paulb

dont worry Alex, it isnt you its me. My wind up quotient is very low at present so I apologise if sounding over sensitive.

Alex I am not sure why this warrants a debate. I am aware that nationality doesnt make someone an expert in a particular field but thank you for pointing it out. The gentleman concerned was in the UK from one of the Tokyo museums and giving talks on the behalf of a Uk one. It is so long ago I cant remember who or when. It was a comment in a conversation after the formal talks and through a translator. I think the only point he was trying to make (and so was I) is that there is an element of subjectivity in assessing and describing features on a blade. If you need examples take a look at the descriptions given in the NBTHK and the NTHK magazines of the same swords or the differences in hada descriptions between Koza and Nagayama.

The comment came from a Japanese lecturer some years ago, so yes in some very enlightened circles indeed I think the reference really related to some of the smaller activities seen in basically suguha hamon. there seemed to be debates around whether something was ko-gunome or choji. I agree that on the more typical later works there should be little room for confusion. But such descriptions remain subjective to some degree.

Denis, I think the problem is there isnt a clear cut definition. hamon are described by the combination of their elements and there are not hard and fast definitions of each example seen. One mans gunome is another mans choji and so when some borderline elements appear you will see various alternatives, as you have seen here. Look at the overall pattern and then the elements within the larger pattern. You can then create a definition which is meaningful to you.

Mark, I am not sure what you are looking for, you asked for opinions and based on your images people gave their view. If you have already made your mind up as to what you have why are you asking the question? Also not all Showato were stamped which is another reason why there is often so much debate as to whether a blade is or isnt Showa/traditional/old etc. Also the narrowness of he nakago could be the result of someone modifying it to fit your 70's fittings and would explain its unusual and unattractive shape which I think led Jacques to his view that it was a fake.

Hi Mark, I must qualify the following by saying Showa-to are well out of my comfort zone but looking at your images I would come to the following conclusions: 1. Like you I do not think it is a fake. 2. The lack of activity and "life" in the hamon suggests to me that it is probably oil quenched. 3. I think the nakago has been severely played around with which is why it looks unauthentic. 4. The polish is very harsh (possibly acid?) 5. I cant see any evidence of it being hand forged but they may just be the images. So while not a national treasure or maybe not even a traditionally forged and hardened blade I think that it is an authentic Japanese blade from WWII.

Jean, you mean the Renoir I bought on ebay might not be genuine!!!!!!!

Anthony, I cant really see what it says but I can see enough to say it isnt a work of The famous Awataguchi smith Yoshimitsu. Apart from the kanji having no resemblance to his mei (which I think was always only two characters) He was working at the end of the kamakura period and the nakago on this blade looks to be much later.

Jean and Chris, I think I can understand your thinking regarding Yamato. the thing which is confusing me at present is the long lines of what might be regarded as Ara nie sitting bang between the hamon and shinogi. I am not sure if they appear to standout that much because the rest of the polish is poor or they really are that bright and clear. Either way they look unusual and unlike any Yamato pieces I have seen (the nie is too course) Also I can understands Jeans point about being O-suriage assuming the bottom hole was the original but isnt it also possible that the middle, smaller hole was the original and the lowe one added at the same time as the top (it is the same size) as an added fixing?

before heading off topic and down the wrongful killing route ( regrettably examples are becoming common in every part of the world and many have been frequetnly discussed here and else where, I wanted to let Fred know he was not alone. I recently had a sword stopped on its way in to the USA. It was in a Naginata naoshi in shirasaya and witha full length Oshigata. Customs wanted to know the composition of the steel, the type of wood used in the shirasaya and the type of paper used in the oshigata. Fortunately once given the information they were happy to let the sword go and it only delayed things by 24 hours. I think there is a lesson about timing things not to hit customs on a weekend!

Sorry Adam but the only person who can decide if it is worth that is you if you are thinking of buying it. As a purely personal one off opinion no I would not consider paying that for it, in fact if the rest of the blade has been treated the same way as the nakago (and the small piece of blade visible suggests it might have) I wouldnt connsider paying anything for it. It depends what you are looking for. If you want a reasonbale example of workmanship save your money go to some fairs and talk to some dealers and collectors. If you buy this one you will very quickly run out of things to look at learn little from it and have a hell of a job to move it on.

Mark, At risk of offering a biased and somewhat Jaundiced view the value of Nihoto is little different to any other antique field. You are absolutely right in that the only thing that determines it's value is what some else is prepared to pay for it. The things which determine price are (but not necessarily in this order) 1. Quality- is it well made a representative of the smith/school. 2. Condition- is it free of faults caused by misuse poor storage or ealrlier poor workmanship 3. rarity- if you lust after a certain smith or school and there only 40-50 known examples of their work you are likely to pay a premium. 4 Provenance- important to some people, who owned it before. It is almost impossible to put a price range up for swords based on anything other than the above. I have seen Hozon papered swords range in value from £1500 to £150,000 Juyo blades from £15000 to £250000 (and I am sure many would go higher) The only governing factor on value is what someone will pay at any given time for what you are selling. To determine whether what you are buying is good value you need to study the subject, decide what aspects you are interested in and then decide if what you are seeing meets those criteria. Do not buy swords (or any other antique) as an investment, substitute pension scheme etc. Buy them because you are interested in the subject and like what you see. At the end of it if you are lucky and careful you will get your money back and have had all that fun for free. Also while starting out seek the advice of others who have been around the subject for longer. Most would be happy to help. Best Regards Paul

