Geraint

Hi Allan and welcome! Regardless of the p[rospect of the little tanto being gimei or not it is still a nice little sword in what would usually be described as Higo style mounts. I would suggest that you carefully remove the sticky tape and the label from the saya, sometimes tape adhesive can leave a mark. I'm sure we would all enjoy seeing pictures of your other family treasures. Cheers

Hi Bruno. Funbari is a widening of the blade just above the machi. The result is not an even taper over the whole length of a blade but rather like the way that a tree widens towards the roots. In the same way it imparts a sense of strength to the blade. Any help? Cheers

Thank you both, Grey, that is pretty much the conclusion I came to as well, just wondering if I was missing some information. What a memory Peter, really useful though I'd rather not have seen it resting on bare stone. Thanks for that though I have to say the workmanship is clearly nothing other than Japanese so some of the more far fetched response are a bit off beam. . Thanks all.

Well, that's the question. From time to time work comes to light that is signed by a smith who has escaped the records, that is one possibility. I don't have very good resources for Shinshinto smiths and I believe this to be shinshinto; if that is the case then I was hoping someone could throw some light on it. Or, of course it might just be gimei, by which I mean a forged mei rather than an unknown one. If it is just gimei then it is the most casual fake; nothing about the blade suggest the age it would have to have. Perhaps just signed to make it more appealing to foreign buyers? I don't know, hence the request. The blade is in quite good polish though with some scuffs here and there so at the moment I can see no hada. The hamon is midare or notare, the habuchi is suite tight but has fine activity running through it, fine nie and some small sunagashi. It really doesn't matter what the outcome is but I am curious. To support my dodgy photographs I have done a rough oshigata, Nagasa 175mms, kasane 6.5mms, haba, 26ms. It has lost nothing to polishing at the machi and is ubu. What do you think?

Dear Ian, As someone who has benefited from your very generous hospitality on a visit to the Royal Armouries may I say that your approach was a breath of fresh air. I am sure that it in part has to do with your career as an educator. Following a tip from Roy I too attempted on several occasions to find a way to view the collection of Japanese items at Truro and was fobbed off until the day when I contacted a recently appointed curator who shared your approach Ian. I must say that she was interested and more than willing to encourage visits. Over the course of some years I managed two visits to study the items hands on and eventually the curator, Hazel Berryman, invited Roy and I to review the pieces and select some items for display. Sadly she moved to a different museum shortly afterward and the shutters came down at Truro. It was quite a shock to read a catalogue entry and then find that the corresponding item was a very cheap alternative to the one described, something which happened on several occasions. And just to drive home the point, the photograph of the backs of several kozuka include a purchase price written in ink. For the benefit of our younger members, 3/6 is three shillings and sixpence which equates to roughly 27cents US. Read 'em and weep guys! Geraint

Ah! Not just a Welsh name, Cornish too and also Arthurian. As to banished, well I'm still in Cornwall so if you ever escape come and look me up.

Welcome Denis, Always good to hear from another collector on this side of the pond. Cheers

Dear Curran. Have no hesitation in your analysis, as you will have realised tosogu are not my field. For what it is worth I will attach an image of the very similar mei on the fuchi. I am sorry that my photography/scanning is not as good as I might wish. If nothing else the presence of the mei has sent me off on a research path that I would otherwise not have taken, one of the joys of this hobby, and I have spent some very pleasant hours looking at late kinko work. It is unlikely that I will ever submit this koshirae for shinsa but if I do I will be sure to let you know the outcome. Ford, many thanks for the fascinating article. All the best.

Ford, it's beautiful!

Hi John, thank you for your kind words. The copper fuchi and koiguchi are signed in the same way, no discernible signature on any of the other mounts. Cheers

Promised I'd try and add some images so here goes. The bashin has a total length of 110mms and the koshirae overall is 340. Enjoy.

Thank you Ford, I will have to try to get some decent photographs of the koshirae to post. The bashin has a design of flowing waves with silver spray inlay, the aikuchi fuchi/koiguchi are suaka carved with the same flowing waves and silver spray. Menuki are very deep suaka squid and what I think is a tai fish. I will have a play tomorrow with camera and scanner. Many thanks.

Thank you John, that is a great help. Of course I was looking for Kazukin.........sword collectors, huh? Many thanks.

Dear all. My new toy arrived today and though I have no trouble translating the mei I have no information that seems to fit. Pound to a pinch of salt that the blade is shinshinto but I have no information on a smith from this era using the mei Ryokai. Any ideas? It looks too obvious to be a serious attempt at gimei.....? Many thanks.

