|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 27, 2011 2:20:56 GMT
It won't, certainly not from this end anyway. I am waiting patiently for an example where my "own version of history" in this thread conflicts with the "established facts". I am not holding my breath though.
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Apr 27, 2011 3:06:09 GMT
I think CSthundercat is a controversy seeker. I don't think he cares which position he takes, as long as it generates controversial response. I will not fall for that trap. I am going stick to sword facts. Contradiction 1. Later. First, the shinogi zukuri is the same as chukoto therefore came directly from Tang dao. Later, it evolved from chukoto. So which is this? Contradiction 2.Later. In the first quote, he said the chicken came first. The second quote he said the egg came first. Which is this? It seem someone had the book but only using it as a reference after errors are pointed out, hence the contradiction. Since we are talking about history of blade profile, chronological time line of first appearance is important. Chukuto appeared first (not counting the older bronze stuff) pre-Heian Era. It is almost identical to the Tang Dynasty dao. Ironically, the very sword with CSthundercat reviewed was the second to appear, making it the first genuine Japanese sword (700-800AD). The famous "Little Crow" was dated back to approximately 900AD. The profile appeared off-and-on later on throughout history but was rare. But it is strongly associate with Heian Court. What we know as shinogi zukuri first appeared in late Heian Era and very early Kamakura, many hundred years after the appearance of chukoto and at least a couple of hundred years after the first appearance of moroha zukuri. At that time they were ko-kissaki and very narrow. Early-Kamakura, they became wider and more robust, but still ko-kissaki. The shinogi zukuri version that most commonly seen came into existence in Mid-Kamakura, i.e. the first appearance of chu-kissaki. Nambokucho blades became more flamboyant, very wide, large, and o-kissaki. Well, it did not last long because the blades were impractical. So there were slight evolution of the blades from then until now. Of course, there were shobu and other blade profiles. But there is no consensus among experts on Shobu as a distinct long sword profile. First because the shobu that were created to be shobu were mostly wakizashi and tanto. And there is also the argument that shobu is the the variation of moroha zukuri by some experts. Other experts strongly disagreed. In short, no consensus. The other profiles came from pole arms. Most of my comments are based on memory of what I read and Dr. Stein website, so accuracy is not %100. I don't have my books since I packed them away for my long deployment. I won't have access to my books until the end of the years. I recommend that those who wish to learn katana to buy the books and read for themselves instead of relying on people on forum. PS: There is a better version by Dr. Stein: home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/sugata/shape.htm . Also, an interesting discussion on Shobu on SFI. Pay close attention to Keith Larman's comment: www.swordforum.com/forums/showth ... p?t=104409
|
|
avery
Senior Forumite
Manufacturer/Vendor
Posts: 1,530
|
Post by avery on Apr 27, 2011 3:57:47 GMT
See, I'd almost let it slide, Student, but you joined back in the discussion after being asked this.
So, this
doesn't really fly well. 100% accuracy is what has been asked, by Ed and Liono.
Edit to add:(Sorry CS, but Liono was the first thing that came to mind when I typed this.)
|
|
|
Post by Bryn on Apr 27, 2011 5:19:04 GMT
Well shoot, here goes comment number two (other one got finished and attempted to post right after it got locked...)
While I don't necessarily find this style of blade to my own personal aesthetic tastes, I'm glad you got the chance to snag a replica fairly unique to the market. I've only ever seen this style done by Cold Steel (not a katana-phile) and theirs is quite ugly, in my eyes. This sword, again - not to my personal preferences, seems pretty nicely done. I'd love to see a video of the back edge in action and then compare this style to something like the VA Warder with its sharpened back edge.
On a side note, I gotta start saving up for a Hauwei...
