Shugyosha

...and a tsunagi to keep the koshirae together??

...but for $575 not a total tragedy.

Hi Manfred, From Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan: TADATSUNA (忠綱), 2nd gen., Genroku (元禄, 1688-1704), Settsu – “Awataguchi Ōmi no Kami Tadatsuna-chakushi Settsu-jū Fujiwaras Tadakuni jūkyūsai kore o saku” (粟田口近江守忠綱嫡子摂津住藤原忠国十九歳作之, “made by Fujiwara Tadakuni from Settsu at the age of 19, legitimate son of Awataguchi Ōmi no Kami Tadatsuna”), “Ikkanshi Tadatsuna” (一竿子忠綱), “Awataguchi Ōmi no Kami Tadatsuna” (粟田口近江守忠綱), “Awataguchi Ikkanshi Tadatsuna” (粟田口一竿子忠綱), “Gōshōken Tadatsuna” (合勝軒忠綱), real name Asai Mantayū (浅井万太夫), gō Ikkanshi (一竿子) and Gōshōken (合勝軒), he received the honorary title Ōmi no Kami during the Enpō era (延宝, 1673-1681), he was an excellent horimono engraver and inscribed also hori-dōsaku (彫同作) to this tangs [indicating that the maker also carved the horimono], we know date signatures from the twelfth year of Kanbun (寛文, 1672) to the twelfth year of Kyōhō (享保, 1727), it is said that all blades dated from the Kyōhō era onwards are daisaku works of his successor Munetsuna (宗綱), there are mainly katana and wakizashi and hardly any tantō extant, the blades have more hira-niku than those of the 1st gen., only little tapering, a relative deep sori and an elongated chū-kissaki, the jigane is beautifully forged but the ko-itame is not that visible and tends sometimes even to a nashiji-hada, in his early years he hardened a hamon with long chōji-ashi like the 1st gen. but later the yakigashira of the chōji become successively more irregular and in later years he also hardened an ō-notare-midare with tama that reminds of Sukehiro (助広), there are many nie and the nioiguchi is wide, the clearest jigane of Ikkanshi Tadatsuna appears with a suguha, the bōshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri, as mentioned, we know many excellent horimono, like for example ken-maki-ryū on the omote side and bonji over a sankozuka-ken or ken with tsume which are in perfect harmony with the other elements of the blade, we also know hai-ryū (這龍, creeping dragon), koi no taki nobori (鯉の滝登り, carp which swims/jumps up a waterfall), or bōhi with soebi and maru-dome above the horimono, regarding the signature, he signed in early years mostly with “Awataguchi Ōmi no Kami Tadatsuna” and later more and more with the supplement “Ikkanshi,” during his early years he signed the right radical (岡) of the character for “tsuna” (綱) in the variant (岊). After Inoue Shinkai (井上真改) and Tsuda Sukehiro he is regarded as the most representative Ōsaka-shintō smith, ryō-wazamono – A tradition says that Sano Masanobu (佐野政言, 1757-1784) wore an ō-wakizashi of Ikkanshi Tadatsuna in Edo Castle when he killed Tanuma Okitomo (田沼意知, 1749-1784), the son of the rōju elder (老中) Tanuma Okitsugu (田沼意次, 1719-1788). Because of his reforms for the financially stressed bakufu and corruption, Okitsugu was not that popular among many daimyō at that time, so the assassination of his son was welcomed by some of them and blades by Ikkanshi Tadatsuna became even more popular after this incident. jōjō-saku ◎ I've no idea if the signature is good, but I hope that helps a little. Best, John

Hi Kurt, What a difference! Kudos to you for laying out the cash for the restoration and congratulations on the final result. You have a beautiful sword there. Best, John

Hi Lars, I think that you have the translation of the tang correct. From wikipedia: The name is now written 大阪 in kanji, but it was written 大坂 until 1870, when the partisans for the Meiji Restoration changed it, apparently to avoid the second kanji being misinterpreted as 士反, meaning "samurai rebellion". The older kanji is still in very limited use, usually in historical contexts, but in Japanese the kanji 阪—pronounced han when standing alone—now refers exclusively to Osaka City or Osaka Prefecture. That said, I have my reservations about the authenticity of the signature as (albeit with a quick internet search and a look at Sesko's Swordsmith's of Japan) I can't find a reference to any of the generations adding the "Osaka" to their mei, though someone else might come up with something different. Best, John

