I am new to collecting Nihontos so I am still in the process of learning about them. So i have recently joined this club hoping to learn more about these Japanese swords. I recently purchased a Nihonto from a individual. He claims that it is a Katana, but i am wondering if he is not considering the length of the cutting edge(nagasa) but looking at the thickness of the blade being 7mm.
The nagasa measures 56mm or 22" in length. This measurement was taken from the ha-machi to the kissaki. From what I found searching the Internet this Nihonto should be considered a Wakizashi given this length of the nagasa being under 2 shaku(60.6cm)from what some would classify it as a Katana.
The nakago only has one hole and has not been shorten and this Nihonto total length is 69mm(27 1/2 inches). The Nihonto is what he estimated to be made during the 15th century. Where most of the nagasa's length during that period made around 70 and 73cm (27.6 and 28.7 inches)in length? I read somewhere that not until the early 16th century average blade length was closer to 60cm or 23.6 inches. Do i have whats considered a small size Katana or a mid to long size Wakizashi? Thanks for any help with this!
Blade classifications
Hi Ron,
Blade classification is not that strict but somehow subjective in regards to the length. And in some periods you will see less definitive differences between styles, e.g. katana vs. wakizashi. Personally I tend to follow the overall 'feeling' when seeing the sword rather than strict rules. Every style is influenced by its practical use. Tachi was a cavalry sword. Katana evolved from a shortened tachi for infantry use to the main sword in a pair (daisho). Wakizashi is a companion sword. When looking at the blade's shape, proportion of nakago to the overall length (it changed over time, however), you'll be able to see how it was used and therefore consider it a katana or a wakizashi.
As you mentioned 15th century, the end of this century was the age of uchigatana which sometimes may had been under 60cm in nagasa. Some authors may classify them as katana, and some as wakizashi. And the same principle can be applied to any swords just under 2 shaku (60 cm).
I wouldn't consider thickness to be an important factor as some wakizashi are quite chunky too.
If you attach a photo of the blade to your post, I'll be able to give you my guess.
Regards,
Stan
Katana or Wakizashi?
Stan,
I have now attached a photo of this sword. I also currently own a Katana that is 6 1/2" longer in overall length than this sword i inquiring about. The Katana is also from that same period. Could a person use this sword as a Wakizashi and pair it with the Katana and stll be correct for a use of a daisho?
samurai within me
Ron, This sword looks like a
Ron,
This sword looks like a wakizashi to me.
I guess it could be worn with the katana you described, however it's a bit too long.
Regards,
Stan
later?
Just a guess, but the shape looks more like late 16th century, or 17th century to me...?
Can you post a good picture of the nakago (tang)?
Pete
Hello Stan & Pete
I have included more pictures of this sword. Stan when you looked at the picture i provided of this sword what might make you think it's a Wakizaski? While we are on the subject of this sword. Can you also tell me what type of a tempered line(hamon) this blade has and what would be the appropriate name for it? The nakago is also signed
BISHU OSAFUNE NORIMITSU 備州長船則光 looking this up in the Mei search is it a Nor164 or?
Thanks again for your thoughts on this sword.
samurai within me
Norimitsu
Ron,
Bizen Norimitsu line spanned for 300 years. It would be hard to attribute this sword to a particular smith, as for many other Bizen families. But you will be able to find out the period when it was produced. I'll leave this task for you and Pete as I'll be busy with few things for the next week, but at the first glance I'd rather think of 16th century.
As for the style of the blade. Well, IMHO it's a wakizashi :-) It's the overall proportions of the blade, mounting etc.
Regards,
Stan
hamon
The hamon style is called "koshi no hiraita", which is a type of midare that looks like the claws of a crab.
Reading in Nagayama's book, it is common in Sue-Bizen (late Bizen school), which is the late Muromachi period (mid-late 1500's).
Pete
wakizashi
At 56 cm, I would agree with Stan and call it a wakizashi, perhaps on the large side.
It would be a good choice to use in the left hand in Musashi's "Ni-tou Ryu" (2-sword style). :-)
Pete
A long Wakizashi it will be!
I have not seen this type of hamon until i have came across this sword. Now i have the hamon's proper name, thanks Pete.
The sword maker - Norimitsu I understand is from the Bizen province and from the town of Osafune. Do you know approximately what generation of the Norimitsu's this sword was from?
samurai within me
which Norimitsu
I compared the signature to samples found in Fujishiro's "Kotou-Hen" and the "Nihontou Kouza" (these books have pictures of tangs, and the blades shown are without question).
There are similarities to yours, but none was close enough that I would say it was a match. But the Norimitsu line is big/famous enough that you could find many other examples to compare with.
BUT (there's always a "but", eh?):
The signature alone is generally not enough to say that it is authentic, or that it matches any specific smith.
Your best source of additional *reliable* information is to show the blade to someone with good experience with this line of smiths. To get "good answers", the person would probably want to study the blade in person.
Some possible answers are:
- It is a match for one of the main smiths in the Norimitsu line. The only way to learn this with "high confidence" is to send the blade to Japan for a "kantei" (a written expert opinion).
- It is a "gimei" (false signature). Note that a gimei is not necessarily a bad blade - many gimei blades are quite good, and a few are top-quality. If the blade is well-made and has beautiful features, then the fact that the maker "lied" on the signature is not a big deal (in my opinion).
- It is a blade made by one of the lesser-known smiths in the Norimitsu line. There may be many of these guys, and identifying a specific one might be impossible. Someone who really know his Bizen Osafune stuff might reach this conclusion because all the important features are 'correct' for the school, but the signature (or something else) just doesn't match the famous guys. If you get a kantei, the answer in this case is often just "Bizen Osafune school" -- so you spent a lot of money to find out something you already knew...
Pete
A good old Wakizashi
Pete
This old Wakizashi i think is most likely signed with a false signature. I would have to agree with you that a sword with a gimei does not make it a bad sword. The practice of adding a gimei unfortunately, is currently used now and was also used back in the old times of sword making. As for a novice sword collector i am honored to own a good 500 year old Japanese sword with a bit history to go with it.
Thanks again!
samurai within me