paulb

David, I am not sure what the norm is but when the NTHK (Yoshikawa group) did two events in the UK if they pink slipped a sword for being gimei but worthy of preservation they also gave an attribution. For example I had a blade signed Rai Kunitoshi which as no great surprise was pink slipped as gimei but was noted as Yamato Tegai work from the OEI period and worthy of preservation

I rather feel we are slipping in to the realms of speculative fantasy. While I have no doubt technology exists to recreate a copy of a mei it would be just that, a copy. It would have no greater validity than a shu-mei or other attribution and I fail to see how it would add to the value of a sword, unless the intention was to deceive.

Just to add to the daimei debate There is a lot of information (which I am assuming, maybe wrongly, to be accurate) regarding Hizen work. It is well recorded that Masahiro and Yukihoro did dai saku blades for Shodai Tadayoshi and the majority of Sandai Tadayoshi's work were signed with his fathers mei. There have been various small characteristics such as direction of stroke cut which are used to differentiate the work. Chris, When such characterisitcs are well documented how would a Shinsa team react say for a third generation Tadayoshi signed with the seconds mei?

Geoff I dont beleive you have to keep your opinions to yourself, but equally not everyone has to agree with them. As it happens I think in some areas you are right to mention fashion and trend. Brian it isnt often I disagree with you but on this occassion I think your point is a little too simplistic. For example there is little argument that the neighbouring provinces of Bitchu and Bizen produced extremely fine swords. Smiths from the Aoe school and Bizen were in the majority of Gotoba's attendant smiths. So if we assume the quality was equal why did one school flourish and the other fade away? I would suggest it was because the Bizen Smiths responded to the market better and became the fashionable style of sword to carry. Yes they were extremely fine quality but so were many others what they did successfully was produce what their market wanted. I think we under estimate the pure commercial sophistication of the times when looking at ancient cultures, beleiving that fashion, marketing and trends are modern concepts clearly they werent as many examples of sword making history can show.

Brian, If I might add to what you said as Geoff kindly mentioned an article I wrote some years ago, I would like to be clear about what I said or intended to say. In summary the ideas behind the piece were: 1. Swords should be judged on their merit rather than how they are labelled. I have seen swords by one of my favourite smiths, Rai Kunitoshi that held as much excitement as a yard of pump water. I have also seen his work and that of later Rai smiths such as Rai Kunimitsu that are beyond description and truly magnificent. 2. A number of schools are undervalued because they cannot be neatly catagorised in line with the main traditions. Even so amongst these schools works there are some vey fine swords. I do not believe that the best Bungo Takada or Echizen-Seki blade compares to master works of the 5 traditions any more than I think Peter Howson's painting is comparable to Vermeer or Rubens, but I do think that some of them have merit and for those wishing to study and learn about the subject these schools offer an affordable way to do so. The key as always is quality and to identify that quality there is no shortcut to study. BTW I do think Howson is pretty damn good!!

you could always make the offer to the armouries, but I doubt they would be tempted :D

sounds like an honary title given to the sword smith which is normally put before the clan name in this case fujiwara and then his art name Hirotaka. Not someone I am familiar with so cant comment on accurracy or authenticity of the translation. The normal order is province, title clan name smiths name. For example Hizen -place he works Omi Daijo- title Fujiwara -clan name Tadahiro -the smiths working name.

Hi Keith, Sorry I think I may have been less than clear. The Unji is in the Armouries, the other two are from a private collection. The Unji was originally part of the A.Z. Freeman collection and formed part of the group dontated to the Armouries by the family of Deryk Ingham. I have attached a copy of the image from the Sotheby's catalogue. This sword was named Ishi-Giri (Stone Cutter) by A.Z. Freeman after he dropped in on to a stone fireplace. When he first looked he thought he had chipped two inches out of the ha but on examination found the blade had sliced a piece out of the stone! Regarding shape, My understanding is that the term naoshi simply means shortened or changed. therefore a nagamaki which as you say can be any number of shapes becomes naoshi when it is altered to fit in to either daito or shoto mounts. likewise naginata/naginata-naoshi. This shape change generally requires shortening of the nakago and removal of at least part of the dramatic upward sweep of the kissaki. This is why the majority of naoshi sword boshi have no or very little turn back. see what you think of Ishi- Giri