Dear KM, Please be careful in what you are saying. you are of course right the nakago can be repatinated to look something like the original. however it will not replace all the details lost in the removal of the original patina. Nor will it recover the lost value, in fact if done porperly it will cost a considerable amount of additional money with little chance of recovery. You must also then consider whether the sword warrants such additional investment. I agree that a full view of the unmounted sword may tell more about it but if the blade has been treated in a similar way to the nakago I think it unlikely.

the fact the signature may be fake doesnt mean the word is not traditionally made nor does it mean that it is a modern forgery. Smiths have been putting false signature on swords for as long as swords have been made. This sword may well be old and traditionally made. All Chris is saying is that he believes the signature (not the sword) is a fake, or gimei.

Adam, to make any assessment you will need to post images of the whole blade. However if tthat has been abused in the same way the nakago has there will be little to see or that anyone will be able to tell you. Also need a clearer view of the nakago I can see that it looks to end in Fujiwara Kuni something and probably Saku but cant make out the rest. others much better than me will do more. You are right about the nakago the action of cleaning it has greatly reduced any potential value the sword may have had.

The sword is not a fake. In all liklihood it is what it is described as. As to the quality of the blade, the carving and the koshirae I think it is up to the buyer to decide if they consider they represent good value. Other than the claim that this is a "Museum quality" (whatever that means), piece I think based on a quick scan through that the sellers description in reasonably accurate.

Thank you Ian, Fully agree with the views expressed. Regards Paul

Just a thought but if the tsuka was a tightish fit is possible that it could rub against the highest points on the nakago and gentle burnish it? ( my turn for complex theories) or if it was really extra tight it may form an effecticve seal on the raised edges of the mei and protect it from dampness and oxidation. I have seen this rubbed edge look on other pieces, the amount depends on the depth of the mei and the amount of metal dispalced. In this case the mei would suggest a lot.

Firstly I am sorry I mixed up posts. It was Mark that made the Showa call not Chris B who only stated it was gimei. Adam, I understand your thinking and as you have said other than the sword looks to be gimei nothing else is so far proven or even half proven. One of the problems with trying to assesss swords from images is colour. the variaiton obtained from differenct cameras scanners and display screens can totally distort colour and combinations/ detail. As the colour of the nakago is an important factor in such appraisal internet assessment is immideiately challenging. In this case the colour does not look that old. I am not convinced regarding your argument about the mei. I tend to find that the more complex I have to make an argument to fit my idea the less likely it is to be right. I can understand your call from the shape point of view, it has a certain aged elegence which would not automatically point to Kotetsu or any other shinto smith. However the patina of the nakago, the style of the mei all suggest something much later to me (again only another opinion). You make another valid point. The only way we can make a realistic appraisal is by comparing the blade to known examples of a particular school. In this case I mentioned that I had seen something similar in terms of nakago style, colour and the way the mei looked on a blade I had previously owned for a while which was made in the 1920s. Without seeing the sword in hand I honestly believe it is nearly impossible to make a confident call on a sword like his other than whethr the signature is right or wrong. Even in hand it would be challenging.

Hi Andreas, Funnily enough I looked at the "old mans beard" and thought something similar. However if it were what you are suggesting I would expect the masame to be more obvious nearer and into the hamon which I cant see in this piece.

Hi Jean, I am not allowed to comment as I know the history but it looks to be a very fine sword and in excellent polish. Well done it is a great addition to your collection. Best Regards Paul

Well Chris, It looks like your Shin-shinto guess was closest of all. I think I am with Chris B on this one as being Showa period although I have seen and owned something similar in style (mine was a gimei kanesada) which had almost identical caligraphy, nakao style and finish. that piece came to the UK in around 1920 so this piece may fall a little earlier than Showa. The other pointer is if you look at the thickness around the junction of nakago and polished blade there is little evidence of the blade having been polished often. based on the above I think it is unlikely to be an earlier blade which has been subsequently modified and patinated.

Thank you Jean but I didnt say the nomenclature was right I said accurate with regard to condition. having said that I wouldnt have known what it was called without looking it up

Dear Tobias, In the past as a rule people have been discouraged to comment on live auctions, as you rightly say the value of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it and it would be unfortunate if an ill advised comment here or on other message boards had an unrerasonable influence on a live sale. The piece looks as described with regard to condition. I cannot comment on its authenticity (i.e. the mei) but the smith is not so well known as to be a target for forgery so I would guess there is a good chance it is what it claims to be.

Chris Thanks for your explanation which I think is perfectly valid based on what you were able to see, and you may be right. I wasnt trying to moan at anyone in my earlier post. As Brian says the OP wasnt asking for opinions about the sword only how to remove a stubborn tsuka. If they had been seeking opinion then within four posts we seemed to have covered the whole of sword making history and I thought it strange that people were able to make what appeared to be such definitive calls on what they could see (this may be pure jealousy on my part). There is nothing wrong in having a go and guessing and as you say it is fun. What makes such an exercise useful is when, as you have, you outline how you reached the answer you did. Regards Paul