Shugyosha

Sorry Lee, you beat me to it.

Hi Chris, Have a look at the photograph with the oshigata. I couldn't see it in the first picture. Maybe the blade passed shinsa before polish and the hagire was either revealed in or caused by the polishing process?

Hi Donny, It's your money and they are your eyes and I don't mean to speak out of turn here but, just keep your hand in your pocket for a while. You seem to be buying a number of items that are, at best, of doubtful quality and you don't need to do this. You can learn just by looking at items for sale on the internet and studying and researching them. There's lots of good advice on here and usually good items at decent prices if you look at the sales section. Also, if you are contemplating a purchase, there's no shame in asking advice first. Kind regards, John

Hi Joe, So here I am sitting out on this tree limb and I'm about to get to sawing at it... Whilst I absolutely agree with your reasoning, I'm not sure that this is the way to look at it. Is it not the case that the best works by koto smiths are better (or regarded as better) than the best works of shinto smiths notwithstanding that there might have been a greater thinning out koto works over time? Essentially what I'm getting at is that, however many shinto swords are eliminated from the equation, if the best five (or however many) koto works are put up against the best five shinto works of all time, the koto works will win despite the fact that there are more shinto works extant. As regards Ken's original question, (and I don't know the answer) but here's a bit of supposition: The best quality iron sand will be used up first (gold mines in certain provinces were pretty much mined out by the 18th century), so it was possible to use up all of a commodity in a particular locallity); The more easily accessible sand will be used up before the stuff that is hardest to get to; Smiths working with a material that they know inside out and which is of a consistent quality will achieve consistently higher workmanship; Groups of smiths were forced to move around during war time or as a result of natural disasters are more likely to have to work with materials of a quality that they are not used to; When peace broke out in the Edo period raw materials were available from a variety of sources and so the iron available might have come from a mixture of sources or at least was less likely to be from a single source; Many of the swords produced in the shinto period were more akin to art swords rather than swords made as weapons that were coincidentally beautiful and also were not made for use against armoured oponents so the need for the best quality steel possible was reduced. I'm sure someone will shoot all of this down shortly, but it has been fun trying to hypothesise. Best, John

ZZ Top??

Many thanks Morita san. Apologies Bojan. Kind regards, John

Hi Bojan, It reads: Mogarishi 藻枋子 Soten sei 宗典制衣 Best, John

I have dealt with Marius several times and have always been very pleased with what I've bought and the transaction as a whole. Also, I feel I have to give a shout to Hamish who bent over backwards to get an item to me recently, despite the Australian Postal Services best efforts to the contrary.

Sorry if this is a bit obvious, but it looks rather like the mae kanji from maedate 前 : Mae - ahead, in front, before. Best, John

The first kanji in the seal looks like 軍 but it doesn't look like this in Markus Sesko's book on Identifying Seal Script...

Hi Golda, Well done on making a great start to collecting Japanese swords - you've held off from buying first and repenting later. I wish I had done the same. Often the problem with authentication papers is the lack of information that they actually give. There's some information here on reading them: http://www.nihontocraft.com/japanese_sword_papers.html The first one is a wakizashi, unsigned papered to the Yoshii (吉井)school. There's some information here: http://www.sho-shin.com/yoshii1.htm The second one is a wakizashi signed Omi Kami Fujiwara Tsuguhiro on one side and Echizen Ju Shimosaka on the other. This could be one of two generations of smiths, again the paper doesn't specify which. The reason the part of the paper is hidden came up in a thread recently where that part of the paper was cut out: apparently it is to hide the name of the sword's owner when it was sent for shinsa and avoid any negative implication for the seller or their family that selling the sword might have. From Markus Sesko's E Swordsmiths of Japan: TSUGUHIRO (継広), 1st gen., Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673), Echizen – “Echizen no Kuni Shimosaka Tsuguhiro” (越前国下坂継広), “Ōmi no Kami Fujiwara Tsuguhiro – Echizen-jū” (近江守藤原継広・越前住), student of the 3rd gen. Yasutsugu (康継), he lived in Echizen´s Fukui (福井) but moved later to Zeze (膳所) in Ōmi province, he also worked in Edo, we know. blades from the Meireki (明暦, 1655-1658) to the Enpō era (延宝, 1673-1681), itame mixed with masame, hiro-suguha with ashi, notare, gunome-midare mixed with togari-gunome, some blades show horimono, wazamono, chūjō-saku TSUGUHIRO (継広), 2nd gen., Genroku (元禄, 1688-1704), Echizen – “Ōmi no Kami Fujiwara Tsuguhiro” (近江守藤原継広), “Echizen no Kuni Shimosaka Tsuguhiro” (越前国下坂継広), “Echizen Shimosaka Ōmi no Kami Fujiwara Tsuguhiro” (越前下坂近江守藤原継広), we know date signatures from the Genroku and the Shōtoku era (正徳, 1711-1716). The third one is another wakizashi signed Bishu Osafune Ju Katsumitsu (備州長船住勝光). There were a number of generations of smiths in Bizen province signing this way from around 1400 to around 1590 and, again, there isn't any hint on the paper as to which it was. Some information here: http://www.sho-shin.com/sue2.htm I'll let someone else comment on the validity of papers. Otherwise, welcome to the Board. Kind regards, John

Hi James, I'd go with chu suguba. Sunagashi is an effect within the hamon rather than above it. There's a picture here: http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/terms/terms.htm There's definitely some nie in the hamon but I'm not sure I'm seeing the brushed sand effect in yours, but that might be my eyes. Best, John

Mmmmm....Big Macs....