Marcello, picking up on your earlier question in more detail regarding quality and price. There is as much variation on quality and price in Naginata as any other form of sword. At one end you have the late versions of exaggerated form rather like the one in your first post and which appear to have mainly been for parade purposes. At the other you can have some exquisite works. There are smiths who truly excelled in making naginata. In the Shinto period the Mishina Smith Masatoshi made beautiful Naginata, Hizen Tadayoshi made them although realtively few those that exist are of fantastic quality. Koto smiths from all schools made excellent examples. many of the high quality koto blades were subsequently modified and carried as either wakazashi or katana. A nagamaki naoshi blade by the Bizen smith Unji is on display in the Royal armouries and is a stunning example of this 14th century smiths work. Below I have posted two others from the late kamakura and early nambokucho periods which exhibit equally fine work. The first by Sadatsuna, the son of Naotsuna (one of Masamunes 10 famous pupils, at least on some lists!) The other an early Shikkake work. Compare the blade under discussion. The Sadatsuna was not a great deal more money than is being asked for the one you posted.

Chris, Thank you for the well presented note on kantei-sho. I think in future I will try writing with Jet lag I might make more sense Touching on a couple of points you made and that Ketith followed up, I think many of us have commented in the past on the over reliance and interest in papers rather than the sword. I think this has increased over time because our method of buying has changed. Many of us now buy swords based on an internet image rather than with blade in hand. We are therefore dependent on the quality of image and integrity of the seller. The fact the blade has been examined by a shinsa panel and awarded a level of paper does offer some confidence and comfort to the would be buyer. Having said that I do think we spend too much time looking at signatures trying to determine aunthenticity at the expense of examing the sword. Like Keith I find I get more out of looking at mumei blades and trying to understand the work than I do sigend pieces. This is due more to my ill discipline than differences in sword quality. Without a shadow of a doubt my favourite swords, and the best ones I have seen anywhere (with a few possible Hizen exceptions) have been mumei. Most have also been suriage, but that is another debate. KM you would be my ideal buyng partner 90% of my blades are variations of sugu-ha. You can buy all the blousy loud ones and I will take the plain connservative pieces :D

You are right Jacques it doesnt, but I would still bet it is. regards Paul

Max I am sure Jean will answer in more detail but in summary, The Hi is the groove running along the blades surface. the fact this blade has two mekugi-ana, the position of each and the shape of the nakago suggest it has been shortened. The Hi ends at the machi. If this were original to the blade and it had been shortened it would run in to the nakago. As it is it looks as though the groove has been cut after the blade was reduced in length by a couple of inches. regards Paul

Hi Carlo, I had forgotten that story thanks for reminding me Jacques thank you for the information you have saved me trawling through my references (obviously not as well indexed as yours)

Just ordered mine. If this is as good and useful to me as the previous volume on swordsmith geneology it will be a very good addition to anyones reference library. thank you Markus for your continued efforts Best regards Paul

Hi David I think the terms you saw were Omote and Ura which simply define the front and back surface when wearing the sword. One of the interesting things you find as you study more is that there are few hard and fast rules, a lot of time in things like Nihonto-koza you see comments like "the yasuri-mei are always kiri" and then the first illustration you see is described as something totally different. I think it is someone just trying to keep us on our toes! Lee, Sorry I just saw your comment. It is a very good question and one I doubt can be answered with any certainty. However my guess is that if someone knew enough to be able to copy a work style and form they would likely have information regarding the mei. I think we sometimes under estimate the amount of information there was travelling back and forth between different centres. Another guess is that such fakes as did appear were made by those in close proximity to the orignal smith perhaps even his students. If made and signed with his permission they would be dai-mei or dai-saku but could some have hit the market unknown to the master and would they in that case be simple gimei? Best Regards Paul

