Prewar70

Looking at these on line. Your help is appreciated.

Yup, that's mine. This is the Hawley reference I was trying to find more info from: https://nihontoclub.com/smiths/TSU211 also this: http://www.jssus.org/ijsl/?&display=entry&table=smiths&page=151&id=2711

Buehler, buehler....

Looking for more info on this Echizen smith which is very limited with the books I have on hand. Active 1661-1673, Hawley TSU 211 and I've seen reference to Hawley 247, I think, not sure which book of his that is. The two blue Hawley books I have do not have this particular Tsuguyoshi. If you have any reference I'd like the information please. I haven't been able to find much out there. Anything with the school during that time as well. Hawley rated at 15, does the smith have any other ratings, chu saku, jo saku, etc. Thanks for the help.

That is hard to look at.

Ishido school perhaps if not paying attention to the mei

How would you compare this to his other Ichimonji that recently sold? It was longer, and less money. I preferred it but curious what others say.

That is the ugliest Nakago I've seen. I wonder why it was done.

Sounds like the same thing Eric Wazamano does on eBay. This seller is in NY as well, wouldn't be surprised if they are one in the same.

I understand that, but my point is that if the blade is o-suriage, such as this, the ana cannot be in the original location. So shortened later and probably drilled

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that when I see a punched ana, the blade is close to ubu or at least retains the original ana. On a o-suriage blade thats older, it would make sense that the ana is drilled. I guess what I'm saying is to me, punch v. drilled doesn't seem to be a strong kantei point. Maybe I'm all wet too

It seems like smiths that signed this way with two characters were all early, so not being signed tachi mei is a problem. The signature and nakago look like they have some age though, but not sure if that matters. I'll post a couple pics of the blade.

Damn Ray you are good, thank you. Any other thoughts on how it "looks" or to steer me in a direction of which smith, period, etc?

Many thanks in advance.

Please, don't ask for additional pictures I've seen enough......

It's always good to keep things in perspective. $55k to some folks is like you taking a risk for a few grand for an on-line Tadayoshi that didn't paper I don't mean any offense, because I have to remind myself all the time.

Steve many thanks I really appreciate it. I know what the hamon looks like in hand of course but am curious at how they describe sobthis gives me a point of doing some research. The Katsumitsu is interesting. The ura seems classic choji but the moore is choji and then it looks like perhaps some of the clay moved? During quenching because it's smeared and undefined and looks like the most obvious bright utsuri.

Anyone please Buehler? I'll buy you a Dr Pepper.

I'm wondering what they say for the Hamon and the Boshi on the Tsunemitsu. Thank you.

+1

I haven't had the sheet fully translated yet so appreciate that info. I was reading about the Ishido school and how they were very similar in style to Bizen smiths. Who was the specific smith they wrote down or was it just how you stated. It would be interesting to see if the NBTHK would come to the same conclusion.

John thanks for responding. What are you thoughts? Good enough to see enough or cost benefit does not measure up.

I will get some pics when I get the sword back.

You can see from the pics it's out of polish or old polish and has a couple nicks in the ha. Certainly not at its best. There are no forging flaws and I'd hate for a polish to find one. You raise a good point though and wise to consider. I did have a quality shirasaya and habaki made for it to protect what I have.