Ed Harbulak

Unfortunately, the signature is gimei. The kanji for zen of hizen is wrong for the school. The shape of the blade looks like kanbun era which would definitely eliminate the first generation. Otherwise, it looks like a nice blade

Hi Henry, I once had a Yoroi-doshi tanto that had a nagasa of 6.47 inches or 16.4 cm. The moto kasane was 0.340 inches or 8.6 cm. It was signed Omi (no) Kami TsuguHira Tsukuru. The mei did not appear to be that of the first two members of this family, but the workmanship of the nakago certainly matched that of this family of smiths. I was never able to find a match for the mei and assumed the blade was signed by a later generation. So, yes, shorter yoroi-doshi tanto do exist.

The second character of the signature, zen of Hi-zen, is written the correct Japanese way, but the entire Tadayoshi family of sword smiths wrote that zen character slightly differently. Compare the second character of the signature on your blade with an authentic example of a Tadayoshi signature. In addition, the entire signature looks very crudely written and very angular, again compare with a genuine signature and you will see the difference. Other than the signature, it's a very nice looking authentic Japanese sword and a fine first blade for your collection.

The tsuba is signed Kuni Hiro. I'm not a tusba collector, but the signature in this case doesn't impress me but others may give you a better answer.

Although black buffalo horn is quite common for kurikata, I've also seen cow horn used for kurikata, nakago jiri and saya jiri. To me your kuikata looks like cow or oxen horn. I don't think I've ever seen Bakelite used on sword parts and certainly not on older mounts before Bakelite was invented.

The first character looks like Nao to me, so maybe NaoMichi

The NTHK worksheet ATTRIBUTES the blade to Takada Moritsugu, they don't say it's signed Takada Moritsugu. They do mention there is another inscription, but that isn't translated. With so many questions, I'd certainly think twice before spending money to get it polished, just my opinion. The two characters on the nakago might be Moritsugu in script writing and if indeed they are,that would explain why the worksheet indicates the mei is Moritsugu. Then perhaps the attribution gives more details as to which Moritsugu. Still lots of questions. The nakago does look ubu and machi ocuri , but then the question becomes did Moritsugu sign in script with two characters? Still, the blade is papered by the NTHK.

Lithium grease is great for it's intended purpose, but why would you even think of putting grease on a sword blade unless you want to make a real sticky mess of the inside of the saya. Choji works fine or if you are really, really worried use a very light machine oil of the type used for sewing machines. But even then, it only requires the thinnest film of oil to protect the blade.

In the above photo of the mune, is that a mitsu mune we are looking at?

Welcome John to NMB. It would help considerably if you could provide a photograph of the entire blade without the habaki and with the point at the top of the picture. The habaki looks like a two piece habaki, but you only have half of it. Measurements of the blade would also be very helpful. Otherwise, the blade is in good polish and appears to be O-suriage. I'm sure others will provide more insight.

I'm not so sure it's a fake, the mei is signed Awa no Kami, Fujiwara Yasu? Tsuna?. But the nakago has certainly been mutilated and I don't see any yasuri. Needs further investigation in my opinion.

It's hard to tell from the poor pictures, but it looks like the tip or the blade might be missing. Might just be the lighting, but without more and definitely better pictures, it's a big gamble.

If the machi was moved up a little bit, then it would be easier to use the old tsuka and drill a new hole in the nakago. Or if a new thinner tsuba was used a new hole in the nakago would be needed. There are lots of possibilities, including making a blade look older than it really is.

The blade is dated Keicho 6 which suggests it's trying to be the shodai not the 5th or 8th generation.

I've used Mineral Spirits with good results.

Reactive Metals Studio, Inc sells the chemicals for making rokusho solution along with instructions for its use. Their web site is www.reactivmetals.com. I've tried their mixture and if you follow the directions it does produce a good black finish on shakudo, depending of course on the quality of the shakudo. As with all chemicals, care is necessary and since the solution is used at a low boil, there is also a burn danger.

In 23 years the last NCO blades made in Japan for the war will be genuine antiques and then perhaps fall into a different category. The fake NCO style blades will still be modern fakes, but unfortunately even the fakes are getting harder to identify.

I have seen a Yasukuni Shrine blade by Yasumitsu, dated May 1939 that was ubu with a blade length of 22.8 inches or 57.9 cm fully mounted in original WWII mounts. So yes, wakizashi length blades were made for military use. There were officers of shorter height who no doubt either didn't need or want a blade longer than 24 inches or 2 shaku. The blade mounts on that Yasumitsu were of high quality and perhaps the blade and mounts were custom ordered to meet the buyer's demands. Since it was an ubu, Yasukuni blade shorter than a katana, I think we can safely say wakizashi length blades, while perhaps rare, were produced during the war.

A picture of the damage would help greatly to answer your question.

The most obvious points in the limited photos you have provided are that all the crossings of the ito are in the same direction. If you look at an authentic Japanease sword, the crossings will alternate. There are exceptions, but not very many. Instead of a bamboo mekugi what you see is a screw of the type seen on some WWII era gunto blades.

Should the kikusui be on the date side of the nakago? I may be wrong, but I'd expect it to be above the maker's mei.

Johan, you really need to purchase "The Craft of the Japanese Sword" from Amazon for $27 as Darrel suggested. All, or at least many, of your questions will be answered. For one thing, every sword blade generally has some taper to it, so does the shirasaya made for it. There are NO fixed sizes of thickness, breath and width. The dimensions of the sword dictate the size, shape, thickness, etc.of the shirasaya. As to the fit of the blade inside the shirasaya, I find it helpful to cover the blade with choji or mineral oil so you can see where the blade contacts the wood inside the shirasaya. Then carefully remove the oil stains from the inside of the shirasaya BEFORE gluing the two parts together. Good luck with your project. I'm sure the second shirasaya you make will benefit from the experience you get from the first one.

Generally the fuchi and kashira match is some way. What does the fuchi look like? Perhaps a picture of the entire mounts would be helpful. Ed

I saw this sword on the Showa22 web site and if you look carefully, you can see the handle has been re-wrapped recently and not by someone familiar with how the Japanese would do it.

The family name of the swordsmith who made your blade is Motomura. He is listed in the names of the 1941 exhibition participants as "Motomura Kanemoto (Saga)". There were two WWII swordsmiths who used Kanemoto as their art name so don't get them mixed up. I think you are misunderstanding the concept of rare when it comes to the mounts your blade is in. Late in the war Japan was running out of essential materials and in order to save materials needed for the war effort, they simplified the scabbard and mountings in the last couple of years of the war. After using the type 98 mountings for most of the war, then they switched over to the Rinji style. Since it was only used for a couple of years at the end of the war, it's not as common as the type 98, but still there were plenty of the Rinji style made, so personally I wouldn't call them rare. Less common would be a better term.