jesup

My first was The Japanese Sword by Inami Hakusui (1948). I found it by interlibrary loan at the NY State library in Albany; I couldn't keep it of course so I photocopied the entire book (this was ~1983). Still have the photocopies (and now my own copy of the book; it wasn't easy to find).

ian if you're still around - I have a boy's sword Tango no kami Naomichi (Mishina, ~5th generation?) with the same hamon: (repeats several times on each side) It's in Japan for polish right now; I've asked to have the polisher tell me the name for the hamon

And it was?

Which book is this? The $350 one in that last picture -- That's a diplomatic tassel, correct? Looks a lot like the one on my Kanetoshi, though in better shape (mine's pretty good, but not quite perfect, and some tarnishing). Very heavy (gold-plated wire I think)

My point is that they are human. No one was sitting watching smiths sign. Signatures change with time. Forging can change with time (get better or worse, or better then worse perhaps with age). Some gimei makers were more talented than others; had better examples to copy (from books or swords). Given the number of swords papered, and all those factors, I would be very surprised if it never happened. It is likely very, very rare.

I'm sure some gimei have papered; given the number of papers.... And then there are the older green kicho papers; perhaps it's likelier with those. (They aren't all bogus; you just can't count on them in the same way as current papers, and maybe much older papers/sayagaki) The judges are human. And in some cases, maybe the gimei is really well done - including not just the signature.) Most gimei are pretty easy to spot... and remember the signature confirms the blade. And (I'm told) blades have been failed at shinsa, had signatures removed, and then attributed to the original smith. Which could be a gimei signature that wasn't an attempt to hide the maker, but to put the 'correct' name on it. Or blind chance. Or it was a shoshin mei, and they didn't agree/believe it -- but the blade confirms it.

Without papers? Yes, probably. I didn't look over the papers before I asked if they would accept my offer, though I knew it had 3 sets of papers. I forget now if I knew to whom they papered it to. It's a very nice, full polish, healthy, nice sugata. Just a very nice blade. I won't say I'd ignore papers. In this case they provide some insurance/confirmation that other people/organizations have a positive opinion of the quality of the blade, as I am not an expert. They reduce the chance that I could end up taking a loss were I to ever sell it. (Which I don't plan to with this blade; I have several others I may well sell at some point, as I've learned what I can from them and they're not that good - but they were something I saw for sale at a gun show, or what have you.)

An example I've mentioned before: I have a naginata-naoshi wakizashi blade with NBTHK kicho papers (yeah, older), NTHK papers (Kanteisho), and papers from a known expert, Suiken Fugunaga ("very good"). NTHK and Fugunaga agree on Mutsu no kami Kaneyasu (modulo a 20 year difference in date, 1624 vs 1644). NBTHK kicho papers are to a close possibility, Daido (aka Mutsu no kami Kanemichi). While both seem reasonable attributions, I (and IIRC Gordon Robeson) think it's Kaneyasu. While I don't count myself a kantei expert by any means, I noted all the examples of Daido's hi go under the habaki, while all of Kaneyasu's end just above it, and that's what mine do. But regardless of which papers are right, they all agree it's a really nice sword, which is the reason I bought it.

The nice thing about mumei is it can't be gimei. :-) I have a blade with 3 attributions: NHTK, NBTHK, and one personal one by an known expert from the 1970ish era. NTHK and the expert agree; NBTHK attributes to a slightly "better" smith. I (and another current expert, though only looking at images I took) agree with NTHK, though it's close. But it's a very good smith, regardless. (bought at Christies after it failed to sell at auction; I think it's an ex-Bruce Kowalski piece). I may update the papers at some future shinsa here in the US. It'll be interesting to see what *they* say :-) (The two smiths are Daido and Mutsu no kami Kaneyasu)

Don't be too upset. Everyone starts somewhere, and that wasn't a horrible place to start. Chalk it up for experience. I still have the 1st blade I got, a WWII 'marines' semi-stainless blade I bought for use in kenjutsu, with seriously degraded tsuka. And the 2nd blade, which just went out to Japan for polishing after owning it for almost 40 years -- it has multiple chips (2 probably too deep to remove); a slight bend happened at some point just south of the monouchi. Virtually no ha-machi... And the polish is such that one can barely be sure it has a hamon (narrow suguha or similar). But.... It's a nambokucho o-suriage tachi with o-kissaki, still 30" ce (very long for a katana). So we'll see what happens with a good polish. And I have another shinto wakizashi with an unusual hamon (yahazu, notched). But... big chip (not anywhere near through the hamon). And what I couldn't see at the time (didn't know about it) - a mizukage line which almost certainly means it was retempered. (Perhaps after a fire). So it's saiha. again, I learned, and it provided something to study. Similarly, I have a shinshinto wak blade in full, recent polish; perfect condition; nicely signed Higashiyama ju Yoshihira. A fairly big name. And the signature is totally fake (gimei) - which I assumed when I bought it at a sword show 25 years ago, since no one in their right mind would have been selling that blade at that price in that condition if there was an outside chance the signature was good. And I'm certain it isn't. But: it's a really nicely made sword in full polish, and the first shinshinto blade I bought. I bought it to study and because I liked how it looked. So: don't get upset. As mentioned above, the damage to the habaki isn't really a problem (though if you did that to other parts it might be). It's rare that someone's first blade is really good, except by accident or if they really studied for a while (years) before buying. Welcome - you have lots to learn! and a starting point. My advice: invest in books, then branch out from there.

