ROKUJURO

I like to see at least two good photos of each TSUBA (front and back) and precise dimensions. In the above array I see two or three TSUBA I might be interested in.

Didier, it is already a good thing to be able to relate a blade to a certain era/period. The polish of your blade (and the photos) do not allow to see the HADA, so to relate it to HIZEN, you should see some very tight MOKUME HADA (or even KONUKA HADA, which is typical for many HIZEN blades). In contrast to what Barry wrote, there is of course a slim chance that a very good blade once received a very basical polish. On the other hand, HIZEN blades of the famous makers had a MEI in most cases. MUMEI SHINTO WAKIZASHI are generally not in favour with collectors, as they are often not top of the line, but that should not be a reason not to like your blade..

The TSUKA ITO is a real mess.....That is not only a visual drawback, but a technical problem with the safety. Please refrain from swinging the sword, or you might have the 'House of the flying blades'!

It looks definitely like a cast iron TSUBA to me.

The signature tries to say YAMAGUCHI KAWASEI, but it is not executed in the usual Japanese way, and in addition to that, there are no swordsmiths with that name. Together with many other (red) signs obviously a bad fake.

Roger, I have no doubt your TSUBA is a genuine one. I want to add that the execution seems a bit rough which is very probably intentionally. The fine or even elegant design is in contrast to this which makes me believe that we have a later TSUBA here. This is just my uneducated opinion; it could as well be a revival piece or having been made by an apprentice of a renowned school, using the design of the master. To get a well founded assessment, please ask Ford Hallam.

Roger, it is a difficult one, I think. Earlier schools are often related with (relative exact) time periods, while later ones are sometimes difficult to differentiate from each other. Design elements had spread around in the country and in the TSUBASHI workshops and were copied which makes an exact judgement much more difficult. In your TSUBA I see features like the SHINSHU droplets representing water spray on the waves. The way this is carried out reminds me a bit of ONIN TSUBA - not saying this could be related to that style but perhaps the artist had something like that in mind. The design - waves and a water wheel - is a common one and was used by many schools. The heavy corrosion does not make it easier to find an assessment, but my gut feeling and the fact that some of the brass inlays have fallen out leads me to believe that it is not an early TSUBA, so my guess is somewhere about 1750 or later This opinion is a bit bold, so I am happy to be corrected.by our experts.

Steffie, looks like 19th century to me. Is there a lot of oil on the blade? That should not happen! Please make sure that no oil gets into the SAYA, otherwise the blade will be scratched!

David, KANE or KIN is in the NMB KANJI pages above (research); 8 strokes.

Yes, MITSU is correct. It is indeed written a bit sloppily.

Second KANJI could also be KAWA so ISHIKAWA perhaps?

No, there is nothing of Japanese origin visible. Instead, several 'red flags' for bad fake.

AIKUCHI are a form of TANTO which have no TSUKA-ITO. Yours is a TANTO. The missing horn piece on the SAYA (KURIGATA) is not crucial and can be replaced. It is NOT for hanging the TANTO on a wall!

Myochin period-shoami school or sukashi Roger, I don't quite understand your question. MYOCHIN is a school, not a period. SUKASHI is a design style featuring openwork on TSUBA.

James, weight might be a less important point compared to balance and speed. If the blade of a fighter is 1/10 of a second faster than that of his opponent, it may just be enough of a difference.....

Christophe, you cannot tell the alloy from the weight (or better: density) of an item in hand. This could be an average YAMAGANE or something else. For comparison, copper has a higher density than iron. Ford might know immediately what it is! The TSUBA decoration does indeed look a little stiff and lifeless, so that may not be the best of works. The black areas could be patina or lacquer.

I am not at all an expert as some of our members, but to me it looks as if 5 and 8 show the same MEI with different shots. I think these are legit, the rest is perhaps not.

Shiny is not better per se. Even if the quality was indeed the same it would not be an equivalent to an authentic item of history. And still, look at the false wrapping technique of the TSUKA-ITO. P.S. No plural 's' on Japanese nouns!

人 = person, NIN as in SHOKUNIN = craftsman/craftsperson, or JÛNIN = resident of...

At first glance it looked to me like an O-KOGATANA (similar to https://www.aoijapan.net/o-kogatanamumei/)., but when I found it on E-Bay, it is the typical tourist item as Grey described it above.

The way the MEI is carried out is completely correct and done with a TAGANE, but as on many KOGATANA, I believe it is just an homage to the famous smith. It is probably of later date, but considering the condition of the NAKAGO not necessarily as late 20th century.

Could it be a HACHI (eight, 八)?

Welcome Adrian!

It is not exactly stainless, I am afraid....

In the TATARA, it is always just pure iron that is produced. There are no 'alloys' coming out of the furnace! The amount of impurities is very small and does not influence the properties or the looks of a blade to any reasonal extent. As Ken pointed out, it is indeed the forging technique as main factor to produce differences. If you imagine how complicated the construction of a blade can be, plus the care and precision the smith applied to the process, it is evident where the quality comes from.