ROKUJURO

Thank you Mal! As simple as the KANJI is, I did not recognize YAMA! Bruce, I hope this photo will be sufficient. There is no date on the other side, and no assembly numbers painted on the NAKAGO.

Gentlemen, a friend of mine just showed me his sword. He has no information on it, so I took a photo of the MEI. I think I can read NOSHU no JU.....KANESHIGE SAKU. There is a small SEKI stamp just below the HABAKI, and, looking at the work traces, it is possible that the blade had this NAKAGO welded on. The blade itself is elegant in shape, but obviously sandpapered, so only a CHU SUGUHA HAMON can be seen but no HADA. Any support with reading the full MEI is thankfully received!

The date is probably meant to say "8th month a day" but unless there is more above the MEKUGI ANA it was not completed and does not seem to be written by a Japanese hand.

Tony, the TOSOGU look quite nice (TSUBA photos are upside-down) and should be kept in good condition. The blade is always the most important part. Take photos of it (orientation always tip vertically up) against a dark background. The signature is somewhat unusual as it is on the URA side. Orientation of the NAKAGO should be vertical tip-upwards, and photos made with light from the side). An expert should see this in-hand for a better assessment.

Looks like TANTO to me. SHIN SHINTO or later?

Quite a while ago, I communicated with Ford Hallam about this subject. He was willing to repatinate a repaired TSUBA for me (a crack had to be micro-welded) but he would not weld it himself. In addition to that, he saw a problem with the added metal. He was not sure it would patinate the same way, so there was a risk that the repair could remain obvious. Steve, so you would have to find a welder (some goldsmiths might have the micro-welding equipment) and a TSUBAKO to possibly make the repair invisible.

Thank you Mauro, so we can only speculate how they counted the parts unless we get a look into the ANA of the TSUBA.

Mauro, does it really have four layers or was the FUKURIN counted as another layer? Otherwise, I would still call it a SAN-MAI TSUBA.

Looks like micro-welding to fill a FUKURE. Technically better and more durable than traditional UMEGANE, but the process uses high heat that will inevitably be introduced into the steel. If carefully executed, the affected area might remain small.

If you hold the sword in correct orientation (i.e. tip-upwards), it would be more like rain and puddles on the road.

See above. Mal has it.

Looks like HIROMITSU to me. Date is not clear to me: SHOWA JU X NEN, SHOGATSU (January)

NANBAN TSUBA, not SHOAMI.

That sounds surprizing to me. I would have assumed that long blades make a NAGAMAKI.

Glen, I think you simplify things too much. It is not only the shape and design that make a TOSHO or KO-TOSHO TSUBA but there are several criteria. The earlier type is much thinner, almost always large (> 80 mm, often much larger), has a special cross-section and the patina is not at all that easy to reduplicate in my opinion! And I never expect anyone to judge and classify a TSUBA with a 100% 'safety'. Here at the NMB, we have always agreed upon (and respected) that actual ORIGAMI by the NBTHK are educated opinions of a panel of experts who have seen thousands of TSUBA in-hand. Within the existing system of classification, we do not have more expertise elsewhere. But as humans make mistakes, wrong attributions cannot be excluded. But I am willing to learn, so I am looking forward to your proposal of an expanded classification system. The problem might be to convince the NBTHK.....