Hi Stefano, If it helps, the date is summer in the 34th Year of Meiji (reading from the papers not the blade as that was easier). The rest is a bit beyond me and I can't make any sense of it. Best, John

Hi Randy, Could you please add me to your list. A great idea and a fantastic piece of work. Many thanks, John

The best I have is that the 2nd generation Suishinshi Masahide became a lay priest but didn't use the name Suishinshi as his priest's name... ...after succeeding as head of the school in Bunsei one (文政, 1818) with his father’s name Masahide, in the third year of Bunsei (1820) he entered priesthood and took the gō Hakuyū (白熊) which can also read Shirokuma (1825)... From Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan.

Hi Ray, I like that better than my effort . I went with 永 Naga/ Ei/ Nori rather than 水 Sui/ Mizu as I thought there was the extra stroke on the left. The third character doesn't look much like 子 Shi to me but, like I say, your reading makes more sense than mine...I didn't have the nous to put them together to make what should have been a reasonably familiar combination. Did anyone signing Suishinshi entered the priesthood? It's a bit too late to go digging right now but I might look in the morning. Best, John

Denis, If I were you I'd take your address off your profile otherwise you will find people like me turning up to drink your wine and look at your swords. Best, John

Hi Howard, I think it reads "Nagakiyo (or Eishin) Migiwa nyudo" - 永心汀入道 - the lay priest Nagakiyo Migiwa. Now for the pinch of salt: the 汀 (Migiwa) character isn't a very good match but I can't find better so someone more expert than me might give a different reading, and the 道 (do) character is a bit iffy as well but I think the reading is good. An alternative reading of Nagakiyo would be Eishin and I'm not sure which applies in this case. Best, John

Hi Sean, This isn't that uncommon. It happens if a blade has been potentially fatally damaged near the machi but the whole sword can be saved by removing the damaged section by moving the machi up. It also happens with koto blades that were designed to be katate uchi (for use single handed) but when this type of use fell out of fashion the tang is made longer by machi okuri in order to accomodate a longer tsuka. That seems odd on a blade of this age, but different sword schools and individual swordsmen did things their own way - a bit like the difference between pro golfers' clubs perhaps. I'm guessing that these are the reasons: as you say, a simple change of koshirae could be done more easily by drilling another hole. As to value, it's a bit of a moot point - there have been threads on here arguing whether or not machi okuri means that the tang is still ubu or not but I can't remember what the concensus was. I'm sure someone will chip in on this point. Best, John

Love that Kozuka. Could live with other pieces too...

Hi Sean, As regards translating mei, I'd save a bit of cash there for the time being and rely on the free stuff in the Research section above: theres a link to a guide on the JSSUS website which is quite useful and Markus Sesko's Compendium gives a lot of information re kanji for mei, dates and provinces. As regards lists of swordsmiths and signatures, Hawley's Japanese Swordsmiths (lists swordsmiths but not pictures of signatures) and Fujishiro's Nihon Toko Jiten (which has pictures of signatures) are very useful, but neither of them are cheap. Again, Markus Sesko has published a Meikan with pictures of swordsmiths signatures which would be a good starter and also Swordsmiths of Japan which is available as an e book and is roughly an equivalent of Hawleys but perhaps a little less comprehensive. Both of these books are excellent value for money and can be had in an e book version. There are usually discount codes for the publisher (Lulu Books) published on this site so you can get a discount on the hard copy. I don't have any connection to Mr Sesko, but I am an owner of both of these books and would recommend them. For general books on Japanese swords, my current favourite is Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords by Nobuo Nakahara which gives lots of useful information and which I feel does so in a down to earth way. This will bring you up to speed with lots of the terminology and gives a good overview and I would combine a book of this type with the Connoiseurs Book of Japanese Swords by Kokan Nagayama which provides excellent detail on individual sword schools and gives kantei points for them. Hope that gets you going, John

