Shugyosha

Hi JP, There are English translations available for Fujishiro. As regards Stephen's OP, what I need to do is learn and understand what I have in my library as I have too many books that I have only a passing acquaintance with as I tend to fall back on the Nihontoko Jiten, Toko Taikan or The connoisseurs book of Japanese Swordsmiths. Anyhow, I'm hanging on to Fujishiro but have given serious thought to parting with my copy of Hawley's as Markus Sesko's work has made me doubt its accuracy.

Sorry Ray, but I can't resist - if Aoi Art are also selling suriage katana by this smith with Hozon papers, does that not make them disreputable also or indeed anyone who sells a similar sword?

I think, given Tadayoshi's work period, it is just about possible that the sword was shortened as a result of battle damage but might have been done to make a long blade more manageable. It could also have been shortened with the intention to deceive, but it seems odd to shorten and cut the signature of a master swordsmith off an exceptionally sized blade. Why risk a large sum of money in the bank on a speculative move not guaranteed to succeed? Whether or not the sword is worth purchasing depends on why it is purchased: if it is as speculation or investment then that would be risky as I think it is safe to assume that it will not paper any higher than Hozon. If you want a sword in your collection by an important sword smith, one of the best of the period who spanned the gap between the koto and shinto periods and are happy to weigh the possibility of some loss of money against many years' enjoyment of the blade, then it might work. If I had money to spend on a sword right now I'd be giving it some serious consideration: it's something I could buy for love alone and without an eye on the bottom line.

Chris, I'm probably missing something here - it does seem cheap for a first generation tadayoshi, which given the length and hi might have been custom made, however, the seller says the sword has papered to NBTHK Hozon as a first generation Tadayoshi, (though there is no picture of the paper). However, the description says that it is suriage (茎は磨上で) and which may be why there is no signature. I've never heard that Tokka is anything but a reputable dealer.

Hi Jason, I can't see an armoury stamp on the tang of the blade and I don't think any attempt has been made to remove one and this would indicate that it was traditionally made. Traditionally made swords from the Showa era can be mujihada - i.e. not show any activity. I don't think that it is possible to tell by the hada alone (or absence of it) whether or not tamahagane was used - the hada is the result of the forging method applied by the smith and not the material - 17th century blades made from imported steel show hada. It's hard to tell from the seller's picture as it is (I think) scanned, but the hamon doesn't look to be oil quenched and there is something going on above the hamon line which might have been an attempt at hitatsura that hasn't been brought out in the polish. I would take this as a further indication that it isn't a mass-production blade, but if you were able to post some pictures it might be possible to get a better idea as to what this is. The signature is fairly typical for wartime blades which weren't necessarily signed by the smith himself but by a person employed to cut signatures - a sort of production line process to speed up production I believe, so in addition to natural variation, it might not be the same person signing every time. Hope that helps some.

If it is a wartime blade, these are the two possibilities (from Markus Sesko): NAGAMITSU (長光), Shōwa (昭和, 1926-1989), Gifu – “Nagamitsu” (長光), real name Kawasaki Sen´itsu (川崎専逸), born October 13th 1906, he worked as guntō smith. NAGAMITSU (長光), Shōwa (昭和, 1926-1989), Okayama – “Nagamitsu” (長光), “Ichihara Ichiryūshi Nagamitsu” (市原一龍子長光), “Ichihara Nagamitsu” (市原長光), family name Ichihara (市原), gō Ichiryūshi (一龍子), he worked as rikugun-jumei-tōshō and was a participant in the first Amy Shinsakutō Exhibition (Rikugun Guntō Gijutsu Shōreikai Ten, 陸軍々刀技術奨励会展) held in 1944, as he worked from Okayama, it had been assumed that he and the gendai swordsmith Emura (江村) were the same smith but more recent studies have revealed that they were two different smiths, due to this error, there was even the nickname “ Kangoku-Nagamitsu” (監獄長光, lit. “prison Nagamitsu”) going round. Another possibility might be this guy who also signed with a two character signature: NAGAMITSU (長光), Keiō (慶応, 1865-1868), Iyo – “Seiryūsai Nagamitsu saku” (精龍斎長光作), “Matsuyama Seiryūsai Nagamitsu saku” (松山精龍斎長光作), “Nagamitsu” (長光), real name Miyoshi Genjirō (三好源次郎), gō Suiryūsai (精龍斎), he died in the fifth year of Taishō (大正, 1916) but is still listed as student of Suishinshi Masahide (水心子正秀) what is rather unlikely.

Nagamitsu Saku (made by Nagamitsu). Is there anything else on the tang? If there is a stamp it will indicate a non-traditionally made blade. Is there a date on the other side? At first blush it doesn't look like the usual signature on wartime blades so it might be an older, traditionally made blade taken to war. Are you able to post some more pictures of the point and any activity around the hardened edge or in the steel above that? Also perhaps a picture of the whole blade with the fittings off showing length and curvature.

伯耆守藤原汎隆 Hoki (no) kami Fujiwara Hirotaka Mark beat me to it - the date is a day in the eighth month of the 11th Year of Kanbun.

Hi Dwain, Sorry if this sounds silly and please don't take this as any criticism of yourself, but in the first bunch of photos, are pictures one and three of the same sword? It may be my eyes, or the way they display on my screen but I saw the first photo and immediately thought Keicho shinto sugata. When I read the comments from yourself and Chris I found the Kanbun judgement odd, so I looked again but agree with it based on the third photo. The two seem quite different in terms of length of kissaki, angle of the edge in the kissaki and perhaps length of hi in relation to yokote. I'm happy to accept that I'm blind, mad or both or it might just be an unintended effect of the camera or lighting but I am curious as to how it came about as I'm worried that I might get tripped up by this in future, and I might have some money on it next time.