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 27, 2011 6:01:13 GMT
Nagayama quotes below. Please be patient while I first defend my........'honor'. I am a truth seeker, facts are often arrived at via distillation through means of discussion, debate and exchange. Never through ad hominem attacks and "mudslinging". Stick with this thread and you will get the facts, cos im gonna stick em to you Ok...so I should have clarified that what I meant by a "basic" shinogi zukuri was kiriha zukuri. I consider kiriha zukuri (a blade profile often found in tang dao, chang dao, chokuto / jo-koto / whatever you wish to call them swords) as a very basic form of shinogi zukuri - which isnt technically correct. One is one and the other is another - but I stand by my comment that they are VERY closely related. All you need to do is look at them. No need to explain that. It remains accurate to my knowledge. I stand by that too. Some will say that there were other "japanafied" blade types before the mid-Heian (start of 'koto' period) such as the kogarasu maru and certain types of kiri ha zukuri blades. But that is kind of irrelavent and hair splitting as we are talking about the development of "shinogi zukuri" blades. Come on Student. I never said they were identical. I said they were basically the same, but that one was a refinement of the other. I am guessing that this is what you meant by saying shinogi zukuri is the final incarnation of the japanese sword. Perhaps what you meant was that shinogi zukuri was the final incarnation of the evolutionary process from Tang dao to nihonto. Either way, you didnt say that. I dont see the chicken / egg contradiction you speak of. The first quote is about the typical differences between sword experts and sword users. The second quote is about what influenced the prominence of shinogi zukuri. The need was for cheap, effective weapons. The means was the available technology at the time. The result of these combined factors was predominance of shinogi zukuri. Pretty simple. There are no contradictions, and no need for me to reply to inflammatory comments like this one. The above comment is incorrect, but I am starting to see from where your misunderstanding stems, you think chokuto refers to a particular blade profile or sword type. It doesnt. It refers to a time period or swords which were made during that time period. Please take careful note: Any pre-mid-Heian blade is chokuto (jo-koto, aka pre-koto period = pre mid-Heian period). Pre-koto period blades of Japan include kiriha zukuri, hira zukuri, and also......drumroll..... SHINOGI ZUKURI blade types. By your definition, there are no chokuto with shinogi zukuri profile, which is incorrect. There is nothing ironic about this at all. The subject of the review is precisely why we are having this discussion now. I even referred to the kogarasu maru as the "missing link" on page 1 of this thread, albeit slightly tongue in cheek. It would be nice if you read the thread without simply wading in with your half-informed opinions. Yes - i.e. a contemporary with the first jo-koto shinogi zukuri blades (see Nagayama quotes below). The REAL chicken/egg question is which came first, these or Shinogi Zukuri type blades from pre-koto period. Nagayama is kind of unclear about this, but points in the direction of them both appearing at a similar time. One thing we can be sure of is that curved shinogi zukuri came after straight varieties, but since the kogarasu maru HAS as shinogi....well i'll leave it to individuals to decide for themselves. A definitive answer will probably never be reached - I think - because people's definitions of what "shinogi zukuri" actually means differ, a point which could be debated ad infinitum. Shinogi just means ridge line. (See Nagayama quotes below.) Zukuri means "created" / "made" / "produced with" / "made with" , take your pick. Right....time to deliver the "coup de grace" to this once and for all, and with the very reference material I was referred to by "Student":The Connoisseur's Book Of Japanese Swords, Kokan Nagayama. "Before the Mid-Heian Period: The Jokoto" Pages 12 - 14:On Kenukigata Tachi: and On The Kogarasu Maru: Then, in section "Late Heian To Early Kamakura, Emergence of the Tachi" Page 15 Thanks for backing me up sensei... Not according to Nagayama who said that it was CURVATURE (a feature which became a feature after the mid-Heian) came AFTER shinogi-zukuri, which was present in jo-koto period. See quote below: Let me make it very clear what sensei is saying, 'Student': jokoto straight kiriha zukuri ---> jokoto straight shinogi zukuri -----> koto curved shinogi zukuri. They were impractical for use by footsoldiers rather than cavelry. This was because they were big and heavy. They became impractical because of the emergance of the ability to equip many men with good weapons (due to advancements in steel tech and understanding) now meant that you could use footsoldiers to great effect. I.e. Needs and available weapons technology changed. Just....stop trying to slight me. Its lame. Personally I think forums are great for learning. Often better than books, if of course you can find the right people to talk to...instead of know-it-alls that know nothing. A little knowledge can be dangerous. Which you attempted, and failed, to use to back up your statements. This is because you missed the nuances of, and backgound information regarding what you were reading. I really hope this finishes what I consider to be a fairly pointless "technocrat's" debate once and for all. (I dislike technocrats...certainly dont wanna turn into one ) REMEMBER ALL - A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE CAN BE DANGEROUS!No need to apologise, I am Lion-O, lord of the Thundercats. An apology from student would be graciously accepted however! But again....I wont hold my breath!! :lol:
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 27, 2011 6:11:15 GMT
Do it... their fittings suck however. From their offerings, I would choose a blade profile which other manufacturers have trouble with or do not have. Huawei seem to do the "odballs" very well. Blades only though. Fittings are lacking.