Hi David, I think when reviewing these things you have to look at probability. yes some smiths did sign on the opposite side to the norm. For instance the Aoe school which ran through the Kamakura and Nambokochu eras mainly signed katana mei. The Hizen Tadayoshi School signed tachi mei on katana and katana mei on wakazashi. However in the case of your sword: 1. I have not heard that Munechika signed different sides with different mei but it is possible. 2. Whichever side he signed I think any signed work is niji mei (2 characters) I think you said yours was 5 or 2 +5 3 Munechika has been and is one of the most highly regarded smiths there has ever been and his work cherished for 600 years plus. As a result any authenticated pieces were held in important aristocratic collections virtually since they were made. 4. While it is fun let imagination run on occassion it needs to be tempered with reality. I have attended too many kantei sessions with hopeful people explaining that their pride and joy is a "Yamato sword made in Bizen style signed in hommage to a Yamashiro master etc..." to hit a reality check when the blade is authenticated as a machine made showa-To. 5. When trying to assess a blade look at the facts first before speculating about what someone may have done as a one off . The most likely outcome for you sword is that it is gimei (more faked signatures of Munechika exist than authentic work) If that isnt the case it is most likely that it is a later smith who signed with the long mei. Further down the list of possiblities by a very long way is that it is the work of probably the most highly regarded smith in sword making history, signing in a way he never had before and on the wrong side of the blade. These facts alone would make any shinsa panel incredibly nervous about authenticating a sword. Sorry if the above sounds harsh I promise that I have spent many years of my life trying to convince myself that what I had was a lost treasure, it never has been and in all honesty I dont think it ever will. Take a dispassionate look at what you have and enjoy it for what it is. Regards Paul

I just tried to post a lengthy reply to some of the points made above and managed to delete it when on the last sentence In no way disagreeing with the good advice already given may I sound a note of caution before anyone gets over excited. As far as I can remember The Famous koto Smith Sanjo Munechika was called Sanjo kokaji Munechika but he never signed that way. all his extant works are signed either Sanjo or Munechika. There were other later smiths who signed Sanjo Kokaji munechika the best known working in the mid 1800s. While it would be absolutely fantastic if this were an early work I would suggest it much more likely to be the work of one of the later smiths. I think it well worth showing to someone with greater experience at a show and then deciding on the best course of action. BTW I once owned a blade signed with the am mei it was beautiful but in all probability a Mino piece. It was housed in an icredible dark shirasaya which glowed with patina. Again I think this was either a late shinto or shin-shinto piece but was a good looking thing. best regards Paul

Well done, This looks to have potential and is a different league to many first time buys so often posted here in hope and expectation. How good a buy it is only you can judge knowing the price and whether you considered it to be worth it (you obviously did). He is not a smith I am familiar with but as said above from what can be seen so far it looks competent and in sound condition. Best Regards Paul

No Peter far from it. The quality of gimei pieces run pretty much the full gamut of quality. I know of a gimei Rai Kunitoshi which having had the mei removed obtained juyo papers as a ko-Senjuin blade. There are many reasons why swords are gimei and the thinking behind it is far more complicated than a simple desire to deceive, although this was undoubtedly a reason too. There would be little point in putting a Kotetsu or Kiyomaru mei on a low quality blade that didnt exhibit the basic characteristics of those smiths. This is why it can be so difficult to determine whether a blade is right or not. For sure there are some awful pieces which have high status names put on them. This is however far from the whole story. A fake signature does not automatically mean it is a poor quality sword cheers Paul

James, I think it is fair to say that changes in shape throughout history were the result of different requirements (real or imagined) for changing modes of fighting. the most obvious being the move from fighting on horseback to fighting on foot. later fighting methods required shorter straighter blades (not my area so all heresay) The construction changes I would venture had more to do with ease of manufacture and the standardisation of raw material. As differences in steel quality became less and hada more unified in appearance in the Edo period my favourite theory is that more and more showy and complex hamons were produced to differentiate workmanship between schools. How valid some of these changes were in relation to improved performance is open to debate. Regarding kissaki, the lengthening form ko to chu to o-kissaki in the 14th century was, I understand, to improve the repairability of the kissaki. If you chip a large pointthere is more meat left ot reshape if you damage ko-kissaki your are stuffed to use an English technical term!