The fittings are a big clue. Even low quality Japanese fittings just aren't that bad normally as a certain pride is taken in the work - the painting, enamel or whatever finish is applied to the metal work on the scabbard of this one is pretty grim. As regards this blade, it looks like an effort has been made to pass this off as an out of polish blade and so the Damascus effect isn't really that obvious (I'm struggling to see an attempt at a faked hada). If you look carefully, however, there is an attempt to create a faint hamon using acid, but again IMHO this is portrayed in such a way as to suggest a blade that needs a polish. There aren't any pictures of the blade with the tsuka off and this is usually where the fakers let themselves down: little or no attention is paid to finishing off the tang in terms of shaping or yasurimei or lining up the machi. Also signatures tend to be a random collection of kanji or something that looks like kanji and they normally make little or no sense in Japanese. That said, the fakes are getting better all of the time and you can often find exceptions to what I've said here. If I can offer some general advice, look at as many genuine swords and fittings as you can ideally in the flesh but also pictures can be helpful (check out the commercial listings on the front page). Ebay and other auction sites tend to be where the sharks hang out and as a beginner you might be better served looking elsewhere... Best regards, John

Hi Greg, It is, and it can be yours for a mere JPY 8m! John

A good example of what Brian is talking about can be found for sale on Touken Komachi at the moment. Sukashi horimono can't add to the structural integrity of the blade and so have to be for art's sake. Blade is first generation Hizen Tadayoshi.

I've had another look at this and would suggest the following as (remote) possibilities: First column, after "toshi" I think I can just about make out 十月日 - logically their should be some continuation of the date but... Further down the first column: could this part incorporate two names? I think I can see 吉昌 and there was a Yamada Asaemon Yoshimasa 山田浅右衛門吉昌 working in Tenpo (from Guido Schiller's list of popular names in saidan mei). But I'm guessing... Second column: First two characters might be tai tai (太々) referring to the test cut across the chest below the armpits. Does 太々試之 equate to "tested this with tai tai"?

Hi All, I think that this is Yamada [Asaemon] Yoshitoshi who is listed in Markus Sesko's book on the development of tameshigiri on P. 326. The oshigata there is dated Tempo 8 so contemporaneous with this tameshi mei. He also seems to have done a number of tests at Senju... I haven't got time to transcribe the mei now but will have a look in the morning if I can get my head into gear and it might help. Best, John

Hi Boyd, I got the following: 應需刈谷和夫造之 I think that the character for husband is part of the name of the person commissioning the blade: your Kazuo Kariya. The first two characters translate roughly as "reply" and "necessity" and the last two "made this" but I'm having difficulty in coming up with a sensible sentence in English that incorporates everything: "Made in response to the needs of Kazuo Kariya" doesn't seem to quite do it justice... But it definitely seems to be a made to order sword which would normally be the smith's best work, so a nice pick-up. Best, John

Mmm...maybe if everyone takes one kanji...

Hi Chris, I think that some larger and clearer photos of the kanji on side two might help - that and the assistance of one of the native Japanese speakers on the Board. An alternative would be to contact Markus Sesko who has written a number of books on Japanese swords and who offers a translation service: http://markussesko.com/ The signature is one of a number used by two smiths, father and son, both of whom are very well regarded (the second is Inoue Shinkai) but as a result very often faked and a translation of the longer inscription might shed some light on whether or not the signature is genuine. This article might also be of interest: http://www.nihontocraft.com/Izumi_no_Kami_Kunisada_mei.html Best, John

Mike, At that price you've done OK. Lot's of people on here have done worse when starting out and I'm one of them. Best, John

Hi Ken, Maybe it's simply them being prudent with their description: if the specific smith isn't mentioned in the paperwork, then perhaps they are reluctant to make a representation as to which it might be. The kasane suggests that it is very healthy and looking at the pictures there is no suggestion of kitae ware, o hada or shin tetsu showing. The possible detractors are, as you say that it is a little short of the magic 70cm, that it isn't a mainline school (though see Paul's comment on this above) and perhaps that it wasn't passed at one of the early Juyo shinsa... but it is Juyo Token and I would suggest that quality wise it compares very favourably with this Juyo Yamato Shizu blade for around the same money: http://www.aoijapan.com/img/sword/2015/15772-2.jpg John

