Shugyosha

Hi Nick, For me, at the lower end of the market there isn't much difference between the two. I think that in either case, the shinsa panels will know infinitely more than your average Joe (me and the majority of western collectors) and so both bodies' views should be respected, but it has to be viewed in the context of the item in question and the attribution. To give an example, in the context of, say, a mumei sword with an attribution to a school, say "Echizen Shimosaka" then the papers of each body are of roughly equal value. They confirm that it is a genuine Japanese sword and that it has no fatal flaws, but the additional information in the NTHK paper will normally give a time frame for manufacture which is perhaps more interesting to the beginning collector perhaps something like "Keicho goro" - around Keicho. That said, sometimes with the NBTHK papers it is possible to read between the lines and work out a rough time frame from the attribution, for example "ko Mihara", "Mihara", "sue Mihara" point to different points of time in the koto period: http://www.nihontocraft.com/Mihara_Nihonto.html Where NBTHK papers can be positively unhelpful is where there are a number of generations of swordsmiths signing in a similar way or where swordsmiths in different provinces signed the same way. In this case, the papers do not always state which smith made the sword and only serve to confirm the sword and signature as genuine and, again, that it has no fatal flaws.Then you are down to relying on your own judgement or that of some helpful friends as to which generation of smith, or a smith from a particular province, actually made the sword and not all are necessarily regarded equally. Sellers of swords may not (actually won't be as the NBTHK are top of the tree) be any better informed or may be unscrupulous and imply that it may be by the bigger name or names in the group of smiths in question rather than the shirt-tail smith in the group whose work is of lesser value. Again, NTHK papers may resolve this problem as they often provide a note of time frame and province. NBTHK papers are, however, the gold standard higher up the price range and to some extent it depends on the individual collector as to the point at which this becomes significant. You should have a read of Darcy Brockbank's posts on this subject on here as he sets this part in better context than I can. Best, John

Steve was sharper than me as usual Here are the entries from Markus Sesko's eJapanese Swordsmiths: KANEKADO (兼門), Shōwa (昭和, 1926-1989), Gifu – “Kanekado” (兼門), real name Yoshida Tokuichi (吉田徳一), born March 29th 1906, he worked as a guntō smith and died September 6th 1969, student of Kurihara Kaneaki (栗原兼明), ryōkō no jōi (Akihide), Fifth Seat at the 6th Shinsaku Nihontō Denrankai (新作日本刀展覧会, 1941) HIROSHIGE (広重), 2nd gen., Kan´ei (寛永, 1624-1644), Musashi – “Bushū Shitahara Hiroshige” (武州下原広重), “Sagami no Kami Fujiwara Hiroshige” (相模守藤原広重), real name Yamamoto Tō´emon (山本藤右衛門), oldest son of the 1st gen. Shinshichirō Hiroshige, he changed his name later to Masashige (正重), the honorary title Sagami no Kami was granted to him on the second day of the eighth month Kan´ei 16 (1639) Best, John

That's a lovely blade Jean. If I were a richer man I'd be in like Flint. Hope the sale goes well. Best, John

Hi John, (On genuine tsuba anyway) it's to take the retaining catch on gunto koshirae. I've got a ko kinko tsuba with a similar modification. Best, John

Hi Steve, Looking again, I managed "Showa" and "hi" and of the name I have "Kanzan" as the first two kanji which suggests that "Sato" ought to follow, but I can't spot the kanji even though I ought to be able to get the last one as it looks familiar... Gambarimasu!!! Best, John

Hi Greg, Better eyes and brains than mine are required: On the lid: 鐔 - tsuba At the bottom of the second line - 美濃 - Mino Third line: 烏銅七々子地 [木瓜]??形 - Udou nanako ji [mokko?] gata From Markus Sesko's encyclopaedia: Sometimes in old references shakudō is written with the characters (烏金) or (烏銅). These read actually as ukin (lit. “raven gold”) or udō (lit. “raven copper”) respectively. So shakudō can also be called ukin or udō. Er - that's my lot, sorry. Best, John

The Stibbert Museum, Florence.

Can't you see the naked lady?

祥 = Shyou - auspicious, good fortune, good omen.

I think that Brian has put this rather well. From my point of view, I've been happy to sit back on this thread and gather what information I can and file it away for (hopefully) future use. I don't know enough to weigh in with views of my own on this subject but have enjoyed reading and respect the opinions of those who have contributed. Best, John

