history. All blades except koshigatana or tanto, (in other words long swords) prior to the mid Muromachi period were made as tachi since there were no other styles of long blade in existence.

[estcrh]

Eric.

 

Deep sori, lineal taper, ko kissaki, projected length prior to O suriage, all point to this being a tachi. Also if the period is correct then by definition it must be a tachi since there were no uchigatana or katana (or for that matter daito) at that point in history. All blades except koshigatana or tanto, (in other words long swords) prior to the mid Muromachi period were made as tachi since there were no other styles of long blade in existence.

Thanks Keith, some good pointers, as for the age, my question was what signs someone with out a huge amount of nihonto knowledge would look for that would point to a blade being a tachi, age would be a good indicator but being able to figure out age would take knowledge of even more characteristics.

[sanjuro]

Got it in one, Eric.... :lol: No-one said this was easy, and picking a blade that was once a tachi after it has been shortened possibly more than once, is not a task for a beginner. With old blades you have to try and imagine it as it was before it was messed with. That takes a little, (Deliberately understated) knowledge. The Gokaden in Robinsons book, whilst not exhaustively accurate, is useful in identifying basic blade type characteristics, as is the gokaden chart in Yumato's book if I remember correctly. Kanzan Sato gives a list of comparison points between Koto and shinto blades which is very easy to relate to. From there, its a matter of personal experience and comparison to known blades.

 

I dont think I need to tell you that it is difficult enough for a beginner to make the differentiation between a koto and a shinto blade, much less the finer differentiation between an old tachi blade that has been shortened to the point of masking its origins, and a tired uchigatana, or an early katana.

[estcrh]

Continuing with this great discussion here is another example that people might come across, a blade with a tachi mei. From what I can see with my limited knowledge, the blade seems to have some of the characteristics which indicate that this is a true tachi....length, curvature, mei, kissaki...I know there is not a lot to go on but can anyone with some knowledge of the subject see anything in these pictures which would be a clue as to its true identity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cabowen]

Is this a trick question? It is koto Bizen signed tachi-mei and with that shape, length, and nakago, it would sure seem to be made as a tachi to me.....

[sanjuro]

Great sugata!

Despite this appears to have been altered slightly by machi okuri, Possibly to restore its ha machi, lost through polishing, it has all the earmarks of a tachi. The sori, the long nakago and also the pronounced curvature of the nakago itself all point to its origins as a tachi. Bizen Den Sengoku Jidai perhaps? Hard to tell on a single look out of hand. And of course I may be totally wrong, in which case someone is going to point it out very soon. :lol:

[estcrh]

Is this a trick question?

Chris, serious question, I am just trying to pick the brains of some of the more experienced forum members, the books I have read only offer so much information on distinguishing between tachi and katana. I refer people to this thread when trying to explain the differences to them as it has a lot of good information in one place, I thought these pictures were a good average example, thanks for the input.

[pcfarrar]

I've got a similar looking Bizen sword, mine is ubu and papered to Bizen Kiyomitsu (Tenshō). I assume mine would have been mounted as a tachi judging from the shape?

[Jean]

Peter,

 

How do you want someone to give an educated guess without any data?

 

You are assuming it is a tachi because of the sori, I guess?

 

We don't have any blade measurement ... Tensho period was not specially specialised in Tachi. The period is well famed for its typical Koshirae (Katana), blades were currently 70/73 cm Nagasa.

 

Unsigned, by default it's a katana

[estcrh]

Great sugata!

Despite this appears to have been altered slightly by machi okuri

keith, what would indicate this...the length of the nakago?

[Jean]

Hamon seems to run into the nakago

[sanjuro]

Eric.

 

A bit of deductive reasoning, so I may be wrong. Like most theories, this one is open to being disproved.

 

1. The presence of two mekugi ana, the top one being more aligned for a katana mounting and the bottom one being more typical of the placement of a tachi mekugi ana. This suggests the blade was at one time mounted as a katana or a daito. The proximity of these to one another also suggests the blade has not been shortened, which is born out by the nakago being ubu, but rather had its machi moved slightly up the blade. Were talking perhaps less than half an inch here.

 

The hamon is more tired and thinner than one would expect in a newer blade, hence it has had more than one polishing and possibly a few more. The hamachi becomes shallow when polishing is repeated and a togishi may file a new hamachi which would have moved the hamachi up the blade possibly only a fraction of an inch, but its still machi okuri. The polished part of the habaki moto is also a fraction longer than it usually appears which would be consistent with my theory. At a guess, I would say the original machi were about level with where the start of the polishers marks are now seen. The mune machi and the habaki moto adjacent to it has a sharper cleaner edge to it and what appears to be file marks. Again this would be consistent with machi okuri.

 

The hamon runs on into the habaki moto a short way beyond the ha machi and that didnt usually appear on koto blades.

 

The nakago is long yes, but not unusually long for a tachi. It is however a dead giveaway along with the curvatureof the nakago and the mei location that this blade was originally a tachi. Katana usually have markedly shorter nakago than tachi.

 

Do you own this blade???? If you do, I'll be over to wherever you live. We can get drunk, see who can tell the biggest lies and I'll steal it from you. :D

[drbvac]

Great educational thread thanks gentlemen for all the insight. It is great to hear the descriptions and then actually see examples. For those of us with unlimited interest and very limited time this forum is great !!

 

One of the first Nihinto I received even before I was sure there was a difference between a tachi and a katana other than the mei was this mino blade signed by Kanemitsu.

 

 

 

 

It does have a long nakago and funbari and a pronounced sori (1.2") and is just shy of 34" long - tachi for sure. Pretty impressive weapon when in hand - the taper to the smaller kissaki nearly 3 feet away

 

dated to mid muromachi - 1444

[Jean]

Hi Brian,

 

Impressive blade, I presume that it is tachi meied? (I love this neologism :D )

[cabowen]

Rare to see what appears to be a yaki-dashi on a mid muromachi period blade.

[John A Stuart]

Yes, a sugu yakidashi is not to be expected on a koto period blade. John

[pcfarrar]

How do you want someone to give an educated guess without any data?

You are assuming it is a tachi because of the sori, I guess?

We don't have any blade measurement ... Tensho period was not specially specialised in Tachi. The period is well famed for its typical Koshirae (Katana), blades were currently 70/73 cm Nagasa.

 

It's 68.5cm nagasa, a Japanese expert looked at the sword a few years back and stated that the sword looked older than Muromachi to him. It has good midare utsuri.