It would be date on one side, mei on the other.

Generally you can do a lot more damage by trying to restore a blade or it's fittings, than by leaving it as is. The surface condition of fittings is often important to the value and correctness. Often the metal is purposely patinated, and even when it isn't, the age-caused patina is an important evaluation point. Iron tsuba would be ruined if you removed the black rust patina, for example, or shakudo. Never ever try to clean the nakago of a sword. In some cases they can be repatinated by an expert, but that's hard to find. In this case, it appears the two-piece habaki was purposely patinated a dark color.

In the aftermath of Darcy's death a few years ago, there was discussion of preserving Darcy's site, and my reading of the thread here (which family and friends commented in) was that they want to preserve his site. At least one person indicated they had dumped a local copy of the site. The site is now long down; one can view much of the content on archive.org -- however, considerable amounts of data is not captured by archive.org; many of the articles are missing images, for example. If someone did or can get permission, perhaps we could put his site back up in some form, or even posting a full dump of the site here that could be downloaded and browsed.

https://www.kyotobyt....com/nippongenshosha They also have a youtube channel: https://www.youtube....6PfZVWsBt7039UZiyxJw

Unusual collection of mekugi-ana, given the nakago looks ubu. Perhaps extra for test-cutting in some old mountings? I'd say not shinshinto; very likely Edo, and not kanbun-shinto. Maybe mid-late shinto. (for whatever *my* opinion is worth :-)

Amazing story - and amazing detective work!

I also would love to contribute to this project. Markus: would it be useful to you to get info on/pictures/oshigata or see in person a (murayama) Kanetoshi gendaito that got 70 pts from NTHK (Long Island shinsa ~1997)? In very good WWII polish.

I still remember a really nice looking blade in polish with good horimono for sale at a gun show in Albany; I was a college student and $800(??) was way too much for my blood. (I was taking kenjutsu classes).

Sugata looks kanbun shinto to me -- but that's about all I'm going on so far. The pictures of the tang seem like early shinto or late koto; the hi imply to me it's mumei ubu, so I'd put it say 1580-1650 -- but I'm going way out on a limb given the lack of detail in the pictures. Just trying as an academic exercise, since I've been out of things so long :-)

Nice... I was thinking (before I read the comments) kamakura yamashiro, but nothing more specific than that (and no idea when in kamakura)

"TJ"? I've been out of circulation so long (~20 years) the acronym doesn't ring any bells. I have my own example - 3 sets of papers for a beefy wakizashi blade I bought from Sotheby's (ex-Bruce Kowalski?); one to Daido; two to Kaneyasu: However: it's clearly a good blade given the attributions it got. https://photos.app.goo.gl/DRGLv5NwY2UFUUsH9

Definitely. These discussion have been going on for a Long Time; I remember these same points being made 25 years ago on the nihonto mailing list. Perhaps it's because I'm gaijin, but I agree with the points made in the article. Side note: I have 2 gimei blades - one hitatsura wakizashi signed Yasumitsu (and not chiseled-looking, but carved and looks like set up for gold inlay, needs polish), which Yoshikawa says is shinto Echizen work; another wakizashi Higashiyama ju Yoshihira - Nice shinshinto work with a toranba hamon in fresh polish. Yes, I could remove the signatures (at least on the yoshihira; the depth of the carving on the 'Yasumitsu' would make removal problematic. The yoshihira *might* paper reasonably without the signature (I bought it for the shape and hamon and steel - i.e. I totally ignored the signature; didn't even bother deciphering it first). High-quality gimei blades are a great bargain, in a way. :-) And can make good targets of study (just ignore the signature). IMHO

My first nihonto was from a friend who needed some cash back in the mid 1980's. 30" ce o-kissaki (tired, basically no hamachi, with some chips) nambokucho o-suriage tachi in WWII mountings for $300. Still have it; still tired, still in bad polish. I *think* the chips don't go through the hamon, but it will be very narrow with them removed - it's really hard to see the hamon at all given the polish (suguha I believe).

Thanks, I was afraid that might be the case - I last saw him over 20 years ago. Nice guy. Last time I saw him he got to look at my Heianjo Nagayoshi Omi-yari (without my telling him what it was) along with a couple of other so-so blades - he liked it and said "keep that one, get rid of the others" (and then I told him what it was). Then he asked (againn) if I wanted to sell him back the Kanetoshi... I think he was honestly a bit surprised when it papered so well at the Shinsa.