paulb

Dear All, with no further suggestions since Monday I believe this has run it's course. answer and explanation listed below: The blade has been attributed to the Shikkake School of the late Kamakura/early Nambokucho period. It was awarded a Juyo attribution in the 46th session. Congratulations to those who took part and got the correct answer. I think it is reasonable to say that Naginata Naoshi are not normally found with Juyo certification. In line with the NBTHK definitions the blade has to be of high quality workmanship and in line with the characteristics of the school. So why was this mumei, much altered, blade awarded this level of certificate? I hope the following may offer some explanation Shape: Allowing that the shape of the blade has been changed the naginata retains the elegant, almost gentle sugata associated with blades produced in the Kamakura period. As the Nambokucho progressed swords generally became more robust and larger. In the case of Naginata they became longer, broader and the curve at the kissaki deepened. They just got a lot bigger! So the shape points towards the Kamakura period. Hada and Hamon: As said above the workmanship is clearly visible and of very high quality. When compared to the descriptions of what one should expect of the Shikkake School this sword exhibits every listed feature and they are all clearly visible in hada, hamon and boshi. Having established it to be the work of the Shikkake School, further examination pin-points it more precisely. Established references confirm that the quality of later Shikkake work falls off. This manifests itself as a reduction in activity in the hamon, much less Ji-nie and more open hada. Taking these points into account this sword can only be the work of the earlier Shikkake School, thus supporting the opinion already expressed based on the shape of the sword. The Yamato tradition offers a lot of challenges in kantei, not least that so few of their blades were signed. I think they also have a reputation for being utilitarian and lacking the artistry of other schools. I think this is unfair especially when looking at the early works of the Tiama school, Tegai Kanenaga and Shikkake Norinaga. The problem I think is that as with so many schools quality reduced as time progressed and most blades we see, which tend to be late Tegai work, do not reflect the quality of earlier pieces. Also the differences in the schools can be very subtle. We have all seen examples of blades being papered to one school and then on resubmission to another. One needs to look at the fine detail and try and come to a judgement which is what I believe the Shinsa panel did with this work. It had all the features they expected to see in a Shikkake blade and the level of quality to place it at the earlier period of the school’s production.

Mark have as many guesses as you want.

so Christian was your answer right?

Dear All, As restrictions on movement start to be lifted I am hoping to start to have the chance to study some more swords. In the meantime the pool is becoming somewhat limited so this may be the last kantei I can post for a little while. It is also possible that the blade here is familiar to some of you. Normally when doing kantei the blade should be ubu or at least have the mei intact and have been authenticated. It should also be a piece that exhibits the traits of a given school or smith. This is not always possible. In this case we are looking at a naginata-naoshi which has been substantially modified from it's original form and is mumei. Therefore to reach a conclusion one needs to focus on such dimensions as are original (nagasa and thickness) and more particularly on the hada and hamon. Description: The blade is a Naginata Naoshi wakizashi. Nagasa: The blade is 17.6 inches. The Kasane is 8mm. the blade is Mitsu-mune. There are classic Naginata hi which are well cut and in excellent condition. The shape is a classic Naginata sugata . Hada: The blade is a combination of itame and Nagare hada covered in thick and bright Ji-nie with chickei mixed in. As the hada approaches the hamon it tends more towards masame. Hamon: The Hamon is Suguha with deep Nioi and thick, bright nie. There is Nijuba and Sunagashi. There is clear mune-yaki. Boshi: Yakitsume with considerable hakikake. Nakago: O-suriage Mumei. Beautiful colour and well maintained.