Hi Tom and Bazza, This is by way of an apology to Tom for doubting his intentions on a previous thread. My stab at the translation will normally be corrected by one or more of the better linguists on the forum. I've added in the entry from Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan as well which explains the signature. AKIHIDE (昭秀), Shōwa (昭和, 1926-1989), Tōkyō – “Kurihara Akihide kore o kinsaku” (栗原昭秀謹作之), “Shimotsuke no Kuni-jūnin Kurihara Hikosaburō Akihide saku” (下野国住人栗原彦三郎昭秀作), “Tekka Nyūdō Akihide saku” (鉄火入道 昭秀作), “Kun-yontō Akihide saku” (勲四等昭秀作, “Akihide, bearer of the Order of Merit fourth class”), real name Kurihara Hikosaburō (栗原彦三郎), born on the eighth day of the second month Meiji twelve (1879) in Sano (佐野) in Tochigi Prefecture, there he studied under the local smith Inagaki Saijirō Masanori (将応), later he became also an apprentice of Horii Taneaki (堀井胤明), he was a member of the Lower House of Tochigi Prefecture and opened on July 5th 1933 in Tōkyō´s Akasaka-Hikawashita (赤坂氷川下) the famous training site Nihontō Tanren Denshūjo (日本刀鍛錬伝習所) which gave rise to many of the later leading modern smiths, he died on May 5th 1954 at the age of 76, gō Tekka (鉄火) 為奉祝皇紀二千六百年靈山神社御遷座祭 Tame Hōshuku Kōki ni sen roppyaku nen Ryōsen Jinja (no) Go Senza sai Senza sai is a ceremony for the movement of a deity to a different site. This took place in the 2600th year of the imperial era in Japan. 栗原 米 司献之 Kurihara beishi mitsugu kore The Kurihara rice (production?) bureau dedicated this. So, if I have read correctly the sword was presented to the Ryōsen shrine by the rice production bureau of Kurihara to commemorate the movement of a deity in the 2600th year of the imperial calendar (1940). A really nice thing to own - can we see some pictures of the blade please Tom? Best, John

Some other examples here: http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/23518-unusual-tsuba/

Another option on woodblock prints: https://japaneseprints.net/

There's this guy, but I don't know anything about him: http://www.malcolmfairley.com/&w=1366 Best, John

Thanks for the discount Grev - I've ordered your "50 Selected Tsuba". Best, John

I thought the Satsuma katana might be worth a closer look - I think there's potentially some value there if genuine. It all looks a bit less attractive when the buyers' premium gets added on though - 28.8% with VAT!. http://www.thomasdelmar.com/Catalogues/as051218/lot0004.html

Gentlemen, This is another Karl Peter Smith type magical mystery tour. Remember the guy who insisted that there was some hidden meaning in Hizento signatures? The modus operandi is very similar. I suspect that the issue with the tang on the sword in picture is the straw man...wait for the trolling to follow. Best, John

Hi Tom, Firstly, I rarely have a clue as to attribution even with the sword in my hand, in perfect light and with a flashing neon sign pointing me in the right direction. I can't do anything with a bad photo of a tang, even with four mekugi ana. Secondly, my understanding is that the Bishu/ Bizen thing doesn't matter before Onin (1467??) and my best guess would be that the sword in the picture predates that time. After that, when the warring states period got into full swing one or the other can indicate a custom made sword as opposed to one that is mass produced, but I can never remember which way around it goes. Usually a longer signature with a family name as well as an art name indicates chumon uchi. Best, John

Maybe this one, but the first couple of kanji aren't clear and, whilst it looks a bit like "Hamamatsu" I could be wrong - there aren't many to choose from though. KANEAKI (兼明), Genroku (元禄, 1688-1704), Tōtōmi – “Hamamatsu-jū Kaneaki” (浜松住兼明) Best, John

Withdrawn from sale. If I can't give this stuff away I won't. I'm happy for the thread to be added to the archive for reference purposes if that fits in with the forum rules.

Hi Mark, Yes, looks like second generation: TAMEYASU (為康), 1st gen., Kan´ei (寛永, 1624-1644), Ōmi/Kii – “Kishū-jū Tosa Shōgen Tachibana Tameyasu” (紀州住土佐将監橘為康), “Tosa Shōgen Tameyasu” (土佐将監橘為康), real name Tomita Shōgen (富田将監), he came originally from Ishidō (石塔) in Ōmi province, he was the father of Bitchū no Kami Yasuhiro (備中守康広), later he moved to Kii and is considered as one of the ancestors of the Kishū-Ishidō school, flamboyant chōji-midare in the style of the Ichimonji school, wazamono, chūjō-saku TAMEYASU (為康), 2nd gen., Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673), Kii/Settsu – “Mutsu no Kami Tachibana Tameyasu” (陸奥守橘為康), “Mutsu no Kami Tameyasu” (陸奥守為康), real name Tomita Rokurō´emon (富田六郎右衛門), oldest son of the 1st gen. Tameyasu, older brother of Bitchū no Kami Yasuhiro (備中守康広), he moved later to Ōsaka and worked in the style of his father, flamboyant ōbusa-chōji, gunome, but the bōshi is mostly sugu, wazamono, chūjō-saku From eSwordsmiths of Japan. Best, John P.S. - cracking blade.

This nakago is something I haven't seen before - trying to replicate the tang on archaic blades? https://www.token-net.com/token/201806-11.html

Hi James, Beyond a few areas of o hada which I don't feel are out of keeping with the age of the blade, I can't really see any significant detractors. I remember asking the same question about a Rai school blade that didn't go and the answer that came back was "price". I guess ultimately if the price is appealing, stuff sells and if not it sticks - again it doesn't seem to be excessive to me so maybe it's just an anomaly. Best, John

A small addition to this thread - which I should have read before I tried to ship from the UK to USA via Parcelforce Global Express. I've had the parcel returned to me asking for further details including a VAT number which I couldn't supply as I don't have one, but which was stated as being optional on the form. According to the guy at Parcelforce, FedEx's tracking system requires a VAT number or the package can't be entered into the system, explaining why there was no movement from the receiving depot. This isn't the case with Global Priority - so if the matter can't be sorted out between the two carriers, it can be moved over to a different bag and go via a different route.

Thanks Chris. Actually it's not papered but I'm guaranteeing that it will pass shinsa. Now sold. Thank you!!