ROKUJURO

Grev, I appreciate the interesting topic! I have no information if TSUBA have ever been tested for hardness with a ROCKWELL testing device. I would be very interested in researching about this, especially in the subject of TEKKOTSU. But what I can say as someone who works with steel and iron: pure iron is a soft, ductile material, somewhat softer than cast bronze. Steel, an alloy of iron and carbon, can be quite hard if quenched at the right temperature. We learn that TSUBA have been tested by YAGYU SAMURAI for brittleness, and we know about TSUBA with cutting nicks from a blow of a sharp blade. It is my understanding that a hard and brittle TSUBA does not serve the purpose of protecting the hand as well as preventing it from sliding forward when thrusting, but in my conviction this latter technique is much less important. When we discuss about 'hard' or 'soft' iron TSUBA we have to define if we really mean metal property or, as Henry sees it, surface quality. A nicely polished iron TSUBA with soft contours and a lustrous sheen may well give the impression of softness, but it is not the same softness as on a young woman's cheek.....

It is a SANKAKU YARI, a thrusting weapon, not primarily a cutting weapon.

Rodriguez, ce n'est pas une signature sur le TSUKA, mais des chiffres de montage. On trouve cela souvent; il semble que c'était fait pour faciliter le travail de l'artisan spécialisé. Je crois que je vois des HAGIRE sur la lame; quel dommage! D'ailleurs, si tu écrivais en anglais tu aurais un meilleur écho!

The pictures are not very helpful but to me it looks as if the TSUKA ITO (handle wrap) is quite new and not done in the traditional Japanese way. The YAKIBA on the blade looks etched. A close-up photo of the NAKAGO would reveal more. A decision after only these photos is difficult!

Thirdluck, please sign all messages with at least a first name plus an initial, so we can address you properly. If your sword has created an interest in you for the SAMURAI culture, I would suggest that you buy some basic books on the subject. We have lots of recommendations here at NMB. It will probably be fascinating to learn how to esteem a blade and how to keep it intact for future generations. Even with a non-authentic signature it is a true SAMURAI WAKIZASHI (not wazishaki) with a long history and at least a sentimental value if not a monetary one!

Merci Jean I understand. I will immediately look for UTSURI on my TSUBA.

Thank you, Dirk and Arnold! It is 74,7 mm diameter and 6 mm thick. There are indeed TEKKOTSU all around on the MIMI but they are not strong. The photo does not do it justice as the colour is a very dark brown. The surface is smooth and nice in hand. Concerning the design, I read somewhere it could be a family MON as well as a wooden rice measuring device (KOKU). Is that correct?

I purchased a NBTHK papered TSUBA which is denoted as DEN KANAYAMA. Usually these TSUBA have no MEI, so I would like to know what DEN means in this respect. Could it be a hint that this is a later TSUBA 'in the style of' KANAYAMA? Thanks in advance for your help!

Mark, a cast TSUBA copy can be worked over. The NAKAGO ANA, the HITSU and the MIMI can be filed and polished so there is no treacherous mark left. Pinholes are a hint to bad quality casting or unqualified molding material. However, as you are asking for the 'minute iron spherules on the surface', these occur when tiny particles of the mold (which mainly is a sand/clay mixture) fall off and are filled with iron in the casting process. Another hint for casting can be the contour lines which often are kind of soft and less sharp compared to a TSUBA that was formed with chisels. The spark test or the metallic ringing of a TSUBA are no reliable testing methods! A good magnifying glass will reveal everything you want to know. And of course, the comparison with many high quality TSUBA!

Marius, the TSUBA measures: w 84 x h 85 x t 4,5 mm at SEPPA DAI, thickness at FUKURIN is ca. 5 mm. Do you have an idea what school it might belong to? The SHOAMI attribution seems too simple to me when I see no real evidence. AOI's explanation for the box and the rim was: The Hakogaki is related to the tsuba F13449, The translation is as follows: "Owari sukashi Tsuba. Flower shape sukashi Tsuba, inside Hakogaki: Round shape iron plate sukashi bori (openwork engraving) Mumei Owari sukashi Later the brass hikurin (rim) was added Showa Otu Mi（1965　Showa 40) Kanzan shi (Written by Kanzan) ." To preserve the tsuba well, the brass rim was added. The iron and brass color match perfectly with the tsuba. As I said, I like the TSUBA as it is,

David, thank you for your thoughts. Are you sure that the NBTHK will find pleasure in discussing their decisions with you? I used to be a longtime NBTHK member in the late seventies of the last century, and I am sceptical in this respect. In the past, they used to have a monthly KANTEI contest, and that would probably be a better place for an exchange of opinions.