Gentlemen, The reality is you are debating a 30 year time window i.e. 1360 to 1392 from 700 years ago. Allowing for fluctuation in style and changes in form overtime are you not being a little optimistic trying to be so precise?

me too

Hi Alex Glad you enjoyed it and found it useful. One of the problems with the sandai is that he died relatively young (50 I think) and was outlived by his father. As a result there are not so many of his works and according to Roger Robertshaw most of his output were daimei for his father. Add to that his Tadayoshi mei was not dissimilar to some of the Shodai's various forms and that his workmanship was of very high quality and comparable in style to the Shodai's later output then the problem is compounded. I think Thomas mentioned in a separate mail about Michael Hagenbusch talking about probabilities and I think that applies here. The only illustrated examples of niji-mei (which are very few) have been attributed to the first generation. I haven't found any attributed to the third. Therefore the first would appear to be the most likely candidate. If you then add in the Yasurime, the length of the blade the not quite suguha hamon then the features pushing it towards the Shodai start to add up. I find these blades fascinating and a great learning tool. If you have something screamingly obvious then you don't need to look so hard nor think about it so much. With something like this you really have to start working through the process (well I have to anyway). It is like doing the NBTHK monthly kantei. If you know the answer as soon as you see it you actually don't learn too much. If you have to wade through references to confirm your thinking it teaches you more and is more fun.

speedy recovery my friend take care and get well soon

An article describing this blade in more detail will be posted on the board shortly. In summary the blade has been attributed to both the Shodai and the Sandai. I have known it for more than 20 years and have eventually concluded it is the work of the Shodai (although would have been happy with either) . Briefly the reasoning behind this is as follows: Niji mei blades are extremely rare. The only reference I have found to the Sandai making them was in Nihonto Koza but there are no illustrations that I can find. There are 4 niji mei blades published and these are all attributed to the Shodai. The original size of the blade would have been about 55 to 57cm. Thus it would have been illegal if made as a wakizashi by the sandai. The yasurime are katte-sagari if it were by the sandai you would expect katte-agari. I think this is a kenjo mei sword made by the Shodai. According to various sources his presentation blades were a level better than his standard work and I think this may be why some considered it to be by the Sandai as generally the quality of his jigane and nie were regarded as amongst the best of the various generations . So overall I came down in favour of Shodai but I have often been wrong before. Well done to those who identified it as Hizen. To be honest I am not sure it would have been my first choice when I saw it initially. The Shodai did not make what might be regarded as typical Hizen blades with true suguha and konuka hada until late in his career and after his name change to Tadahiro in 1624 and even then it was early stages of those features which were refined by his son and grandson. This I think is more like an utsushi piece with Awataguchi-like hada and Soshu/Shizu hamon and nie activity. It is a very interesting sword.

I think the generally held view is that the Sandai and Shodai were of a very similar standard. Which one believed to be the best had more to do with personal taste and preference. I am not sure when doing kantei by trying to predict an owner's likely preference is a particularly good methodology.

don't worry Eric, I am just annoyed with myself for being careless. I will let this run a little longer just in case anyone else wants to have a stab at it.

Ok so I am not sure what to say. I must admit on my screen I didn't see the mei when I posted it up so my apologies for being lax. However isn't the idea of this to look at the shape and features of the blade read the description and try and assess who the blade was made and when? So now you have read the mei what has been learned from the exercise? The next question is which Tadayoshi made it? you have 9 generations to choose from Fortunately the the date isn't cut on the nakago. Again my apologies for the initial error it isn't one that will be repeated.

sorry Jon I don't know I am aware of them by word of mouth. BTW it isn't a specific sword fair it is a traditional arms & militaria fair but most UK dealers are (were) there.

Only if you look hard

The most popular shows of recent years have been the Birmingham show held at the Motor cycle museum and the London show (not sure of latest venue) Birmingham has been well attended in the past but maybe gone off a little in recent years. It will be interesting to see what happens when they restart. If you want to see blades in hand I suggest you consider joining the Token of GB. We hold regional meetings for members (once restrictions are lifted.) and there are always blades to study and experienced people to talk to.