Dear All, I would appreciate your help with this one. Just bought a late tanto with a set of mounts carrying this signature. Well out of my field but just wondered if anyone had any information on this maker? The tanto is in aikuchi mounts, I will try to post some reasonable pictures of the whole thing if I can. Thanks in advance.

So usually only seen on later swords such as shingunto, showato and sometimes shinshinto.

Hi Kim. So you have bought a signed wakizashi for what you can afford, I assume the "restorer" charged you for his work which has added to what you have in the sword. It is by a smith with a relatively low ranking in Hawley, though as someone else has pointed out that shouldn't take away from the sword, merely add some information. If you aspire to collect only swords by smiths with high rankings then you are going to need deep pockets. Chris has already pointed out that the work you have had done is poor quality and others have advised getting to grips with swords by meeting other collectors. Can we all add a plea that you don't send anything else to this man to "restore"? His work is doing neither you nor the sword any favours. Regardless of the ranking of the smith you have a signed blade which deserves to be looked after. You might do well to keep the sword, hold off on any further work on this or other swords and get to look at quality. There are many websites listed in the relevant section where you can see what good looks like both in terms of polish and hilt binding, when you can recognise why the work you have had done is poor then you might feel like getting the blade properly poliched and mounted in shirasaya. Don't give up, it is worth all the effort in the end!

And, this found while searching for Kotetsu guns. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LM-4 ... un&f=false Maybe not the most reliable source....

And, this found while searching for Kotetsu guns. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LM-4 ... un&f=false Maybe not the most reliable source....

Dear Chian. I think the conclusion of the discussion is that gun barrels were made from tamahagane. The method of producing steel this way was not exclusive to nihonto so gun barrels were also made from tamahagane. A swordsmith using them to make a sword would be using tamahagane so, yes it would be classified as a gendaito, notwithstanding the comment that swords made form iron from other sources have been papered in Japan.

Dear Chian. I think the conclusion of the discussion is that gun barrels were made from tamahagane. The method of producing steel this way was not exclusive to nihonto so gun barrels were also made from tamahagane. A swordsmith using them to make a sword would be using tamahagane so, yes it would be classified as a gendaito, notwithstanding the comment that swords made form iron from other sources have been papered in Japan.

Bruno, I think Chris was agreeing with Brian's recommendation and confirming that it is the only one available in English.

Hi Mark. Mark's tip about the coat hanger wire is a good one but the other is to see if the tsuka and saya line up well when the sword is mounted. Good clean lines here are a clue as mix and match often don't achieve that. If the sword seems right here and the fit is good then chances are it is just what it looks like, a mounted wakizashi fitted with a gunto mount for war. I will attach an image of two swords that both have civilian wakizashi blades in gunto mounts and as you will see both are considerably shorter than the koshirae. I can assure you that both these swords were mounted in this way for war. Neither one has civil mounts as yours does. Whatever the outcome it's a nice find. Enjoy. Cheers.

The assumption underlying the original question is that there were other means of producing iron available in Japan throughout the edo period. We know that imported iron was available, Namban tetsu, I have also read reports of swords being made form foreign anchors and so forth. The Royal Armouries have an early European dirk that was put through yakiire and mounted as a tanto. We know that cast iron was in use for other purposes (No, don't go there again!) We also know that tamahagane is picked over by contemporary swordmiths to make sure that the pieces they use are suitable for their purposes. If gun makers had access to a totally different source of iron for their work then the question stands. If the iron was produced in a tatara, as I suspect it was then reusing gun barrels is simply a way of accessing supplies of tamahagane. The fascinating blog posted elsewhere on the Board today shows a smith mixing tamahagane and the nails recovered from old buildings. He seems to suggest that he is doing this to create a specific result.

The assumption underlying the original question is that there were other means of producing iron available in Japan throughout the edo period. We know that imported iron was available, Namban tetsu, I have also read reports of swords being made form foreign anchors and so forth. The Royal Armouries have an early European dirk that was put through yakiire and mounted as a tanto. We know that cast iron was in use for other purposes (No, don't go there again!) We also know that tamahagane is picked over by contemporary swordmiths to make sure that the pieces they use are suitable for their purposes. If gun makers had access to a totally different source of iron for their work then the question stands. If the iron was produced in a tatara, as I suspect it was then reusing gun barrels is simply a way of accessing supplies of tamahagane. The fascinating blog posted elsewhere on the Board today shows a smith mixing tamahagane and the nails recovered from old buildings. He seems to suggest that he is doing this to create a specific result.