NihontoEurope

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13256 There is a possibility. No promises are made. It may be an option to send swords. /Martin

Jacques, One argument here was "Daimei". The difference between Sukesada 6th and 9th is..7 and 8, inflation or not, if it is Daimei could it not have been signed by anyone? /Martin

A lot of Sukesada registered and probably not registered due to the inflation of Sukesadas. Saying that this blade is a genuine Sukesada blade and signed as such is not a bold statement. Not very a GIMEIable smith anyway. I have only seen one obvious. What do we have 55-60 Sukesada? /Martin

/Martin

Jean, I think you are confusing me with someone else : ) /Martin aka Markus

Chris, Yes. Answer to Eric and I took a glance at you comment (I did say thank you), unfortunately I had already been composing most of my reply, which in itself was copying typed material. I'm sorry Chris. I did not mean to be rude. EDIT: Or was my answer to Jacques or both. I'm at work and a bit unfocused. Sorry /Martin

Eric, I know YOKOYAMA is not a swordsmith. I use it herein as a reference to the two, because they are two. We have: 横山上野守藤原祐定 yokoyama kodzuke no kami fujiwara sukesada Active period between 1661-1673 (Your comment, Eric - Kozuke Daijo Sukesada *1633-1721*. There are his extant works with the production years between the Kanbun and Kyoho era and it is said that he died in 1721 at the age of 89) We have: Yamato no Kami Sukesada, probably the same one who signed Yamato Daijo Active period Sho toku 1711 Original question was: is the mei by Kozuke Daijo Sukesada or is it dai-mei? If the answer to the question is "no", it means that it is Sho-shin or Gimei. If the answer to the question is "yes", it means what? The paper says "workshop work" (thank you Chris), which suggests that the blade is identified as work to the school, but not the signature. /Martin

Jacques, I undestand that. Question was: Is it the same? YOKOYAMA, active period 1661-1673 Recieved title YAMATO no KAMI 1716 6th gen as opposed to 9th gen - Not 100% sure, but I challange with that information. I don't get the dates to coincide properly. /Martin

Jacques, Is YOKOYAMA and YAMATO the same SUKESADA? /Martin

NICE!

Adam, I checked the pictures I have at hand and it looks masame. I have had this sword for several years and did the research prior to the purchase back then. Unfortunately I have not had the time to fully document and photographing the sword properly. I am in the process of documenting all my swords properly by good standards and when I have this sword back home again I will induce the process to that as well. Hopefully it will be some sort of an appraisal with the sword. NTHK-NPO looks like a good option as it seems now. /Martin

Chris, I will get back to you. I need to talk to my friend in Japan first and get debriefed of what happened at the shinsa. Adam, Here in an overall picture which gives you the sugata: [attachment=0]IMG_5810_1200.jpg[/attachment] /Martin

Chris, Where are they located? Tokyo? /Martin

Chris, Please check. I have not yet planned the dates, but it will be in November 2-3 weeks or so. /Martin

Chris, Now I understand better. This means that I have to discuss this further when I go to Japan in November. Thank you for the clarification. I guess an NTHK submission, when such an event is available, will be the only option. Perhaps better... /Martin

Chris, This was the result: [attachment=0]TAMEYASU - Result.jpg[/attachment] I don't exactly know what it means. What I do know is that if I was in place to pick up the swords I would ask them what it really meant and what my options were. I have to put my trust into others as it is now. To me, as I interpret this, it suggests that I have the opportunity to study the signature and use their books and challenge their passive result or something like that. I have never issued swords for papering before. /Martin

All, We have unanimously decided to use the Shinsa window in November. The sword have had no appraisal for 400 years, it can wait another 2 months. Thanks for the comments and support. I will update this thread after next decision from NBTHK. /Martin

Grey, Thank you. This is the outcome: [attachment=0]IMG_1059_Gr.jpg[/attachment] /Martin

Grey, My bad and I'm sorry. Email sent. Thank you. /Martin

Thank you Brian. I'm hoping to get a high res of IMG_1055 from Chris so that I can send it to NBTHK. This one will work and the will have the book at NBTHK, but good to show them the differences between this one and the left one in the same picture (which I think they have seen and the only one). There is a special session set up tomorrow, where I can present the "evidence" at hand. Not that it matters, but the sword had #11 as a Torokusho which indicates ownership status in the past. I own it now and it has #73502...hmm I should perhaps not have said that ( : well, proud owner! /Martin

Adam, They are famous for copying works of Ichimonji School. Sugata is as expected, Bizen style and sori 1.8 and 71.3 Ha Not the run of the mill Kanbun, because this is a copy cat work from Bizen. /Martin

