runagmc

You're welcome, Eric... and I appreciate your (and everyone else's) input.

I'm sure they would have re-used them when possible... the same way archers do today.

Eric, that makes the story even stranger. I noticed there were some marks that didn't seem to go with the visible kanji, but I couldn't tell that it was from previous mei... So it sounds like maybe this sword has had 2 false signatures during it's life :?

Maybe they wanted to find out from the NBTHK if the paper was fake... Also, they knew the sword was gimei, so I guess they didn't intend to sell someone a gimei sword as shoshin... It's called having a conscience...

The mei is perfect, but even more impossible to fake are all the subtleties of the patination. There's just no way... and as I said before, even if it was possible, it would be a complete waste of time and effort for a sword like this. If someone COULD do this, they would be doing it with BIG MONEY BLADES with BIG TIME PAPERS.

Brian, you seem frustrated... :lol:

My understanding from reading the story is, it sounds like the NBTHK has records (maybe a copy of the paper itself?) that allowed them to confirmed that the paper is genuine, but then they made the seemingly ridiculous conclusion that the sword in hand was a copy (an exact copy ) of the papered sword. It seems to me that the people at Usagiya were too polite to say what they really think... that the NBTHK papered a gimei sword, and now refuse to see reason and correct the "mistake". I have great appreciation for the NBTHK and their purpose of preservation, but I agree stories like this one are disappointing...

As I said, consider the different lighting and different angles of the pics... The pic on the papers looks like a scan...

yes, that's what I'm saying...

Hmmm, everything looks like a perfect match to me... You have to consider they are different pictures so certain things may look different in different light. And the polishers marks look exact to my eyes... I find it very hard to believe that this isn't the same sword... Even if it was possible to fake a sword to this level... why would they make the effort on a smith like this. Tanshu Ideishi ju Hojoji Kunimune?

Here's a side by side,

What do you guys think about this? Read the story at the top of the page... http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/news.html I can't see any difference between the pictured blade on the paper and the sword that the NBTHK apparently said was a different sword See what you think. It seems sketchy to me... unless I missed something.

If it had a torokusho that means they must have considered it a weapon. A tool wouldn't need to be registered to own... right?

You could clean a sword with uchiko everyday for 10 years and not be able to tell that any material was removed... as long as it's done properly. If it's not done right, it might make some of the crisp lines less crisp - but that obviously isn't a concern with this sword.

Brian, for what it's worth, I definitely see what you mean and think you may be right... I'm still not 100% sure. The shinogi could be ground down to make it curve downward at the tip like that... It's hard to say for sure from these pictures... The thing is, everything except the tip looks like a typical shinogi zukuri wakizashi...

Double clicking on the image enlarged it for me... As for the tanto, it looks like it's been polished quite a bit. If it wasn't for that, I would definitely think it was Shinshin-to, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it could be older...

Martin, either way it looks like a very nice katana, and with so many features that seem to fit the the smith, I can see why your confused about the NBTHK reserving judgment. This is one of the many cases where some kind of explanation from the shinsa team would be very useful. PS- Can you see any masame hada in the shinogi-ji?

What kind of hamon is jikito or chukudo? Normally a straight hamon is called suguha. I've never heard the terms you used... Also I can't really see the mune well, but I'm sure it is ihori... Here again, I've never heard the term you used. The nakago is more kuri-jiri...

If it was a repair the sword would have to have been re-hardened, and I don't know if they wouldv'e done that to a broken and repaired blade. I also don't see why the hell they would make a sword this way intentionally so . Also, I'm not sure this sword is very old... or even traditionally made for that matter. I've read that when a hagire appeared or a sword broke sometimes they would do a repair like this, but I would think it would only be until the sword could be replaced.

As far as I have always heard, the ratings in most sources are meant to be compared to others of their own era, and not meant to compare smiths from different eras. A Koto sai-jo saku smith isn't equal to a sai-jo saku Shinto smith.

It looks like a fairly long wakizashi from around the 1500s by one of the Mino Kanesada smiths. It could be gimei... It's obviously not in good polish... It could have flaws that aren't visible in the pictures... I can't say with any certainty ow much it is worth without seeing it in hand... Somebody else can comment on the mounts... They don't look to be worth much from what I can tell... You could always try to sell it in the sales section of this forum. I'm sure somebody would take it off your hands.

Martin, the reason I ask about suguta is that Ishido blades are usually seen with a more typical Shinto/Kanbun suguta...

I have no idea if it's shoshin or not, but the style of choji hamon on your sword doesn't look quite like any Ishido work I've seen. The nakago and mei look pretty close to me when considering the variance in the documented swords - although I do see the points Chris is making. What's the suguta like?

I have seen very good work from the shodai Yoshimichi, several of which are Juyo Token