Hi Ken, The problem is it depends on which Nio Kiyotsuna you're talking about as there are a number of smiths in Suo province using the same name. A further issue is that Aoi's description says "late Kamakura period" and so it also depends on how late is late. This is from Markus Sesko: KIYOTSUNA (清綱), 1st gen., Genkyū (元久, 1204-1206), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), called Niō Saburō (二王三郎), according to tradition the son of Kiyozane (清真) and the grandson of Kiyohira (清平), but this does not match with his handed-down active period of Genkyū because Kiyozane worked around Kenchō (建長, 1249-1256) and Kiyohira around Bun´ō (文応, 1260-1261), some sources list Kiyotsuna as actual founder of the Niō school, a legend says that the name of the school goes back to a tachi of Kiyotsuna which was once used at a temple fire in Suō´s Kizakimura (木崎村) to cut the chain which locked-up the gate of the Niō-dō (二王堂) so that the precious Deva statue (Niō-son, 二王尊・仁王尊) could be rescued, but Tanobe Michihiro assumes that the name of the school rather goes back to the Niho fief (仁保) which was located in the Yoshiki district (吉敷) of Suō province, the blades show noticeable Yamato-influence, i.e. a suguha mixed with ko-gunome, hotsure and sunagashi in the style of the Shikkake school in combination with a (not pure) masame-hada and takanoha-yasurime, the subdued and hazy nioiguchi has something in common with Kyūshū-mono, jō-saku ◎ KIYOTSUNA (清綱), 2nd gen., Jōei (貞永, 1232-1233), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), first name Ushisaburō (丑三郎), he signed the character for “tsuna” also in the variant (縄), his handed-down active period is doubtful, suguha, ko-gunome KIYOTSUNA (清綱), Bun´ei (文永, 1264-1275), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), called Niō Saburō (二王三郎), it is said that he came originally from Chikuzen province, there exists a tachi with the date signature of the second year of Bun´ei (1265), it is likely that this entry refers actually to the 1st gen. Kiyotsune because also the first names match, the mentioned tachi has a koshizori, a thick kasane, a broad shinogi-ji and a high shinogi, the jigane is a dense ko-itame mixed with masame, irregular so-called herakage (箆影) appear, this is a kind of utsuri which runs over the yakigashira into the ji, the hamon is a suguha, a suguha with ko-ashi, hotsure and sunagashi, or a gunome mixed with ko-midare, always in ko-nie-deki, he chiselled the lowermost stroke of the left radical (氵) of the character for “Kiyo” (清) in a perpendicular manner and the first and third strokes of the right radical (青) – i.e. the uppermost horizontal strokes of the upper part – in an interrupted manner, that means chiselled from both sides towards the central vertical stroke, at the character for “tsuna” (綱), the fourth, fifth and sixth strokes – i.e. the lowermost strokes of the left radical (糸) – are all chiselled from bottom to top KIYOTSUNA (清綱), Einin (永仁, 1293-1299), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱) KIYOTSUNA (清綱), Gentoku (元徳, 1329-1331), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), he signed the character for “tsuna” also as (繩), deep sori, chū-kissaki, ko-itame-nagare mixed with masame, suguha with ko-gunome-ashi in ko-nie-deki which tends to a slightly undulating notare KIYOTSUNA (清綱), Kenmu (建武, 1334-1338), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), “Bōshū Kuga-jū Kiyotsuna” (防州玖珂住清綱), “Niō Kiyotsuna” (二王清綱), he lived in Kuga (玖珂), there exists a tantō with the date signature of the third year of Kenmu (建武, 1336) There may be something in the paperwork that helps to tie it down but neither my eyesight nor my Japanese is good enough for it to be obvious. Lovely sword though... Best, John P.S. Some info here on Shoshin.com - http://www.sho-shin.com/smiths1c.htm