Hi Donny, I'm struggling with the photographs of the sword's nakago. The date reads a lucky day in February of the 16th year of Showa, (1941). I think that the tsuba mei is 芝近作 Shigechika saku. Unfortunately, and it may be my screen size, I can't work out the detail of the signature and maybe some clearer pictures would help. However, as it's signed with a tachi mei it doesn't look like a run of the mill gunto. Best, John

Hi Charles, You had a win with the Hiromasa tanto. Here's one by one of the later generations of smiths: http://www.aoijapan.com/tanto-soshu-ju-hiromasa

Hi Piers, Shouldn't it be something of greater value (or sum of money) on the basis that you have taken the trouble and cost of submitting the blade to shinsa and that you aren't a willing seller? Like Steven says, if there is no other issue in play this shouldn't be your problem. Kind regards, John

They had me too.

Hi Charles, Simon nailed it. Have a look at Morita san's post for a translation of the meaning of the longer inscription: 木州海純鉄.

Hi James, From Markus Sesko: A maru-mune is also typical for ancient swords but was occasionally also applied by the following smiths or schools: The Hasebe (長谷部) school, Nobukuni (信国), the Heianjô (平安城) school, Kaga Shirô Sukemasa (加賀四郎資正), the Môgusa (舞草) school, Fuyuhiro (冬広), the Ko-Bizen (古備前) school (Masatsune [正恒], Tomonari [友成], Kanehira [包平]), Osafune Nagamitsu (長光), Bizen Shirô Kuniyasu (備前四郎国安), Sukezane (助真), the Ko-Aoe (古青江) and Aoe (青江) school, the Mihara (三原) school, the Miike (三池) school, the Taira-Takada (平高田) school, and the Naminohira (波平) school. Due to the extra time and effort involved in making a maru mune, it's usually an indicator of a better quality sword.

Hi Gasam, I think you should go with Mauro's translation (Enju). Sorry to spread confusion but Kanji often have two readings and for some reason tsubako often use a different reading to swordsmiths. I posted my translation before I read what Mauro had posted and of the two of us, my money would be on him to have it right. I was working on the second paper whilst you posted. I'll include what I came up with anyway in case it's of any use to you: 三つ浦透鐔 Mitsu Ura sukashi tsuba Three bays/ inlets openwork tsuba. Seems pretty abstract and I wonder if I've translated this correctly...but them's the kanji. 銘西垣勘平作 七十歳 Mei: Nishigaki Kanpei Saku (thanks Mauro!) Shichi ju sai Aged 70 years 根元三シ浦 Nemoto mitsu ura Root three bays/ inlets? Not sure of this translation. 竪形丸 Tate marugata Stretched circular shape. 鉄地 Tetsu ji Iron ground 地透 Ji sukashi Openwork ground 丸耳 Maru mimi Round rim Best, John

I guess the egg is heading my way... This is my stab at translating the first paper, unfortunately I can't find anything to shed light on the mystery of the interesting signature on the back. Some parts were a bit tricky, and I've done my best with them but they are beyond my skill to render into English. 波濤猛禽図鐔 Waves, billows, bird of prey themed tsuba. 銘 延寿作 Mei: Nobu Toshi Saku (葵紋) 康継 (Aoi mon) Yasu Tsugu 竪形丸 Tate marugata Stretched circular form? (表) (Omote) 鉄石目地 Tetsu ishime ji Iron stone finished ground. 鋤出彫 Tsuki de bori Dug out carving? 金象嵌 Kin zogan Gold inlay 鋤残耳 Sukizan mimi Obviously refers to the rim and uses the kanji for "dug" or "ploughed" (鋤) seen above. 残 = leave, remain, stay, reserve. It might make more sense with the tsuba in hand. 裏 Ura 磨地毛彫 Migaki ji kebori Polished ground, kebori carving. Best regards, John

Maybe a badly inscribed 継 tsugu for the Myochin tsuba but using the old "thread" radical - for some reason it gets changed whenever I copy and paste. That said, there's nothing in Haynes for a Munetsugu written that way...

Hi Mark, For me the corrosion around the mono uchi area looks too deep to polish out satisfactorily but that's not an expert view. There's this guy, Andrew Ickeringill, in Melbourne but I don't know anything about him: https://touken-togishi.com/ Perhaps some Aussie members can give you a view. Best, John

Hi Ed, Here's a bit more: 造り 込み: 鎬造り庵棟 Tsukurikomi: Shinogi zukuri, iori mune 鍛: 小板 目錬れる Kitae: Ko itame nereru (wrought/ forged) 刃紋:中直ぐ刃 Hamon: Chu suguba 鋩子: 直ぐ? 小刃返り Boshi: sugu? Ko maru kaeri 彫刻: Carving: This is where I start to lose it. There's reference to a lotus [蓮] which I can see on the blade. Also the part that follows on at the bottom of this section and turns the corner refers to Hachiman Dai Bosatsu [ 八幡大勒] but I can't do anything with the kanji and kana around it. I hope that helps and that someone can fill in the remainder for you. Best, John

Sorry Peter and Peter, I should have read to the top of the thread. Kind regards, John