Dear Sirs Thank you a lot for your comments. I did not intend to send the above mentioned TSUBA (w 84 x h 85 x t 4,5 mm) to a SHINSA panel. But AOI/TSURUTA-SAN often sell TSUBA with a paper, and I was just wondering why a TSUBA with KANZAN HAKOGAKI did not have one. So my suspicion was that TSUBA and box might not belong together, as Mariusz suspects. It is indeed a later TSUBA, but besides all, I like the design which is probably not representing a floral motif, as Henry underlines. It was not sold as OWARI, so I had an idea why it was not expensive.

Good evening! I had the opportunity to purchase a few TSUBA, and there are some questions coming up: The first TSUBA is an OWARI, and it has a HAKOGAKI by Dr. KANZAN, but no papers. My question is if a TSUBA that has been altered, e.g. by a copper FUKURIN, will be refused by the SHINSA commission and not be papered? Would it get papers without that additional rim? Of course I would appreciate a translation of the HAKOGAKI if someone would be so kind! Thank you in advance for your efforts!

Mark, difficult to say from the photos, but as you say, the upper TSUBA looks a bit rough and not really carved with chisels and tools. For a better evaluation, you have to have it in hand. The large depressions are not necessarily hammered as in TEMPO TSUBA; they could have been carved as well. And the 'grey metal' might well be cast iron. If so, the TSUBA is not very old. But as said above, the black paint (not necessarily lacquer) prevents a better judgement. For me, the little TSUBA is not easy to relate to a school. I would look for one like KINAI who have a tradition of MARU BORI. The age might very roughly be mid EDO, but age is never an aspect of value or quality.

Mark, is the first TSUBA magnetic? On the photo I have an impression it could be a black painted copy of a TSUBA, made from a zinc alloy. But that may well be an effect of the picture. The little 'moon hare' TSUBA looks like iron and will profit from a careful restoration with a pointed bamboo, bone, or ivory tool.

Jesse, the photos are out of focus. Try again please!

Ken, I can read BIZEN KUNI no JU KAGEMITSU

Might have been used as handle of a walking stick or an umbrella.

Jason, that would look fancy but not like a traditional Japanese TSUBA. The meteorite can be forged, but it will loose the Widmannstätten pattern. If you want to keep that, you just have to find a meteorite with the necessary dimensions, cut off a thin slice and shape it like a TSUBA. Would nicely combine with a neon green SAYA, I am afraid..... The same applies to a KATANA with meteorite steel: no pattern after forging.

I don't see a reason why a Chinese person should not be able to write nice KANJI, but in this case I have a feeling that these were written by a person not trained in using a chisel.

Shamsy, these are war time swords and have nothing to do with NIHONTO. They were factory made in thousands and there is no craftsmanship involved. There are hand-forged blades in existence which were made in traditional ways.

Peter, there is a certain Dr. Stefan Mäder, who used to live in Japan for quite a while. He is known as a researcher in the field of early medieval sword blades and at one time, had Alamannic blades polished in Japan. Amazing enough, these blades had a kind of HAMON! One of his treatises can be found under: http://www.archaeologie-online.de/magazin/thema/die-alamannen/mado-wo-akeru-ein-fenster-oeffnen/seite-1/ Hope that helps!

As far as I know KO-KATCHUSHI TSUBA are mostly quite thin and can be large. The DOTE MIMI might be a hint for a KATCHUSHI design, but in this case the plate seems relatively recent and not as old as KAMAKURA JIDAI where the beginning of KO-KATCHUSHI TSUBA manufacture is located.

Looks like a Japanese blade in a south east Asian KOSHIRAE (Myanmar, Thailand or so)

Actually, the use of meteoric iron in the manufacture of blades is not very rare. It has been used by the Malayan EMPU, the smiths of the famous kriss, for a long time, and some bladesmiths still use it today in very special knife-blades. Generally, meteoric iron is low in carbon but rich in nickel content, which allows a combination with another steel with high carbon, high manganese content to receive a Damascus steel with good contrast. So it is very likely that a KATANA blade with satisfying technical properties will contain only a small portion of meteoric iron, merely for a publicity effect.