Hi Daniel, Looks like 勝光 - Katsumitsu.

They were provided by the Royal Armouries Museum to protect the swords from our sweaty mitts. There was some debate over whether they were better than the traditional cotton ones, but I'd forgotten mine and I quite like rubber so I went along with it.

Hi Paul, Thanks for organising the visit - a grand day out.

Hi Dwain, I'll guess neither: I believe that this is a shinto sword so too late for pure Yamashiro tradition and I don't think I see konuka hada - I think it is mainly a different flavour of itame (larger) with some mokume going on in the fourth picture. The extended kissaki is something seen in blades from around Keicho and in Satsuma blades throughout the shinto period. The ara nie in the picture before last suggest Satsuma also, but the tang isn't what I'd expect so I'd be inclined to discount that attribution. So, having discounted the impossible, all that can be left is "dunno"...but a shinto dunno as opposed to koto. Can you get a clearer picture of the boshi?

Hi Andy, You need to be certain of whether or not the signature is genuine or not first as that will affect the price, however, £400 is on the low side for a mounted wakizashi that is unsigned, so you need to post more and better pictures of the blade and fittings for a better opinion on this.

"Buy the sword, not the paper" is a good rule of thumb but, at its essence it suggests that the buyer should rely on their own judgement over and above that of the issuing organisation and perhaps also that they are of dubious intellect or should hold their manhood cheap if they do otherwise. I am occasionally guilty of false modesty, but I'm fairly confident that my own evaluation of a piece might, in most circumstances, lead to a different conclusion to that of an NBTHK or NTHK shinsa panel. I agree with Barry in that I think that there is no substitute for taking one's time and doing one's homework but that so that a piece can be assessed in the context of any accompanying paperwork and any information provided by the seller that might affect the price: this is all part of the picture and might lead to a different conclusion than buying solely on the basis of papers alone. However, for me there is no shame in admitting that I don't have balls of steel and that I prefer to have a financial risk underwritten to the greatest extent possible.

Looks like Omi Kami...but I'm struggling with the rest. If you compare with Markus Sesko's list of smiths with this title you might come up with something.

Thanks Guido. I really ought to have got that.

What Grant said is the rule of thumb with yari: a short kerikubi (the bit between the blade and the tang) points to shinto rather than koto manufacture. My initial feeling from looking at this bit was shinto but, as Peter says the paper suggests late Muromachi jidai, so there is perhaps some discrepancy here. The paper attributes this unsigned yari to a smith working in Yamato province called Kane (?). I can't find the second kanji in Markus Sesko's list of kanji used in swordsmiths' names and neither does he list a smith signing with this "Kane" kanji working in Yamato in the late Muromachi period. This isn't comprehensive research - just a quick flick through the sources I have to hand so please apply with a pinch of salt, however, suffice it to say that my suspicions would be aroused by this. It doesn't look like the dimensions of the spear are recorded on the paper either which seems odd and so it is hard to judge the item and papers in this context. The rubbing of the tang does appear to be from the spear, but this could have been changed relatively easily. I can't make out the name of the organisation that issued the paper so, again this would be a detractor from my point of view: knowing who issued it and what weight to give to their opinion would help. Given this, (if you are buying) I would be suspicious of the seller or at least treating the item as an unsigned, unpapered shinto yari and mentally adjust the price for these factors and proceed, or not, accordingly.

The United Kingdom's gift to the world. Couldn't find the retching and scraping my tongue emoji for some reason.

You know as much as anyone this side of the Channel. The UK Government and Members of Parliament are doing their best to stitch up a situation where it either doesn't happen or happens in name but isn't substantially different from how things stand currently. My money would be on the second situation following an extension of the March 29th deadline but who knows.

He only got that 50% correct.

Muromachi +1.

I think it's genuine, but it's wrecked. In that condition it could be anything - the shape and condition of the tang might give a clue as to time frame if unsigned, but beyond that...

Hi Omar, I've just seen your post. I think the last part of number 1 may be 磨つまし (migatsumashi) - 磨 means to polish or burnish. Unfortunately without the bit before it it doesn't mean very much. Number 2 is the date: 慶応 三年 - Keio san nen - third year of Keio but I think this is an error as it is written above as (and indeed is on the tang) fourth year.

Hi Benno, I think you need to post some more details, including some pictures of the entire blade and fittings (including any tassel which varied in colour depending on rank) and supporting paperwork. If the blade has a signature it will be beneath the hilt and you will need to take this off by removing the retaining peg - if it is more complex than a bamboo peg that simply pushes in and out then you might want to get some instructions as to how to remove it rather than damage it. Ultimately, it boils down to whatever paperwork that you might have or be able to discover that ties the sword to Teshima. Even without this, if it is a quality blade it may have some value but that will depend on the maker, its age (it might not be a wartime blade) and its condition. It is not unusual for older blades to be carried to war and one might reasonably expect that a higher ranking officer might have one of these or a better quality modern blade rather than the standard mass-produced blade. Otherwise, welcome to the forum and I hope we can have a look at a piece of your family history. If you are able to add your given name to your posts then you will be compliant with forum rules as we go by those rather than a handle.