James, To offer comprehensive answers to your questions would require volumes and each could become the subject of great debate. I would offer the following as at least starting points: 1. What makes a good sword from a practical perspective; ability to cut and ability to withstand shock in use. This is achieved through a combination of shape and structure. What makes the Japanese sword stand out in this regard is the complex structure employing hard and softer steels in a way that enables them to maintain an edge but withstand trauma. 2. The old statement that form follows function is true of Japanese swords as it is for many other things. The points that are appreciated most in Nihon-To are shape ,hada, hamon and Nakago. The form and structure of these were all originally developed to enhance performance. the resultant features became appreciated for their aesthetic qualities and were further enhanced by some to try and add to their artistic merit (there is considerable debate as to whether that was actually achieved but I think largely comes down to indvidual taste) 3. The reason that many (I confess me included) regard the mid to late kamakura as the "Golden age" is that it represents the peak performance of the five traditions of koto period manufacture. After that changes in the political situation, logisitcs and demand resulted in to much of the differences becoming blurred and dare I say bastardised. As a result much of what was regarded as of value almost dissappeared. Having said that there were and are many fine smiths who produce beautiful work through the Edo period and up to the present day. For some while coming close it does not reach the standard of excellence achieved in the kamakura. I am, sure others will offer other opinions and ideas good luck Paul

long may you think that "age isnt important" I keep telling people that every day but they still look at me with the "poor old fool" expression on their face :D

Dear Mariusz I agree with much of what you say but without wishing to re-open the debate and possible old wounds I would certainly not recommend Nakahara's book to any beginner. While many of his comments are thought provoking and interesting many are also somewhat eccentric if not down right wierd. To select the good from the strange requires some experience and I would be concerned that anyone just starting could get easily confused or even misled by it. Best Regards Paul

Dear Matus, To try and offer a slightly more positve response to you inquiry than you have yet received: Firstly I commend you for doing the right thing and looking at established dealers offerings rather than the approach normally taken by beginners which is to rush to ebay in search of a bargain. My personal experience of Aoi-Art has always been very positive and I have never been dissappointed in what he has sold me. having said that if you look at the range of his offerings and the prices you will see that you will for sure pay the market rate for what you buy. Therefore the swords you are looking at are at the lower end of the market (still much better than many first time swords we see here) If you accept that you are at the beginning and not buying a top piece or art sword then you must decide what you are looking for in the blade you buy. Key features are always shape, hamon, hada, nakago. It is impossible to advise you on what you should like. What you are looking at are, I think, fairly priced for what they are. If they appeal to you and are within your price range then it is your choice as to which you go for. Many of us will recommend that you continue to study and buy books and this is very sound advice. However it can also be a very "dry" experience at some point one needs the thrill of a first purchase to keep the interest going and as said before these are no worse and a lot better than many first buys we have witnessed in the past Good Luck Paul

Hi Moss, Like John I could only find one reference to a smith signing exactly that way. Hawleys lists several Hisatsugu's working between 1306 and 1360 but only the first signed Bishu Hisatsugu. Unfortunately I cannot find oshigata for any of them. I dont think your sword is as early as the 1306 man. If I had to guess I would put it nearer 1430-1500. On the upside he is not a well documented smith so one has to wonder why someone would go to the trouble of faking his mei. I am not sure I can find anything more (I admit what we have isnt much) but sometime there is just not a lot of information published. Sorry not to be of more help