ROKUJURO

David, as usual, I don't get along with your website! The only TSUBA in the for sale-section I can find is the TETSUGENDO (sold). Is it me or the software of the site?

Andrey, I am sorry, yes, the first position was correct and I was wrong! Thought to be sure, but KAISHO script seems to be too difficult for me!

Gabriel, the MEKUGI-ANA look like they were drilled, not punched.

Ah, yes, I remember! David/SOSHIN was looking for one: ....... I need to purchase a new Batto training sword in the near future.....Jan. 04./TSUBA on E-Bay

If I remember correctly, we have discussed this before. It is a gardening tool, a HANAGATANA.

.....Where do you look for signs of lamination?...... Sean, is there any form of HADA to be seen? That would be a good hint for a traditionally made blade! Take care of the surface of your blade, there seem to be many fingerprints which will turn into rust quite soon!

......Not sure that this time it's not upside-down again..... Andrey, I am afraid it is!

Thank you, Chris! That is the difference between practice and theory.....

Gentlemen, I am not sure this is the right department to write in, but I found no better. Very recently, I bought a book from Grey Doffin. Although well packed, the parcel and book arrived in damaged condition. I informed Grey and added some photos of the damage. He immediately refunded me the complete sum, postage included, without even awaiting a confirmation of the assurance of the transport firm USPS. As a plus, I could keep the book, which is still readable. I think this is an extremely fair and generous service - you cannot expect to be treated in a nicer way! I feel this is worth to be mentioned here! Thumbs up-smilie and !

Gentlemen, reading through the many opinions on this subject, I would like to add my view as well. As far as I know, removing a MEI the Japanese way does not necessarily mean to remove material. In the first step, it is not done with a file, but very carefully with a blunt chisel, hammering down the 'cushions' on the edges of every single chisel cut. This works of course best with rather fresh signatures and might be more difficult with older blades. If the MEI strokes were not too deep and wide, a signature could be removed almost without visible traces by this method. Some patination would enhance the result. That is what I have been told. On the photos of the blade in question it is very difficult to see. I think you have to play around with light from the side to make any small irregularity visible. If a MEI removal is suspected to have taken place, I would also use a microscope to examine the surface and not only search for a concavity.

USkragnut, to address you politely, please sign your posts at least with a first name. You found a nice blade as far as one can see. The signature is perhaps MINAMOTO YOSHISUKE, but I have no information about the smith, sorry.

David, nice TSUBA which seems to have some age! I can see the irregularities in the surface, and I think they were probably caused by etching or corrosion (which is basically the same). Where do you see hammer marks and what type of hammer could have caused them?

I think it is a new Chinese metal decoration disc, perhaps not cast but from a press, and not a repro as there are probably no Japanese originals looking similar.

Jesper, these MENUKI very probably depict rats. Others will add their opinion on school or maker.

Curran, concerning the gold TSUBA: the seller carefully avoided a camera look into the NAKAGO ANA, so I presume it may be a SAN MAI TSUBA. Not a beautiful one, unfortunately. Thanks for the information!

Gentlemen, reading all these comments on fakes, I want to add my view on it. About thirty-five years ago, there was an auction of Japanese art at Lempertz in Köln, Germany. One of the blades on display was a gorgeous KATANA with HITATSURA HAMON and a very long O-GISSAKI. It looked very nice, but an advanced collector I met there told me it was GIMEI and not KIYOMARO as the signature implied. Nevertheless it looked very desirable to my untrained eyes. Later I learned that this sword was bought by a professional dealer from Japan. I could not understand this, because I thought he should have known it was GIMEI. The collector explained to me that the dealer knew exactly what he was buying (at a price of something around DM 8.000.--; quite a lot then), and he explained about the mentality of private Japanese buyers. He said this sword would very probably be sold at a much higher price to a private collector without mentioning the GIMEI - and without being asked about it either! If the sword was about the quarter of the price of a genuine KIYOMARO (or even less), the new owner would know what it was, be happy with it, keep it in his TANSU, perhaps even not telling his closest friends about the purchase, and never show it to someone to avoid being called a boaster. The German collector said, the price difference made the fake obvious, so nobody felt a necessity to talk about it. It would not have been polite to mention it. Later I learned also that O-MINOGAME, the 1.000-year-turtle, is not exactly 1.000 years old - it is just old. This and some others stories taught me that terms like 'genuity', age, 'truth' and 'original' can have different meanings in different cultures. To sum this up I suspect the Chinese fakers do not at all feel bad about their business. They might even not feel guilty when they are caught selling pirated products. To an extent this could be a question of Asian mentality.

Congratulations!

Mariusz, if it has no NAKAGO-ANA, you cannot call this a TSUBA! Is it signed, at least?

Fred, it is perhaps rare but I don't think it is interesting from the view of NIHONTO. It seems to have been Laser-cut, it is not well made and the maker does not seem to have seen a real TSUBA from close. I don't think that 'this is really beautiful', and I never heard about any 'test of time' in relation to TSUBA. Any iron having been used in a TSUBA is about 4,5 billion years old, and that is sufficient as far as I am concerned. I'm not impressed.

Peter, it seems, the x-axis is the number. I don't see an average length of blades, but in the range of the measured blades there is a significant number with a typical WAKIZASHI length and a typical DAITO length between 65 and 73 cm. Nothing extraordinary. I think the objective was not to find the average length but to explain why a certain length was predominant. Just my personal interpretation.

Thank you, Gabriel! There is a point I am curious about: are the data based upon blades in general or were they chosen with regard to SURIAGE or UBU NAKAGO?

Jean, I read that also with a smile, but on the other hand, he is an American TANUKI, so you never know....

Gabriel, the blade length is certainly related to the physical dimensions of the people who used them. A KATANA, worn in the traditional way in the OBI, has a useful maximal length when drawn, if the SAMURAI had an average height of, let's say, 165 cm, and a respective arm length. Of course, there are always exceptions, but we talk about statisics. The other side is the physical dynamics. The shorter a blade, the faster it can be moved. A longer blader is slower, but has wider reach. A TACHI, wielded from horseback, will have other requirements than a sword of an ASHIGARU. Fighting techniques and the develoment of armour will certainly play another role. So there will always be a consensus from practice in blade length if all factors are to be considered, and this comes obviously down to an average of around 65 cm.

Vern, this I cannot tell from the photo, but in any case it would not affect the value of the TSUBA. The age is not related to the value - a newly handmade, high-class TSUBA is very desirable und will increase it's value. A mass produced copy remains always a copy (not speaking about UTSUSHI). Concerning your feeling of not being sufficiently knowledgeable: This will probably not change a lot even after 50 books! Welcome to the club!

Vern, what can be judged from a photo, the TSUBA is likely a recently made copy, a decoration piece.