Ubu, or suriage?

[markturner]

Hi, I am appraising a nice little wakizashi I recently purchased, and cant decide whether the nakago is ubu or not. What do you guys think?

 

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/251045946560? ... 718wt_1392

 

I am erring on the side of ubu, although it has 2 mekugi-ana, which would suggest otherwise ( is that correct?)

 

You cant see very well from the photos, but the blade has a really nice amount of activity, with many sunagashi in the gunome midare hamon and a very nice mokume hada. It also fits perfectly a koshirae I brought from Henry Wilson on the boards here recently. It has old Kicho papers, but apart from that I know little about it, or the Jumyo school, which appears to span a wide period. I have read their swords are rated wazamono, this one is certainly nicely sharp. How can i pin the exact age down a bit more?

 

I think it is a cracking little sword for the money, what about you?

 

Regards, Mark

[Jamie]

I bet Suriage.

[drdata]

I 2nd that. Squared off nakago....

 

Regards

[Geraint]

Hi Mark.

 

Really nice piece for the money, well done. I agree that it is suriage but not just the squared off jiri. Number and position of mekugi ana. If you have got it go back to Nakahara and look at the section on suriage.

[Jean]

Now Guys, it is not a question of Nihonto knowledge but just a question of logic:

 

- who is Jumyo? Is it a lineage? From which school? Does this school has this kind of Nakago jiri?,

 

Or,

 

-Papered blade to Shinto Jumyo. Nagasa/length: 58,8cm. Is it a normal length for an ubu Shinto blade?,

 

Or,

 

- The blade has two nakago ana, one at the bottom. Tha nakago jiri is kiri. From a picture, I can see that the hamon is running deep in the nakago (cf the width of the hamon when entering the nakago).

 

Answer is

[markturner]

Hi guys, thanks for the input. from what I could find, the squared off nakago did seem quite typical of jumyo swords, I found a little article by John Stuart by searching here in which all 3 of the ubu swords he referenced from various eras had a squared of nakago, see here: http://www.johnstuart.biz/new_page_15.htm Although, as you all agree, the 2 nakago-ana make it almost a cert for suriage. What I was wondering was why such a small amount removed ( i am presuming that one of the nakago-ana is the original here)

 

Jean, I had not noticed the hamon, that kind of seals it.

 

 

Cheers, Mark

[runagmc]

The seller says 58cm is the full length and nagasa is 45cm...

[Jean]

Mark,

 

all 3 of the ubu swords he referenced from various eras had a squared of nakago

 

Where is it stated that the swords are ubu? I want to draw your attention on Yasurime

 

By the way, the Seller says: Hole=1

[Lindus]

The old rule of thumb applies,Do you like it?, can you afford it?, answere is then buy it. After all we have a man who has bought a sixty two plate Kabuto to go fly fishing in, sitting in his holiday hotel with a laptop offering advice while his wife is down in the Bar glugging Pastis,trying to lead you in the right direction.

 

Roy

[pcfarrar]

It's definitely suriage, pretty clear on this photo:

[Jean]

Of course, Peter

[markturner]

hi Jean, I thought they were all ubu as they all had the Mei, is my reasoning correct?

 

regards, Mark

[Jean]

No

[Lindus]

hi Jean, I thought they were all ubu as they all had the Mei, is my reasoning correct?

 

regards, Mark

 

 

???????

Roy

[Lee Bray]

An orikaeshi mei blade still has its mei but is far from ubu.

A Koto tachi nijimei with the kanji just above the jiri...that retains its mei but is not ubu.

Just because the mei is present doesn't mean the nakago is ubu.

 

Would machi-okuri be regarded as an alteration of the nakago and make it not ubu?

[runagmc]

Lee, it depends on how machi okuri it is, and who you ask... from my experience.

[markturner]

OK, all useful stuff, thanks. I saw the mei on the examples and they looked original and not as if they had been folded and/or moved to be retained, hence my assumption.

 

Could someone hazard a guess as to perhaps the original length of the sword and why , if the lower, off centre nakago-ana is the original, why so little was removed from the sword? if was made as a wakizashi originally, seems strange to alter it just a small amount. And the overall proportions of the sword are smaller than a cut down katana would be, so I don't think it was that much bigger originally.

 

Any other insights gratefully received,

 

thanks, Mark

[paulb]

Hi Mark,

I am not sure you can assume the lower mekugi ana is the original. If you put that to one side it is quite possible this was the top end of a long sword. If the lower hole was original then it would have been a long wakazashi.

Reasons for shortening the blade

1. It became damaged/broken in use but the owner wished to preserve what they could.

2. If the lower hole was original then it would have been a long wakazashi and possibly above the allowed specifeid length set out in the mid 1600s. Therefore to be legal needed to be shorter

3. The new owner was shorter than the previous one and had it shortened to fit.

 

The truth is we wil never know and there are as many plausable reasons as you can think of. Most importantly someone in this swords history thought it worth doing so they could continue to use it. As said previously Jumyo was regarded as an auspicious name meaning long life and it was suggested that carrying such apiece offered additional (supernatural) protection.

regards

Paul

[markturner]

Thanks for all your input everyone, I will be writing up my little appraisal for tomorrow and taking along to the meeting of the To-ken society tomorrow, to see what they all think of it.

 

Like I said, I am very pleased with it, as I think for the money, it's a lovely little sword, what also adds to the attraction for me, is there are several clear kiri-komi on the blade, which points to an interesting past and perhaps also confirms Paul's suggestion of being damaged in a fight as a reason for it being suriage.

 

Thanks again, Mark

[Brian]

Just to clarify something like Lee did..

Ubu means original condition. If a nakago is even slightly shortened, it is not ubu anymore. Machi ochuri?..also not ubu imho.

Doesn't matter if it is suriage still with a mei, or o-suriage...it is not ubu.

 

Brian

[runagmc]

Lee, it depends on how machi okuri it is, and who you ask... from my experience.

The reason I say this is because from my understanding, the NTHK NPO considers a sword with a small amount of machi-okuri to be ubu according to Chris B., While the NBTHK I think considers it either suriage or machi okuri, I'm not sure... Read on page 3 of this post and you will see what I'm talking about, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12923&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30

[Lee Bray]

Thanks, chaps.

I would have said that machi-okuri would not affect an ubu nakago since the sabigiwa(rust border between habakimoto and nakago) separates the nakago from the blade to me.

But if the NTHK say that a nakago is not ubu because of a 1cm machi-okuri...fair enough.

[Jean]

In 1 cm machi okuri, you can easily reshape a missing hamachi... Often seen in old Kamakura or Nambokucho tanto