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Apr 27, 2011 8:08:59 GMT
Agreed. They seem to have carved out a little niche for themselves in this way... by offering some decent blades of types not easily found on the production market. The fittings are fairly 'blah' tho... and I hope their customer service has improved since I dealt with them awhile back.
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 27, 2011 8:14:18 GMT
I just cant understand why they dont improve their fittings! If they did, they would be serious contenders for a MUCH larger market share. Re: customer service - I spoke with Jacky on the phone (I speak mandarin ) and through SMS messages. He sounds like a good guy. I think some of the customer service issues may have something to do with the language barrier when operating in english, which I dont think huawei are as good at as making swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 8:37:38 GMT
Oh my god I want one, im quite fond of the Moroha Zukuri style. I have no wakizashi, that would be perfect, id even like a katana with that blade style, but I do have TWO and feel id kinda have to 'justify' it to myself personally, or maybe sell one. Definatley wouldnt be selling my XL practical light though, god I love that sword, my other katana was a gift however, and of a less durable metal *though still a good cutter* if I do end up getting the Mor Zuk style katana or wak id sell that. Thanx for review, nice taste, be extremely fun to cut with.
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Apr 27, 2011 8:38:46 GMT
It was more then that in my case... I bought two katana... one had a badly cracked tsuka. I sent him pics of it and told him what the problem was... and he basically told me that I should not have removed it because I didn't know how to do so and I broke it. I informed him that his katana was not by any means my first, that I owned around 20 at the time some of which cost 5-6 times as much as his... and had taken them all apart without issue and knew very well how to take down a katana... and that I did not cause the crack. No reply. Sent several more messages. No reply. So... that was my issue at the time... and that bad experience kept me from buying more swords from them.... even as I watched with interest as they improved their products and offered more and more options. Had that first deal gone better and the customer service not been so lacking, I likely would have bought several swords from them since... but no mater how good a deal is or how interested I am in the product, I won't deal with rude people.
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 27, 2011 8:53:03 GMT
A fair point. Bare in mind however that rudeness is percieved, and easy to accidentally convey when a language barrier is present; not defending huawei if they said you were a noob though, thats definately sucky customer service! :lol: Anyway.... their tsuka leave something to be desired. You might be better off with it broken, you can practise your core maki skills Honestly though...I was/am impressed with their T10 blades.
|
|
|
Post by Enkidu on Apr 27, 2011 14:16:39 GMT
About Huawei CS, Jackie doesnt seems to like receiving multiple emails for the same question, and he eventually becomes rude. But, on the other hand, its often the only way to get an answer from him. And i read in an earlier post you made Shadow the details of your experience with Jackie, i too would be incapable of buying from Huawei again. In fact i almost refrained myself from doing so. It has bothered me a bit while dealing with him.
But, on the positive side as everyone said, his blades are really something, definitly worth the try. So i totally understand the enthusiasm of Thundercat. And he's right about the fact that he may be one of the best options for unusual types of blade, i made the test myself.
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 27, 2011 16:50:29 GMT
Well...shame to hear about these bad experiences. Theres never a good excuse for rudeness. The products though are interesting. I wonder where they are sourced from... anyone know who makes em? Huawei is just a retailer right?
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Apr 27, 2011 17:48:30 GMT
As am I... and that is what make it all the more sad. As I said, were it not for that very bad experience... I would have bought from them many times since. That poor customer service cost them a good bit of money and publicity from me... cuz i would have reviewed all those other swords I would have bought as well. :roll: They didn't offer the T-10 blades or the many saya and fitting options (sub-standard tho they may be, there is a lot of variety) when I got my swords... so I've watched their improvements with interest. You only get one chance to make a first impression tho. As to their forge... I don't know. I am curious. I think I've heard some people make guesses, don't know that anyone knows for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Apr 27, 2011 22:07:06 GMT
Looking back at my posts, I will apologize for the manner which I disagreed. My comments were less than friendly. But I will not apologize for the disagreement since the evidences (ironically provided by CSThundercat) agreed with me.