I understand all the points and point taken. If we think at bit and picture us my specimen without signature. Then we read some books and facts about school, yasurimei, butt-cut, shape of nakago, hamon, yakidashi and so on. It matches and would be attributed to TAMEYASU. See kantei below. I often hear "The sword identifies/confirms the MEI and not the other way around". I can also see why it can be doubted when looking at the other characters like the TACHIBANA on the sword to the left. Completely different, but looking at what I regard as match, we see a match. I do, perhaps because I want to see a match. Anyway, I know it is legit and I will not give up without a fight. "Shijo Kantei No 645 (October issue) Answer and Discussion for Shijo Kantei To 645 ( in the October issue). The answer is a katana by Bitchu no kami Tachibana Yasuhiro This sword has midare utsuri, and a gorgeous choji hamon, but the shape is as seen, and the shinogi ji has masame hada, and the boshi is komaru. From these characteristics, this is not an old Bizen katana, like Ichimonji, and it is more likely to be a Shinto period Ishido school katana. The modern Ishido school had branches in Edo, Kyoto, Osaka, Kishu, and Fukuoka, and each branch school had an original style and produced well made blades. Among these schools, a long yakidashi at the koshimoto is an important characteristic for the Kishu Ishido school. This hamon at the koshimoto shows a slight midare pattern which is different from usual pattern, but if this part were suguha, it would be a typical Kishu Ishido yakidashi. the Kishu Ishido school’s yakidashi yakihaba (width) are not an even suguha, and towards the upper part of the yakidashi section, the width becomes wider, and this katana shows this feature. Also, the Kishu Ishido school choji midare hamon have a wide hamon, as seen on this katana, and often the top of the hamon reaches the shinogisuji. At the same time, each choji is narrow, and entire hamon is smaller, and has a tight nioiguchi, and the hints mentioned these characteristics. The Kishu Ishido boshi are straight with a komaru, or are midarekomi, and often have a long return, like on this katana. They can often have frequent muneyaki. Among the Kishu Ishido smiths, Yasuhiro has more work left today. His nakago tips are iriyamagata, and on the ura under the habaki there is a mon, and from these characteristics, the Bitchu-no-kami Yasuhiro nameis suggested. Most of the people voted for Yasuhiro, and besides his name, a few people voted for Tosa Shogen Tameyasu and Mutsu-no-kami Tameyasu who are also Kishu Ishido school smiths. These smiths made choji midare hamon, and it is difficult to judge distinctively between their styles. In particular, Tosa Shogen Tameyasu has katana with mon on the omote side, so these names are treated as almost correct answers. Tosa Shogen Tameyasu has very few blades, and Mutsu-no-kami Tameyasu’s nakago jiri are kurijiri. Beside these, a few people voted for Unju Korekazu. As a Shinshinto smith, his mihaba are normal or slightly wide, and his kissaki are chu-kissaki or long chu-kissaki, which are common shapes. A choji midare hamon is his strong point, and a few blades have an Aoe-mon; so from these characteristics, people may have voted for him. Korekazu’s shapes are wide but his work show a thick kasane, and many of them have a narrow shinogi-haba which often are seen in Shinshinto blades; his jitetsu is a tight ko-itame and can become a become muji-hada type, and are often mixed with nagare hada. His early choji hamon, have narrow clusters, and tops are not round; there is a tight and strong nioiguchi, similar to Chounsai Tsunatoshi and Koyama Munetsugu. Usually his choji in each cluster are thick, the tops are large and round, and more likely to be similar to gunome midare hamon. There are dense nioi, dense nie, and frequent kinsuji and sunagashi. In addition, Korekazu has very few Aoi-mon blades, so please pay attention to these details. Explanation and provided by Hinohara Dai." /Martin

Chris, No inconsistencies as far as I can see. Everything looks fine. Regarding quality...this is the most beautiful blade I have i my collection and I have many. [attachment=0]TAMEYASU_d.jpg[/attachment] /Martin

Without the signature the whole sword screams out TAMEYASU. I hate this... Paper or no paper. NBTHK makes mistakes. Haggling over attributions is healthy. [attachment=0]IMG_1055.jpg[/attachment] /Martin

Grey, Thank you. This is what I have too, "hard copy" wise. Would it be possible for you to make a close-up on "IMG_1055.jpg" the right hand side blade? What does it say about that specific MEI and blade? I will insert my MEI and blade accordingly. NBTHK is giving me a hard time on this and will not give me Hozon nor FAIL. /Martin