NihontoEurope

Jean, Can you please explain.... Have you found the smith?!? /Martin

mariuszk, Please do not commit seppuku. It is not the way of life, the dou. It is a bad thing. /Martin

ALL, Sorry for image quality. I must be both polite and repetetive with the person in Japan to whom I am in contact with. I have told him several times that 22kb pictures wont do the job. I have even helped him to set his camera to High-Res mode. Unfortunately it seems to have reverted back to four-point-three-billion-images-can-be-saved-on-SD-card-mode. I trying, in a humble way, to make him see what I and you see here : ) /Martin

Stephen and mariuszk, Thank you for commenting. Any comment is good! Stephen, Is this a NAGAYOSHI you uploaded?? /Martin

Mariuszk, In what way is it strange? Poorly made or poor as in not detailed enough? I have no opinion at all. /Martin

Paul, You are not awkward. Thank you for the remark. I was trying to keep it simple and minimize the amount of images uploaded. Mission and request accomplished. /Martin

Hi, This is a supposedly NAGAYOSHI. A very fine piece of work, but I have no clue whatsoever which smith it is. It is a 2-kanji signature and according to my incomplete Hawley reference book there is no NAGAYOSHI registered there (who signed with only 2 characters). I think it is a YAMISHIRO sword. I will upload some reference and some oshigata that I have found. Any help is a help. Ruling out some NAGAOSHI smiths might narrow down the list. NAGASA 　28.8 ｃｍ SORI MEASUREMENT 　0.0 ｃｍ KISSAKI MEASUREMENT 　3.5 ｃｍ KASANE 　6.5ｍｍ MOTOHABA 　2.8 ｃｍ SAKIHABA 　1.93 ｃｍ NAKAGO LENGTH 　8.2 ｃｍ　（from end of HABAKI) IORI-MUNE MEDIUM Regards Martin

All, Thanks for comments and uploads. Appreciated!!! Jean, Yes...big names = Shinsa. I had my trip planned to Japan. It was cancelled for three big reasons this April. Needless to elaborate more on that. Uploading an edited version of the last Oshigata of O-Sa. There are simularities of those works and there are not similarities to the oshigata Jean uploaded. My thoughts, and my thoughts only as a non-authoritive, is that early works from O-Sa is a bit different to the "newer" works. Also, it seems to my eyes that when the shape of the sword changes, the nagako changes in form as well. It could be a presentation issue or something. I don't know. Anyway. A shinsa it will be... Is it ok to start a new thread on a smith that I cannot find ANY info of. I'll try and start a new one! It is NAGAYOSHI and I hope to get some help there as well.!! Thanks Martin

Jean, Thanks for the upload. I hope my picture is what you wanted. Give notice and I will upload some more. If you want to share the whole oshigata it is very welcome. IMHO - About the dates. I think we, (well Fujishiro and I) are having a difference of opinion there. 1346 is a bit late. O-Sa started earlier. The dates I have in my mind is 1332-1334. Did a check-up to refresh. See below. Reference: http://www.shibuiswords.com/O-Sa.htm Few dated examples of O-Sa remain today. There are three tanto which are dated Kenmu 5 (1338), Ryakuou 2 (1339) and Ryakuou 3 (1340). Of these the first two showed definite traits of the old Kyushu workmanship and are thought to be his earliest surviving examples. The existence of a National Treasure tanto by his son, Sa Yukihiro, which was made in almost the exact same style as his father helps to answer some of the questions regarding the changing styles of O-Sa. Since this tanto is dated Kanno Gan Nen (1350), it shows that sometime between 1340 and 1350 O-Sa mastered his famous O-Sa style of workmanship. Reference: Hawley 1334 Reference: http://www.sho-shin.com/sai1.htm O-SA "Great SA" GEN-O 1319 (start of school?) /Martin

Lee, Thx! Jean, Upload soon! Having trouble with camera battery and the sun... /Martin

Lee, ( : Yes, I thought that this was the case. References missing. Thank you very much for that quick reply. I will try to procure the missing information somehow. /Martin

