A short Katana

[t_c]

Hi, I hate to be the one to say this, but I think you may have something other than a 17th or 18th century piece. I am not an expert on Japanese swords, but I have had the opportunity to inspect a number. If I am wrong about this I hope that someone will please correct me.

My observations:

For the japanese sword some dating is done by the condition of the tang. The rust tends to be uniform from the uniformity of moisture in the wooden core. This piece shows what appears to be slag, not rust, with bright steel underneath. (Slag is the surface oxidation that develops after a "heat" by placing the blade in a furnace and then exposing it to the air). Surface rust that is apparent in older pieces has a tendancy (from what I have seen) to gently deteriorate sharp edges into softer more rounded edges, whereas the signature on this tang has some quite sharp lines in certain areas.

Another way to judge the date of a japanese sword is to try to determine how many times it has been polished. When a japanese sword is polished it is polished from the area covered by the Habaki (not present here) lengthwise all the way down the blade. What happens over repeated polishings is that the tang (which represents the original forged thickness of the blade) ends up being quite thicker than the rest of the blade (the thickness develops a pronounced taper in towards the blade). Look for this in the thickness of the tang as it becomes the blade right at the muni-machi (back notch - where the spine "steps" into tang).

To further validate the age of your piece take a moment to look at the tsuba. When a tsuba is fitted to a blade, it is "punched" in four corners (either side of the front edge, and either side of the back edge). This is much the same concept as center-punching to prep for a drilling. The metal is pushed into the void where the blade passes through and then filed down to fit the cross section of the blade so that the fit is snug and well aligned. These punch marks should be somewhat distinct. Sometimes tsuba are cast and these marks are much softer in their form (if they have not been re-punched to fit the blade). This may also help you shed some light on your piece.

The unfortunate truth about signatures on Japanese swords is that they tend to be well documented and therefore easily researched. I find that one must rely on more than just a signature to date a sword properly.

I hope this all helps, and if someone has different ideas about this piece, or if my understanding of the processes described are erronous (it has been a while since I was around the japanese stuff ) please chime in.

[fernando]

Thanks a lot Rich
Your website was already in my "favorites" ... it was the first one i entered, to get acquainted to the Japanese swords area. I am much obliged for the style classification and maker's signature.
I will get back to your site, to learn some more.

Thank you so much t c, for your precious remarks and hints.
This sword was bought in a close to junk condition. All parts must have been separated and exposed for whatever time, then wrongly reassembled, with the tsuba next to the blade, with the tang and habaki stuck deep into the tsuka(?), to a craking point. The blade must have being subject to infant swords play, with its various dents. It was once striken with hard sandpaper, certainly for unrusting, not for polishment. It also served as a hammer, as the tang end was smashed in such manner.
It is therefore dificult for me to judge on its age, even after learning from you the various sympthoms to find so.
Let me see:
The habaky was in the first picture; it shows signs of age. I don't find the use for that orifice in both center sides, as i haven't yet seen more of this style in the web. Do you know what this represents ?
You are right, the signature is well preserved; also because it was strongly punched, even with a scale efect. It was easy for the present rust cleaning brush process, to brighten the texture scales. Before the cleaning, the tang had such slag in the greater area ... the rest was irregular rust, with some portions of neither.
As for the thinning of the blade in the muni-machi area, due to frequent polishings , i don't find it so visible. Instead i notice a clear reduction of the blade width, maybe due to sharpening, not from polishing, i would think.
The tsuba has indeed a few punches, but apparently only on the other side, as shown in present pictures. However its center hole seems to be too large to adjust to the section of this blade. Possibly this tsuba belonged to a larger sword, as i don't see how the ( missing ) seppas woud eliminate this problem.
Obviously and apart from any judgement misguidings due to this piece mistreatments, i don't expect it to be 17th or 18th century, but i also guess it wasn't produced "just the other day".
Rich also noted there were various Hisamichi, in different periods.
Would you say this is a 19th century blade ? a later scabbard ? an earlier tsuba ?
Thank you so much for your involvement.
fernando

[fernando]

sorry, two more

[Rich]

There were smiths named Hisamichi working from the mid 1600's to the
late 1800's. Hard to tell given the abuse this blade has had. From the
style of tsuka-maki (handle wrap), this might (?) be a Satsuma Rebellion
sword. Just a guess.

Rich

[fernando]

Thank you Rich
I will follow that track.
fernando

[t_c]

Thanks for the additional photos and information, it's changed my thinking on the piece.

As for the circle in the habaki, I would say abstract japanese design motiff: think full moon or sun. Interpret as you will. I agree with you, I haven't seen very many pierced habakis. It threw me off. I'd be interested to know if the habaki is folded or cast (it doesn't look to be cast)? If it is folded there should be a soldered seam on the edge side possible with a small wedge in there as well.

You made me realize that someone who doesn't collect wouldn't treat the rust on the tang the way a collector would, they would simply think it needed to be cleaned like everything else. So obvious now, yet sometimes it's so easy to only look at a thing from your own perspective.....

The handle also threw me off as I have not seen that style of wrap done before. I'd be interested if this style was done for the same purpose as other so-called "battle wrap" styles. I was told that "battle wrap" (using a single pass of wrap) was done to conserve on the wrap material in times when it was scarcer (aka wartime) as a single pass around uses less than crossing passes around. Rich: are you familiar with this style? Can you offer any additional info?

I think it was fairly common for tsubas to find their way to a new sword (at least in our times), so it doesn't suprise me that it is too big for the blade even though it wasn't re-fit to it. To be honest, what I was wondering was if the piece had been cast from an original. From your photos, it does not appear to be the case. Here's a site I like with lots of examples of tsuba:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jggilbert/tsuba.htm

I really don't know about age, it just didn't strike me as being 400-300 years old (no offense Rich), but then again I hadn't really taken into acocunt a good "sandpapering" session. I do like what you suggested though: 19th century blade / earlier tsuba.

[fernando]

Hi t c
I am still trying to assimilate all the opennings you and Rich have given me in the last posts ... and all the web research in between, including your and his lwebinks.
The copper habaki is folded, with an imperceptible brass welding seam below ... the front half craked ... or made that way, to aproach the blade, what would you say?
The wedge is not there, though is clearly missing one, in this specific case.
I will be back with the tsuba comenting.
fernando