Dear all following the popularity of the recent kantei posted by Chris I have added another one below. Unfortunately my photographic skills aren't up to the standard seen in Chris' example so i have added a detailed description as well. Normally kantei blades should be a typical example of a school or smiths work. In this case there are many of the features you might expect to see but it isn't altogether typical. The sword: Shinogi-Zukuri, iori mune with tori-sori. Suriage with nijimei Nagasa 48.4cm Sori 0.9cm Motohaba 2.8cm Sakihaba 1.9cm Kasane 0.6cm Sugata: The blade was originally 6-8cm longer than its current nagasa. Despite being shortened it retains elegant proportion. The blade narrows elegantly from the machi to kissaki. The shinogi is of medium height with a fairly wide shinogi-ji. There are 3 small kirikomi visible on the shinogi, one on the ura and two on the omote. Hada: The hada is a very fine and consistent ko-itame. Overall the blade has a great deal of ji-nie which becomes brighter and larger as it progresses to the monouchi. There are also small chickei running the length of the blade. The quality of the forging and the brightness of the nie based activity are outstanding. Hamon: The hamon is a very gentle midare based on a suguha foundation. The nioi-guchi is extremely clear and bright and has a characteristic “belt like” form associated with this school. Running throughout the hamon is a great deal of activity comprising of very bright nie which cascades through the nioi-guchi and creates clouds of nie on the border with the ji. There is kinsuji in the lower half of the blade. As it progresses towards the monouchi the nie becomes larger and brighter in areas it forms nijuba and kuichigai-ba. Kissaki: The blade has a slightly small chu-kissaki with suguha boshi which is ko-maru with a short kaeri. Nakago: The Nakago is suriage with 3 mekugi-ana. There is a nijimei on the lower part of the blade and the original yasurime are clearly distinguishable. The yasurime are very slightly katte-sagari

Graham, Might I suggest as a first step you show your sword to a member of the token Society of GB? fortunately living where you do you are very close to a couple of long term collectors and members who can help you lot in going through the process. They also know those involved in various restoration work. If this is of interest drop me a pm and i can put you in touch with someone Regards Paul

Kirikomi are generally not polished out, they are regarded as "honorable scars" and part of the swords history, and actually no they don't generally devalue a blade. It is unlikely they would successfully polish out, it would involve removing too much material. With your sword there is very little to worry about. I have just bought a sword with three kirikomi of a similar size to the ones you have illustrated and don't consider them a problem, far from it. Edit sorry Michael beat me to it but at least we are saying the same thing.

Thank you both much appreciated Best Regards Paul

Dear All as always i am embarrassed by my poor abilities when reading kanji and this even worse when hand written on a paper. could somebody please take a look at the attached and suggest a date?

To Be honest Alex I find this a very unattractive piece. It just loos wrong. Perhaps those more used to using swords can tell us if there is any practical application or benefit to having a blade with such an exaggerated sori because I cannot think of one and would guess this is very unwieldy.

I am in absolute awe of your skill. Incredible work congratulations. Also glad to see you have space for more swords

Christian, I used Uchiko up to about 15 years ago and yes I have been guilty in the past of misusing it and leaving star burst imprints on a blade. Fortunately it happed early enough in my collecting career not to damage any better quality blades. Someone pointed out to me the error of my ways and I adjusted my cleaning routine accordingly. Hopefully some of the messages here will have a similar effect on other less experienced members and they can bypass the "doing damage to learn a lesson" stage.

I have also seen blades damaged by Uchiko. I think this has become increasingly apparent in recent years because firstly swords are more widely dispersed around the world and people have not been shown the correct way to use it and secondly, and I think most significantly, the variation in quality in what is sold as uchiko has grown substantially. This being the case I agree 100% with Barry the best and safest way to remove oil is to use a microfiber cloth. Things change, until recently the NBTHK demonstrated how to clean blades using uchiko, perhaps they still do, but the majority of us mortals I would much rather follow a safer course.

Thank you for clarifying that Jacques. In the original description I was attempting to describe what I was seeing rather than defining a form but as always I appreciate your contribution.