Likes:
0
-
30th October 2004, 20:59
#121
Hi Guys
Been Busy..sorry not to get back sooner.
Anyway..taking the needles out of my eyes.........
First off-Like Keith I have received way too many emails asking ridiculous questions. Either wondering why I was down on Japanese Swords-which I'm not, or whether or not most were junk which isn't true either. This is NOT the message I wish to be giving nor is it the way I feel. We are talking about a VERY complex, large and fairly detailed topic- with me only discussing two, (count them, two) specific aspects of that entire field.
So, to be clear; I love Japanese swords. I have studied them for decades and learned to make them. Please do not overemphasize a discussion of some small details about smithing- into thinking anyone understands or knows my position on the larger subject.
Keith
You keep misunderstanding a fundamental point. Modern smithing has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The topic is about steel. The types and chemical composition of which were indigenous to which ever peoples at a given time. Please forget any reference to "modern." The entire point I am making can be had at a forge with tools in hand in 1400 1500, 1600 or 2004. Steel is steel, and simple carbon steels have a peculiar propensity to act just like simple carbon steels in any era. The ideas I am putting forth could have been proved then and there. Period.
Tamahagane is awful stuff and not having enough quality steel is the number one reason (I believe) for the core insert method of low grade steel being widely used. I think we both understand that it was the best they could do in a time of steel shortage. No problem with that. No further discussion needed. It was a point we agreed on.
My contention is with the notion that Kobuse is equal to or better then Maru.
Perhaps the Maru swords tested that gave the opinion you cited were a compendium of junk steel, as they could not get enough good steel. Perhaps the test smiths were largely unequal in skill level? Perhaps there was a "need" to quantify or qualify the core method thus an unfair comparison was made-I don’t know. All things being equal better grade steel should, could and would- win out.
As for the use of low grade core steel being equal to or better then the use of quality steel in the core? A dead soft low grade core is simply not better for stress load. Tempered Martensite is. There is no metallurgical ground to stand on to state that dead soft cores are superior or even equal. They are not. Heck even a brinell rating of unhardened high carbon would be better then dead-soft.
"Good enough" as opposed to the "best you can make" I will leave up to you to decide for yourself.
And Nie over Nioi?
Small grain and proper heat treat will outperform large grain in steel with tensile or lateral stress resistance as a service requirement. I really don't care much if we lined up every Sword expert, collector and author we can find to say otherwise. They would be wrong, the theory is wrong and we could prove it... all the day long.....with steel in hand.
*It is worth repeating that many of these swords were tested in many eras and as reported- many failed.
The reasons behind the "good enough"- nie-deki, kobuse swords being considered great? Maybe it was due to the swords they were tested against. I know "tall" in a room full of midgets is a very relative term.
We really would have to leave the "good enough" indicator up to those testing them in any given era. They sure are not the "best they could have been" by the exact same smith in the exact same era.
Smiths have read more nonsense over the years written about arms by historians and museum Curators then we can shake a stick at. Their profound lack of knowledge about the properties of their inventory has never phased me nor ceased to amaze me.
Earl
Some things are clear others maybe not so clear.
Obviously Japanese smiths had an understanding of smithing. Their efforts were hindered by a shortage of quality steel then, and now. I have no issue other then I don't sit silent as some author, collector or martial artist tells me how Japanese swords are the best the world has seen. Its utter nonsense and expresses a serious lack of understanding of the efforts of other cultures works in arms in any era. Keiths excellent notion of "good enough" is very appropo to that discussion.
We should reserve any detailed discussion for the Kagamibaraki in Jan if you're going. It is better discussed over drinks with paper and pencils. Here it is too lengthy wordy and boring. An example is the core study I quoted previously. If I used the same medium carbon steel core, and same high carbon skin in two different samples. Then heat treated them differently- you would get two completely different performance models. And again, all of this can and was done with ancient methods and tools.
In fact methods were used in some Viking swords and some English swords as well to give you hard edges and spring tempered bodies.
I will spend some time this weekend drawing some sketches to attach here explaining how this can and was done by different cultures.
Cheers
Dan
Last edited by Dan Harden; 30th October 2004 at 21:08.
-
1st November 2004, 19:23
#122
Well, fwiw, I don't think I ever said that kobuse was better than maru. Just that it was considered that way historically. And that was likely due to full maru daito were likely "overall" pretty low grade steel. Few would have enough high grade tamahagane to make a maru daito in the first place. Or else they'd make very few each year. So basically "quick and dirty" swords would be the context.
But it goes to the point I've been trying to make from the beginning. It is all about context. Maru historically meant poorer quality daito. But that doesn't mean maru is an inherently crappy process. Kobuse were considered a bit better and likely were because more care, concern, better steel, etc. were all used. Context. Really complex construction of some styles like Soshu were considered really great but they likely used vastly better steel. Having seen and handled *really* top notch nihonto there are clearly differences in steel composition. The difference in look ain't just polishing -- the steels, especially koto steels, clearly were very different from what was used during shinto times. Which were themselves very different from gendai steel.
Anyway, the only point really was that these things are in context. I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm just saying that while we can talk in absolutes, historically they didn't have the luxury of using only top grade steel across the board. Generally they don't even have that luxury still today if they're abiding by the rules of manufacture and using NBTHK supplied tamahagane. There just ain't enough. Hence the rumors of the mixing in of foreign steel being rampant among gendaito.
I believe that one can make absolute statements about some things in theory. But the moment we start talking about the real world, well, we hit the shades of grey and have to deal with availability issues, skill issues, whether mars was aligned with venus, and on and on. It gets fuzzy quickly.
And I truly get nervous of newbies reading these threads because I get to hear about it months later... Someone telling me that all nihonto are crap and will sometimes spontaneously combust blowing apart into little pieces. It's true, ya know, they read it on the internet...
Never underestimate the general publics' ability to completely misunderstand the simplest of statements...
Back to work...
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules