ROKUJURO

Even with modern LASER technology, heat is introduced into the area to fuse the metal sufficently to 'heal' the defect. This will be visible, but a good polisher may be able to hide this to an extent.

The NAKAGO of the 'widow-maker' NO-DACHI looks much older and the signature doesn't seem to be from the same hand.

Thomas, is there a signature on the NAKAGO or a small stamp just below the HABAKI? Most blades of this era have some kind of signature. The blade is probably oil quenched. NAKAGO photos are upside-down and not sharp enough to see details.

Or perhaps KANEMITSU, considering the distance between the KANJI.

Thomas, you could make reading the signature easier if you put the blade photos tip-up.

Thomas, this is just a sword. Certainly not Japanese, but maybe the maker had one in mind without ever having seen one from close. Value: sub 50.--$

Michael, I thinks it reads as Steve wrote: ISHIHARA YOSHISADA. It is not a SAMURAI sword, but a military one. The signature has nothing to do with the age of the blade. To make reading MEI a little easier, it helps to have well focused photos of the NAKAGO (tang) with tip upwards.

KOTO blade MEI could be MITSUYUKI, but it is difficult to read.

Isidro, that is not necessarily a TACHI. What is clearly visible is a SANBONSUGI HAMON as known by the MINO KANEMOTO school.

Maybe there is a discount if you take a dozen or so.....

Winnie, very difficult to say! On some blades, the KISSAKI (blade tip) is damaged. This is a considerable value loss as this cannot be 'repaired' by an amateur. This applies as well to your blades' condition in general, so it is not possible to give a reliable evaluation by photos alone. Stephen has given you a realistic general idea of what you can expect when you sell on a non-expert market. Some blades, if traditionally forged, might achieve double or triple of that (or more) in good condition. Please compare by looking here at NBM, what a desirable condition can look like. Another way could be to have an expert have a closer look at your blades. This could probably be done at a sword show or exhibition.

Winnie, wiping these blades with mineral oil is not bad, but an excess of oil is, as I have described. Please read here at NMB about care, maintenance and etiquette.

No. 7 = KANEMICHI

No. 6 is a nice NAGAMITSU. All your weapons seem to have been soaked in oil. That is bad because dust will settle on the oiled surfaces, and when the blades are put back in the (probably dirty) SAYA, they will be scratched. For the photos, the oiled NAKAGO cause reflections, so better clean them with household paper.

Signature looks unusual to me as there is a date and a MEI on one side: NOSHU SEKI no JU 23 (which would make no sense as this would have been 1948) and then a full signature with FUJIWARA KANE.....(can't read the second KANJI of the name, sorry). But maybe I'm completely off?

Winnie, a few good photos wouid have helped more than a mass of bad ones! What we need to see are sharp photos of the NAKAGO, because there might be something hidden that we could possibly read! Photos of the mountings tell us something about the last use of the blade, so in your case WWII. Photos of the naked blade (always tip up!) can give us an impression of the condition the blade is in, but when it has been scratched all over (looks like fine sandpaper was used), it is impossible to see HAMON or HADA. Mei of blade 1 may read NAGAMUNE, but this is just a guess without good photos. Date seems to be incomplete (....JU NI GATSU = 10 second month). Blade No. 2 could be AKIHIDE or NORIHIDE (ore something else). Blade No. 3 is possibly KANETOMO.

Sent a PM regarding WAKIZASHI with SOE-HI.

Howard, I think I can read FUJIWARA HISANAGA SAKU, but the last name KANJI is not safe. Let's see what the experts say!

Thank you! I am still in doubt if I look at older TSUBA with NAKAGO-ANA that have undergone many adaptations. How much might be left of the original form?

Hi jhelmes, welcome to the NM board! Please sign all posts with your first name plus an initial. I don't see a WAKIZASHI but a NAKAGO. Smith is KANEMOTO.

Gentlemen, I am not able to add anything of value to the discussion, but I would like to ask how one could judge the NAKAGO-ANA of an old and obviously 'used' TSUBA in terms of size and shape. On many TSUBA I see extensive alterations and adaptations to different sword tangs, so unless there are a number of UBU TSUBA of that school or maker as references, I am in doubt how to evaluate this feature.

Robin, that is a nice full shape for a (contemporary?) CHAWAN! I like the colours, although they might have come out a little differently with a longer firing. What you call rough or sandy could have been caused by a slight underfiring, but this effect can also be seen on pots which have stood behind a bigger vessel. It is always a big game when the fire does its work and plays with clay and ash!

Stephen, I like both TSUBA, but I would have to see the whole KODOGU set to make up an opinion.

Tom, did you compare with other NAGAKUNI?

Jean-Luc, it is not always the case to have the KOSHIRAE or parts of it from the same period of time as the blade, but it could occur. The later the blade, the more likely it is.. The TSUBA looks like an attempt to reproduce some kind of a TEMBO style. Difficult to say when it was made, but my impression is late EDO. I do not see a MEI or remains of it on the NAKAGO of your blade. You may have seen that the KISSAKI (blade tip) seems to suffer from a KARASUGUCHI which is considered a fatal flaw. There is a considerable WARE in the HAMON as well.