Shugyosha

This one has NTHK papers to Ko Shoami:

+1 with a bias towards 4.

Hi Stephen, Welcome to NMB. Looking at the blade by itself, I don't think that there's an awful lot to not like there. It looks like there may be a little loose grain but that could equally be the photographs which can make this look worse than it is but certainly is not out of keeping with its age. There looks like there might be some scuffing around the kissaki - the boshi doesn't show white in the photographs but that is a cosmetic issue and indicates that it is perhaps in older polish but see comments below. Does it have authentication papers? Here's the entry from Marcus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan: KIYOMITSU (清光), Eishō (永正, 1504-1521), Bizen – “Bishū Osafune Kiyomitsu” (備州長船清光), “Bizen no Kuni-jū Osafune Gorōzaemon no Jō Kiyomitsu” (備前国住長船五郎左衛門尉清光), “Bizen no Kuni-jū Osafune Nomura Gorōzaemon no Jō Kiyomitsu” (備前国住長船野村五郎左衛門尉清光), real name Nomura Gorōzaemon (野村五郎左衛門), son of Katsuhei Kiyomitsu, wazamono, jōjō-saku The words "wazamono" and "jōjō-saku" are interesting: the ranking wazamono means that the smith is amongst those that were ranked as producing blades that cut well according to a famous test-cutter from the edo period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wazamono The jōjō-saku bit indicates that according to Fujishiro's ranking system he is "highly surperior" https://yuhindo.com/ratings.html So, if your sword is shoshin (the signature is genuine) you have picked up a decent sword. That said, looking at the way he signed with the use of "Bizen" rather than "Bishu" in his longer signatures, the use of "Bishu" in your case probably backs up JP's comment that the smith perhaps thought that this wasn't his best work which would have received the longer signature. It's designated a wakizashi based on how swords are categorized these days but given its time of manufacture and length may well have been intended for use as a primary weapon but one handed "katate uchi" as was the style of fighting around that time. The length of the tsuka is not consistent with this and so it's reasonable to suggest that the fittings aren't original to the blade (no biggie, muromachi period koshirae are few and far between and are very valuable). How do they fit? The scuffing near the kissaki might indicate that the scabbard is a little tight and may not have been made for this blade, also the quality looks below what you might expect to find on a higher quality blade, so the fittings may have been swapped out and sold separately, or simply replaced as worn out during the Edo period. I'm sure you'll get more and better comments but it looks to me like you've done pretty well with your first buy.

Sorry guys, I wasn't thinking when I replied to the thread.

There was contact between Japan and Mexico (IIRC) in the early Edo period, so that might not be so improbable.

Hi, Some of the photos are blurry, I can read one signature: TAKAMASA (高正), Shōwa (昭和, 1926-1989), Gifu – “Takamasa” (高正), real name Yasuda Yoshitarō (安田芳太郎), born April 7th 1912, he worked as guntō smith and a date which is September, Showa 18 (1943),

Me too...humble pie eaten.

Hi Szab, "Mino no kuni" - the province of Mino. "Noshu Ogaki ju" - Noshu is also Mino province - in order to avoid confusion and make sword stuff really easy for westerners, there are two ways of writing the names of the provinces - in this case the "No" kanji appears in both versions. It means that he was living at Ogaki, in Mino. Have a look at the link here: http://www.jssus.org/nkp/kanji_for_provinces.html From Markus Sesko's book: KANEUJI (兼氏), Genroku (元禄, 1688-1704), Mino – “Shizu Saburō Kaneuji” (志津三郎兼氏), “Nōshū Ōgaki-jū Shizu Saburō Kaneuji” (濃州大垣住志津三郎兼氏), real name Tōyama Tō´emon (遠山藤右衛門), he lived in Ōgaki (大垣) As far as kogatana go, for some reason their makers think that it's a great idea to put the name of a really famous smith on the blade. In reality it might not actually have been made by either the guy working in the 17th century (though this is the better bet) nor the student of Masamune, but by someone who intended to allude to it being made by the student of Masamune. Sorry, not a great explanation - it's a bit like paying homage to rather than a forgery.

