Shugyosha

Hi Thibault, I can't help you with the koshirae. The problem with the signature is that it isn't particularly clear in the picture and it looks like it has been filed over when the tang was adjusted for the koshirae so it's difficult to get a view on whether or not the signature is genuine. The first generation is is who the seller says made the blade, but the second signed the same way and worked similarly: MASANORI (正則), 1st gen., Keichō (慶長, 1596-1615), Echizen – “Yamato no Daijō Fujiwara Masanori” (大和大掾藤原正則), “Yamato no Daijō Fujiwara Masanori” (大和大掾藤原正法), Yamada family (山田), he signed his name in early years with the characters (正法), he came originally from Miyatsu (宮津) in Tango province and was a late smith of the lineage of Sanjō Yoshinori (吉則), via a stopover in Yamashiro, he moved to Fukui (福井) to Echizen province where he became a student of Kanenori (兼法), therefore his workmanship is strongly influenced by the Seki style of his master, the jigane is an itame mixed with masame and ji-nie, the hamon is mostly a notare mixed with gunome but he also hardened a suguha that reminds of Hizen Tadahiro (忠広), we also know interpretations in gunome-midare with sunagashi and hakikake which on the other hand remind of works of the Horikawa school (堀川), some gunome variants are rather roundish and are mixed with yahazu elements, we know date signatures from the 13th year of Keichō (1608) to the fourth year of Keian (慶安, 1651), ryō-wazamono, jō-saku MASANORI (正則), 2nd gen., Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673), Echizen – “Yamato no Daijō Fujiwara Masanori” (大和大掾藤原正則), “Yamato no Daijō Masanori” (大和大掾正則), “Echizen no Daijō Fujiwara Masanori” (越前大掾藤原正則), he continues the style of his father but moved later to Edo, there exist joint works with Higo no Daijō Masakatsu (肥後大掾正勝), wazamono, chūjō-saku For me the choji hamon looks quite well done and fits in with the description of his work style above though it's hard to make out the detail in the boshi. It seems to have a lot of mekugi ana for a shinto blade and has obviously been shortened which are detractors. I'm also put off by the use of the word "minty", which the blade isn't if it has been shortened, and is one of those trigger words that make me disregard an item and make me want to punch the seller. Kind regards, John

Hi Howard, I think these are the kanji: 美子 and that it is read Yoshiko. Best, John

Hi Ben, It tends to be more of a period than a school thing: nanbokucho period, around Keicho (early 1600s) and then shin shinto for o kissaki (but with most rules there will be exceptions). I think I can see kesho yasurimei so I think shin shinto for yours but don't have any idea about a possible school.

There are close-up pictures of the boshi and mei if you scroll down the page. The boshi looks intact to me but the lighting isn't great and I'd ask for more pictures before doing anything. The signature on the papers is by Kobayashi Yukinobu who the seller says is on the NBTHK shinsa panel, which kind of begs the question why go to this guy and not the NBTHK themselves? Afterall, the sword is in Japan... That said, it does look like a well forged blade (subject to the boshi holding up) and could look really good with a touch up polish. If you google the body that issued the papers there are a few examples that come up including blades sold by Juwelier Strebel. http://www.juwelier-strebel.de/asien-kunst/Japan/verkaufte-artikelsold-items.html

Hi Ben, The Soushin one is papered. It's Tokubetsu Hozon. 特別保存刀剣 Best, John

Shobu zukuri blades aren't significantly different weight wise than other blade styles unless their dimensions make them so. They are slightly quicker to make than shinogi zukuri blades as there is no need to add s yokote.

One more for shinto and ubu. Could the marks have been put there by the smith as an indicator of where to put the mekugi ana? Don't know why you would need four of them but...

Hi Tim, That's a really nice sword to start this hobby with. Masame in the shinogi ji is thought of as a pointer towards shinto blades but was used in other schools especially Mino in the koto period. My understanding is that it's usually an indicator that the sword is kobuse forged and what you are seeing is the difference in the forging patterns of the core and outer steel. Best, John

Sorry - I'm on my phone and the pictures are quite dark..

Hizen Kuni Ju Nin Omi Daijo Fujiwara Tadahiro. Not sure about the other side.

Hi Lukas, He's been discussed on NMB a couple of times. If you put "Bamen" into the search facility at the top of the page you'll find some threads about him.

...and always remember that it's far easier to beg forgiveness than to get permission...

Hi Kam, I think that you are doing a good thing but the dangers are the ones you know about: that the polishing process reveals some ugly flaw in the blade not evident before or potentially even writes it off by revealing (or creating) a hagire. I've only done this once and probably won't do so again - not that it was a bad result but I'd just rather that someone else took the risk. Here's a before and after and the credit for a great polish is due to Kunitaro san and Etoo Koichi Sensei.

Sushi Ju Masahiro? Bloody autocorrect - "Soshu" - but I'm on my phone so it's not too clear. Tang looks like it has a bit of Soshu about it. Definitely worth the money.

