ROKUJURO

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.....

Usually, MUNE are only roughly pre-formed on the anvil. Final shaping is done either with grinding stones or with files.. As the back of the blade is not hardened, it is not hard work. Of course, MITSU MUNE is more and finer work. Even the smallest deviation will be seen immediately! Lewis, often, the MUNE was not used offensively, but instead to parry or deflect an opponent's blow. You find KIRI-KOMI regularly on the MUNE.

Glen, I have always understood pre-EDO MUMEI TSUBA as belonging to a 'style' more than a school or workshop. Take KO-TOSHO or KO-KACHUSHI as examples. We do not know the smiths or 'schools' (or even locations, fot that matter), but when mentioning these types of TSUBA, everybody knows what you are talking about. In so far, the traditional names of traditions or schools are as good as any. As you say correctly, it is purely conventional or for convenience. Introducing a new defining and naming system for TSUBA would need to have superior knowledge about the old Japanese literature on that subject, and we would probably find out that many so-called "facts" were only assumption, especially in the past, but in present times as well. Just think of a feature like TEKKOTSU. Many authors talk about it as if they knew what it is, but there was (and is) no research done in that field (I am working on it). The same applies - in the field of blades - to UTSURI. We get descriptions, but no explanations. I think many names and definitions had to be invented because of lack of safe knowledge, science, and precise information, and the same can be found in many other fields of past times, e.g. archaeology.

John, why do you think it could be difficult to make MARUMUNE?

The HABAKI does not belong to this blade. What are the dimensions?

Lee, the knife above is a KIRIDASHI. You may call it a bench knife.

Tim, I only posted because you wrote " mei reads: Choshu Hagi Kuwaji Saku " instead of KAWAJI. Small typos often prevent you from finding information online.

Mike, well then make your own! You will learn a lot, and it will be much less expensive!

Steve, probably not a stamp but a chiseled signature?

As Bruce mentions above, you sometimes encounter shorter WWII blades, but as far as I know they were made on an individual basis. But I am not a military man; the experts will be able to reply in detail!

Steve, generally, there were no military WAKIZASHI as far as I know. This is probably an older (pre-WWII) blade mounted with a civilian TSUBA (photo upside down) for military use. Spelling: It is WAKIZASHI.

Steve, most NAKAGO photos are upside-down, but as Uwe already mentioned, it is not a Japanese sword. You fell in love with a bad fake.This applies to the mountings, too.

The basic design:

Joe, this is really difficult. Perhaps we can see more with a dark background (for increased contrast) and light from the side. Do you have some dimensions of your TSUBA? It reminds me of TÔSHÔ style, but it is possibly a revival piece, EDO JIDAI. You can see the conch shell (in fact a sea snail) motif from time time.