Hi Szab, They are kanji. If you use Word for Windows, you can install the software that converts the keyboard to enable you to type in Japanese. Alternatively, you can buy a keyboard with a combination of the roman letters and hiragana/ katakana that makes life a little easier if you have the software installed - with a normal keyboard you need to know which key gives you which syllable and I can never remember this. With kanji, there is a function that enables you to select from a list based on pronunciation IIRC. For most day to day stuff, I tend to adopt a copy and paste approach: to give you the information you were looking for I would have gone to the "research" link in the bar at the top of the page, chosen "kanji pages", "nenki and kuni" and copied the characters for Echizen from the kuni section and then opened the "Nihonto compendium" link and picked out the kanji for "Kane" and "Naka" which are in the section that lists the kanji used in smiths' names.

I agree - also it seems like the quality of the horimono is poor compared to the workmanship of the blade itself unless it has been affected by polishing. I'm guessing that its a later add-on and someone, probably outside of Japan, decided to pimp their blade.

Hi Chris, There's a niji mei of the second generation in Toko Taikan and a similar mei in Kanzan's Shinto Oshigata Dictionary - even taking into account that it looks like someone had cleaned up the tang, neither look like the caligraphy on your sword, though the nakago jiri fits with the school. Sorry, I managed to overlook this entry in Markus Sesko's book which I guess might also be a possibility: KUNIMASA (国正), 7th gen., Kaei (嘉永, 1848-1854), Musashi – “Fujiwara Kunimasa” (藤原国正), Hōjōji school, first name Tamesuke (為助), he worked for the bakufu and carved also an aoi crest onto his tangs, dense ko-itame which tends to muji or also an itame-nagare, bō-utsuri can appear, the hamon is a chū-suguha or a gunome-chōji-midare in ko-nie-deki with a compact nioiguchi, the bōshi is chū-maru or a somewhat tapering midare-komi, sujikai-yasurime, also with keshō, he always signed with a yoji-mei It's a bit of an odd one - for me your blade looks like it has some quality about it and the jigane does look (to me anyway) to be in keeping with the school and based on that I would be reluctant to dismiss it as gimei without a good look around.

Hi Chris, I think it's one of these guys who worked in the Shinto period, from Markus Sesko's book: KUNIMASA (国正), 2nd gen., Genroku (元禄, 1688-1704), Musashi – “Kunimasa” (国正), first name Jinnojō (甚之丞), he was employed by the bakufu and carved sometimes an aoi crest onto his tangs, he works in the style of the 1st gen. Kunimasa KUNIMASA (国正), 3rd gen., Kyōhō (享保, 1716-1736), Musashi – “Kunimasa” (国正), Fujiwara Kunimasa” (藤原国正), “Hōjōji Echizen no Kami Kunimasa” (法城寺越前守国正), first name Genbei (源兵衛), he worked for the bakufu, suguha or suguha with gunome-ashi in ko-nie-deki with broad nioiguchi KUNIMASA (国正), 4th gen., Kanpō (寛保, 1741-1744), Musashi – “Kunimasa” (国正), Fujiwara Kunimasa” (藤原国正), first name Tōgorō (藤五郎), he is also listed with the first name Gensuke (源助) and signed in early years with Mitsumasa (光正), it is said that he too carved an aoi crest onto his tangs, there exists the theory that the Kunimasa smiths only applied this aoi crest to blades which were ordered by the bakufu

If you're paying I'm available if Kirill can't make it. Obviously not all mentors are equal and your mileage may vary. That's a lovely blade and a great way to start a collection.

Best not to try. I've got a great view from this minefield thanks, and I even know where some of the mines are and can sometimes recognise one when I see it. No point in going digging around on the other side of the fence.

It begins with Iga (伊賀) but then that's me done.

It might be on the early side of Muromachi, perhaps earlier yet: I think you can see the remains of original mekugi ana on the nakago jiri and, if so, the original nagasa would be around 80cm and with the sori tending towards koshi sori which at first blush points that way for me.

I can remember seeing a documentary on Japanese martial arts - I can't remember the exact context but there was an old guy practising throwing the needle style shuriken at a man-shaped target and the comment made was along the lines of these are the real thing, not the star shaped ones. I'd be cautious about parting with money for this stuff - it seems that these sort of Ninja articles have increased in number recently presumably to meet a perceived demand in the West.

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.