Hi Mark, I'm sorry but the remainder of this is some way beyond me I'm afraid. Hopefully Thomas can add something further. Best, John

Hi Mark, Something to get you going. The first three kanji, I believe, are: 優等賞 - Yuutoo shoo - honour prize - (sorry still haven't worked out how to do a macron). I'm sorry but I'm struggling with the way the light falls on the saya as it is obscuring parts of the characters. Any chance of photos without the flash or in natural light? Best, John

Hi Alec, The way to determine definitively (or as definitively as anyone can) is to send the sword to shinsa. It's not likely that the blade is gimei as this isn't a particularly well known or important smith so there would be no point in faking the signature as it wouldn't add anything to the value of the blade. You've bought a nice blade at a good price and I don't think that there is anything to suggest that the blade is anything other than how it was described by the seller. It's time now to enjoy it and put in some study time so that you understand how it fits that description; or maybe after some study you will find that it doesn't, but at least you will have an informed view. Best, John

Alec, I'm assuming that these two entries in Markus Sesko's book are for the same guy, but it's a Munenaga, working around Kanbun in Mino province: MUNENAGA (宗長), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673), Mino – “Jumyō Munenaga” (寿命宗永), “Noshū Shimizu-jū Jumyō Munenaga” (濃州清水住寿命宗長), he signed his name also with the characters (宗永), Jumyō school MUNENAGA (宗永), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-73), Mino → MUNENAGA (宗長), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673), Mino

Dear Sir, Welcome to the forum and to the weird and wonderful world of Japanese swords. You can get the signature translated here; it reads: 播磨大掾藤原忠國 Harima Daijo, Fujiwara Tadakuni. The "Tadakuni" part is the smith's name and the rest is an official and honorific title: Harima Daijo (assistant to the lord of Harima province) Fujiwara (one of the ancient noble families of Japan). It might be that you have a traditionally made blade in military mounts. There were some fairly big name smiths working in Hizen province in the 17th century signing this way but, to give you a bit of a cold shower, there's a better than average chance that it's a false signature. It's hard to get a view of the workmanship of the blade from the photos so posting some close-ups might give a better idea. One final thing - would you mind signing your posts with an actual name rather than using your handle please - it keeps things nice and friendly on here. Kind regards, John

直- Sorry Sylvain - it's Nao like this for the kodzuka.

Hi Sylvain, I'm not sure about the kozuka - 直悦- Naoetsu perhaps (I'm struggling to match the second kanji) but I can't find anyone signing this way in Haynes. On the fuchi 寸竜子古川 - Sun Ryuu Shi Furukawa (Furukawa can also be read Kogawa) plus Kao. Again, I can't find someone signing this way in Haynes. There are a couple of entries under Furukawa and Kogawa but nothing similar to what you have here. Here's a link to someone signing Sun Ryuu Shi, so I'm fairly confident I have this bit correct: http://www.meitoukai.com/d.sunryuusi.html Hopefully someone with greater knowledge will be able to fill in the gaps (or correct me ) Best regards, John

Hi Craig, Sorry, you'd done so well with the signature that it didn't even occur to me to mention, but the date would normally be on the other side of the tang to the signature. That the various components fit well is good, but the key is for all of the serial numbers to match: I think there was sufficient standardisation that koshirae parts could be switched around from one blade to another without too much of a problem but it adds value if they were all part of one set originally and the matching numbers are the indicator of this. If there is no rust, then for a traditionally made blade I would have expected to see some hamon or hada so maybe it's a gunto. I don't think that the bend is necessarily too much of an issue if it will go in and out of the saya OK - don't try to straighten it yourself. Another guy on the site has a gunto for sale at $1,200 so that kind of gives a rough idea of value for comparison. Best, John

Hi Craig, welcome to NMB and to the world of Nihonto. You are correct with your translation. For your interest, this guy appears in Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan: KANETSUGU (兼次), Shōwa (昭和, 1926-1989), Gifu – “Kanetsugu” (兼次), family name Maegawa (前川), he worked as guntō smith, ryōkō no retsu (Akihide) I can't see a picture of the date on the link but from this it ought to be Showa and it will normally give a number of the year 年, month, 月 and probably just a day 日. Can't help with a value as it's not really my period: I think you'll need to post some pictures of the whole blade and fittings if you want a sensible estimate as the condition of these will be a factor considered and also if all of the pieces of the fittings match in terms of serial numbers. A couple of close ups of the blade showing any activity would probably help to determine whether or not it is a traditionally made blade as, again, that will positively affect the value (though the absence of an armoury stamp would normally suggest that it was traditionally made). I believe that the "ryoko no retsu" part of the quote is a ranking equivalent commensurate with him being of average skill, but I'm not 100% sure on that and hopefully someone else can chip in. Best, John

Hi Bruno, This is from Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan which has him working earlier than Kanbun: HIROTOKI (広辰), 1st gen., Kan´ei (寛永, 1624-1644), Mino – “Nōshū Kōzuchi-jū Fujiwara Hirotoki” (濃州上有知住藤原広辰), “Hitachi no Kami Fujiwara Hirotoki” (常陸守藤原広辰), called Shichirō Nyūdō (七郎入道), Toku´in school (得印), he also worked in Owari province, suguha mixed with ko-midare in ko-nie-deki with much nie and a wide nioiguchi.