I also find the complain about "technocratic debate" by CSThundercat amusing. He started and participated in a debate about "classification." "Classification" by it very nature is "technocratic" if not "bureaucratic." But how are we going to digest information without "classification?"
Debate I
But first, the innitial disagreement was settled. The below comment was what promted my innitial response and disagreement.
Well, CSThundercat admitted that the comment "isn't technically correct." "One is one and the other is another."
Saying things are "closely related" is meaningless. A chimpanzee and I are closely related. We are both primates.
Debate II
But like on things on forum, the disagreement expanded into other area, mainly the definition of "shinogi zukuri." In this, I will thank CSThundercat for graciously helping me out and provided me with the evidences to support my cases.
What section did Nagayama Sensei put this paragraph under? "Late Heian To Early Kamakura, Emergence of the Tachi" (Page 15). Again great appreciation to CSThundercat for helping me out. Did I say that "Shinogi Zukuri" came into existence during Late Heian/Early Kamakura? Yes, I did. So did Nagayama Sensei.
Of course, CSThundercat entirely argument on this part of the debate rest solely on the term "shinogi zukuri," the ridgeline. I find it extremely ironic and amusing that CSThundercat accusing me of "missing nuances" while he clearly ignore the nuances in the very text he quoted. There is a clear contextual difference when Nagayama Sensei refers to "shinogi zukuri" as the feature of a blade and when he refers to it as a "classification type." CSThundercat seems to define the Sword Type liberally and expansively as anything with a ridgeline.
Let take that position to its logical conclusion. If the mere presence of a ridgeline make a sword "Shinogi Zukuri" (in Sword Type), then everything with the exception of hira zukuri are "Shinogi Zukuri." In fact, if you go by that definition, yari and naganita are also a "Shinogi Zukuri." This renders the whole classification system meaningless. Classification is meaningless when it is so broad and expansive that it include everything. It should be narrowly defined. A "Shinogi Zukuri" (in term of Taxonomy) must have (1) distinct shinogi, (2) distinct sori, and (3) distinct yokote. Missing any one of the feature, it cannot enter the club.
No classification system is perfect. Sure, the lines can be arbitrary. Things often don't fit nicely into catergory. Things can be put into one or more catergories. But erasing the dividing lines will make it worse, not better.
Debate III (non-sword related)
Forum cannot replace a book. I do not say this to get at CSThundercat. This is true for all topics and all people. This thread is a good example. We have went back and forth several times, both sides writting very long posts. But neither of us have scratch the surface of the aforementioned book. And neither of us is as articulated as the book itself. Then there are issues of interpretation and context. One should read a book for himself/herself because any second hand writing on a book will be colored by the reader interpretation and can be easily taken out of context (intentional or unintentional).
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 28, 2011 3:49:34 GMT
Running out of energy for this....but.........
No, I did not. Quote me where I was talking about "classification" please. I never said anything about "classification", this discussion has been about the evolution of blade profiles. Again, you have waded in and missed the nuances. Please look up the meaning of the word bureaucratic by the way - to quote the princess bride "I dont think it means what you think it means". Yes, a debate about the emergence of blade profiles is technical, and honestly I find it a little boring. It is however a neccessary evil, and what education is all about - Student.
Though some would want to argue with me Student, and though you present a good case against it - you are not directly decended from chimpanzees. Shinogi zukuri is however directly decended from kiriha zukuri, so what I said does have meaning. Nagayama himself said that shinogi zukuri is kiriha zukuri with the shinogi moved back towards the mune, which makes the blade sharper:
Also note, and this is of critical importance -
Very important grammatical point: "Occasionally seen" does not mean "Not seen" It means "seen sometimes". Thus, shinogi zukuri blades were present BEFORE the late Heian and early kamakura in jokoto period. Student seems to have difficult understanding this, because even though he clearly read the quote and was still unable to comprehend that Nagayama said that shinogi zukuri "became the basic form" during the late Heian. This means the shinogi zukuri blade profile became the basic sword form in the late Heian. It means that this blade profile became predomiant in the late Heian. It means it "caught on" the the late Heian. It means it "became popular" in the late Heian. It does not mean it appeared in the late Heian. I dont know how to spell it out any clearer than that. It was occasionally seen BEFORE the late Heian.