O-Jean, Updating: O-SA of Chikuzen, Kem-mu. Masamune student. More basic questions for which I do not have the answer to: In Hawley, Japanese Swordsmiths. There is this first column which is populated with the starting Kanji, but also 2 different references which starts with an "S" or a "K" followed with 2 or 3 numbers. What are those "references"? Also, "addenda" is squeezed in. Haven't seen that addenda yet : ) Image attached which should cover it all. /Martin

Jean, Thanks for the effort. I gave up this sword as soon as I saw the oshigata/example MEIs posted way back here. I know what 2nd gen MEI look like, but not the 1st gen. Hence my post here. My last grasp of hope so to say. You wouldn't happen to have an oshigata/mei for SA, Chikuzen? This is a sword I happen to own. /Martin

Jean, Thank you for comforting words. Here is the data of the sword: NAGASA 58.6cm SORI MEASUREMENT 　0.6cm KISSAKI MEASUREMENT 　3.5cm KASANE 　5.9 mm MOTOHABA 2.74cm SAKIHABA 　1.79cm NAKAGO LENGTH 　16cm（from end of HABAKI） /Martin

Jean, Thank you. The whole thing with this particular sword is that it is being offered to me with the label "YASUMITSU 1414". That is the reason for the MEI investigation. I collect swords from that group in time and that the form of the metal work is not Bizen work did not pass me unnoticed, but I wanted to give the signature a chance and since I had no records att all of Shodai Yasumitsu, I felt that this was my last shot. Posting a thread here, that is. Hamon is a Oei-Bizen-look-alike, not the sori. The nagako might have been altered during the times, who knows. I have all the measurement data, but since this sword obviously is not the sword it appears to be it is not interesting enough to go any further. I have seen swords being Tadayoshi work to the naked eye, but after an investigation of the MEI it fails being a Tadayoshi. Stating that one should start research/investigation on metalwork before signature or the other way around is a bit odd to me. A hen and the egg issue. There is no right or wrong for me, only a different way of start. It all depends on, for me, what the features of the sword in particilar will show me. If it shows a suspicious MEI, I will work on that. If it shows a bright and clear HAMON, I will work on that. In this case, when the sword is in the shape it is, a MEI investigation was a good start. If there are no options but to ask a panel of experts, I will post a humble request here and so I did. Unfortunately it seemed that I stepped on a toe or two and of course unintentionally. Cheeeeeeeeers : D

Ok folks. I will send out an excuse now which will cover any new posts to this thread. I am very sorry for taking up your time in this matter, I truly am, and I will take this in consideration the next time I think of asking any question here in the future. Thank you /Martin

Ted Tenold, Thank you. I am well aware of my faults and as I get better judging swords and perhaps set the MEI aside as to which the the sword is good or not. I am not brushing any advise aside, good or bad, any advise is good. One should not underestimate anyone : ) Thank you for your polite response! /Martin

Thank you, Franco, Jean and Grey, for quick replies. I'd rather go for MEI identification first and then metal work. Perhaps it is wrong, but it works for me since I'm a rookie. Best of Regards to you all I hope that I can help out in some way in the near future, /Martin

Jean, Checked and verified. Not a YASUMITSU SHODAI. Thanks for the support. /Martin

Jean, Thanks a lot! I'll check it out...on the double. /Martin

Ouch. Thanks Franco, I had obviously it all backwards here. My hope was to find a collector that might have an Oshigata of Yasumitsu. /Martin

Howdy all experts, I have a delicate problem. There is no images/oshigata to find on the web fot this smith. Also, I have borrowed the Hawley 2-volume set and the smith is not represented. Well, not by the right kanji anyway. Ok - Kanji spells like this: ○州長船住右衛門尉康光 - ○ equals unreadable, but "must" be "備" to complete "BIZEN" ○永廿一年二月吉日 - ○ equals unreadable, but "must" be "應" to complete "OEI". So...this is supposedly a YASUMITSU first gen. The sword is also engraved with HOROMINO (TSURUGI) and BI-HI. I will try to upload pictures. I'm greatful for all the help I can get. The one thing I do know is that the signature does not resemble 2nd gen. However, the hamon is equal to what YASUMITSU and MORIMITSU produced at the times. Thanks in advance! /Martin