Yes YOU did, but No HE didnt. See above. He said it became the basic form during the late Heian, nothing about it coming into existence during the late Heian. In addition, he said it was seen in jokoto. Please note what section of the book it is in.(See below.) The Connoisseur's Book Of Japanese Swords, Kokan Nagayama. Section: "Before the Mid-Heian Period: The Jokoto" Pages 12 - 14:
On Kenukigata Tachi: Kokan Nagayama wrote: "The blade is obviously shinogi-zukuri, but the shinogiji is wider than that of the nihonto."
What was that, Nagayama sensei? "The blade is obviously shinogi-zukuri."
Sorry, can you say that again...? "The blade is obviously shinogi-zukuri."
One more time, I dont think "Student" heard you.... "The blade is obviously shinogi-zukuri." Ah...so......shinogi zukuri was present in jokoto period.
No, I never did, and dont attempt to put words in my mouth. I am just going on what Nagayama wrote - that shinogi zukuri was present during the jokoto period.
Nope. Again; I never said that, I simply provided a translation of the words "shinogi" and "zukuri" and stated, correctly, that there is debate as to exactly where kiriazukuri becomes shinogi zukuri. Blade profile types that come AFTER the mid Heian come from the shinogi zukuri blade types to be found in the jokoto period. Blade profile types such as shobu, unokubi etc are all LATER adaptations of shinogi zukuri.
No. This is your own personal definition of criteria to enter the "shinogi-zukuri club". If you didnt just invent this off the top of your head, then please quote your source for this statement. You have a habit of making sweeping statements and not backing them up. In any case, we are talking about the evolutionary process of blade profiles. You said yourself on page 3 of this thread: Just making that perfectly clear so you cant wriggle out. Clarification of the Actual Debates.
I took issue with the following comments from 'Student' as well as those addressed in earlier posts.
So:
1) Has been cleared up already. Student has now accepted that shinogi zukuri was actually the first (along with kogarasu maru type) "all japanese" blade profile - not the last incarnation - so the debate then changed into WHEN this blade type emerged - which has been covered in this post with quotes from Nagayama.
2)Hahaha!!
3) Jokoto sword blades include hira, kiriha AND shinogi zukuri; so this statement betrays Student's misunderstanding of what jokoto means; also, see 1).
4) The answer is BOTH. How is this possible? - Because Student's definition of both jokoto and shinogi zukuri are incorrect. What Student defines as shinogi zukuri (the type of shinogi zukuri sugata seen in late Heian tachi blades) was present previously in some jokoto blades, as noted by Nagayama. As I have previously stated, there were several blade types present in jokoto, including, according to Nagayama, some examples of shinogi zukuri. (See Nagayama quotes above). What I define as shinogi zukuri (as stated by Nagayama) is the modification of the kiriha zukuri, first found in kenukigata tachi. (take another look - "The blade is obviously shinogi-zukuri, but the shinogiji is wider than that of the nihonto.")
5) To quote Student on page 3 of this thread:
Im glad we are on the same subject and that there is no confusion as to context. We are most certainly talking about the history of blade profiles, not "classification" types or some other area you keep tying to budge this debate into in an attempt to retroactively justify your irrelavent comments...which Im not gonna let you do.
Speak for yourself![/u]
|
|
Sébastien
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,967
|
Post by Sébastien on Apr 28, 2011 3:57:58 GMT
Does anyone takes any enjoyment out of this debate ?
|
|
Sam H
Member
Posts: 1,099
|
Post by Sam H on Apr 28, 2011 3:59:36 GMT
Drama and contention is always fun but frankly this debate got boring before it was locked down the first time...
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 28, 2011 4:02:04 GMT
Teachers find enjoyment in educating "students" :lol:
|
|
Sébastien
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,967
|
Post by Sébastien on Apr 28, 2011 4:15:31 GMT
I think this debate is almost as much about pride as it is about historical japanese swords ...
I have a feeling this thread could get sour again. If it does, we will have to lock it again, this time for good. I hope I'm wrong, because I wouldn't like having to lock a review thread.
On a side-note, thanks alot for making this review CSthundercat !
|
|