Marius

Koichi-san, we have apparently discussed the SAME BLADE in the thread you have posted.

Brian, I have the impression that you can contact any other eBay user, provided that you are a user yourself. Just give me your eBay nick and I shall contact you (my nick is macmarius) best

Inhave dug out some more information on this ken. It was the blades description on eBay by Mike Yamaguchi (historian333): " Nagasa: 8.75". Moto-haba: 1.0". Moto-kasane: 0.6". _Toko taikan_ lists 4 koto smiths and 1 shinto smith who signed "Kuniyuki." I don't know which one this blade is attributable to. The koshirae (aikuchi) appears to be fairly new. Unlike ordinary ken which is usually entirely symmetrical from the blade through the nakago, this one is made asymmetical toward the bottom of the blade with slight "sori" given to the nakago. The nakago is considerably thicker (0.75") than the thickness measured at the shinogi line, so the saya is designed to house the blade without a habaki. I believe this is the way the blade was constructed and not a result of togi-heri. Ken were often made as an offering to shrines and temples (rather than as a weapon), and this might have been such a blade." Maybe this will help? I am still puzzled as much as you are.... Best regards

My friend who owns the blade says it is around 5 mm thick. So this is the thickness of a tanto blade. I asked my friend for some close-ups. He is not a good photographer though... so maybe there will be no pictures... best regards

Remy, have a look at the sugata then. What do you make of the sori? BTW, the ken did not feel or looked tired at all. Have a look at these pics: http://web.mac.com/mariuszk/iWeb/Site/ken.html Best regards

Dear all, what do you make of this ken? It has been offered on eBay by Mike Yamaguchi a few years ago (I used to own it then I decided to sell it off). It has no habaki, the upper part of the nakago holds the blade firmly in the saya. Most puzzling - the nakago is at a mild angle to the nagasa. What is it? A shrine offering? A reshaped tanto? Some pics attached. Best regards

Brian, Lazy bum that I am, I have not searched the NMB for this topic. Sorry about that. I shall be more diligent in the future. I shall also look for discussions about the impact of a signature removal on the nakago. On the other hand, if Darcy says I might want to consider doing it, I should be more confident that it won't hurt the nakago. My apologies to Darcy. Best regards

Dear Darcy, many thanks for the advice. I know that Bob's kantei would be very valuable indeed and that it might be worth to submit the sword to shinsa. I would love to have somebody knowledgeable to assess this blade, something which is impossible with pictures only. But, apart from the bureaucratic hassle of sending this tanto abroad (I would have to get an export permit), I would not quite like the fake mei to be removed. Here are two reasons: 1. I don't quite trust "repatination". OK, I am not an expert, but I think one cannot easily replace patina which has developed over hundreds of years. I have learned this reading about tsubas, this should apply to nakago as well. I am sure Bob would do a marvelous job, but I would be simply afraid that it would to an extent spoil a good nakago. 2. I also think the policy of NTHK and NBTHK not to give Hozon to gimei blades (am I right, that is their policy?) is bad as it encourages people to remove fake signatures. This is (in my opinion) a bad thing for blades where the fake mei is really old and part of the blades's history. Why not give an attribution and state that the signature is fake but the sword good? It is just that I don't mind a gimei blade as long as it is a good blade (like this "Masamune" recently on eBay). Just a thought of mine... Brst regards

Sorry about that, and thanks a lot for posting the link. Coming back to the topic of this thread - has anybody something to say about the sword? Best regards

Andreas, A Rai Kunitoshi for $4,700 You should buy it if you think it is real :D Now, I would like to respond to your reprimand. First of all, please note there is a difference between "faked" and "gimei". The first implies a fake sword, a copy, the second a fake signature on an authentic nihonto. I have never said the sword is a fake. It is a subtle, but quite important difference. As for the tsubas - I have indeed thought that they might be fake (isn't this forum also about voicing doubts?) , but I was asking experts to tell their definitive opinion. With this sword it was different, but yes I have said that I am almost 100% sure that it is not what its "name" says. You got me however, with the mei. You are right, this sword is not gimei since there is no signature at all, just a sayagaki. However, whatever the attribuition to Rai Kunitioshi (be it the sayagaki or just the seller's assessment) it simply must be wrong. You maybe a better nihonto expert than I am (this is not difficult, given my glaring lack of knowledge), but it seems that my assessment of the market is erm... a tad more realistic than yours :lol: Would you try to sell a sword of which you had the slightest suspicion it might be a Rai Kunitoshi for $4700 on eBay? Wouldn't you send it for shinsa first? This seller knows about nihonto, just look at his photographs. He sells some allegedly "big name" blades (Masamune, Rai Kunitoshi, we will soon see a Sanjo Munechika here however he does not misprepresent anything - read the descriptions carefully. I have asked the NMB members for their opinion about this sword, as I believe it is a good sword i its own right, though certainly not a Rai Kunitoshi. I would appreciate your opinion too. Best regards

Dear All, we had a "Masamune", which was a very good shinshinto copy of a koto soshu blade as Jean has remarked. Now, from the same selller, we have quite an interesting sword, a gimei Rai Kunitoshi. What strikes me is the hada, it is described as chirimen. I will ask the seller for some more pics, as I cannot really see the sugata. I would certainly like to "study" it. Now, what do you think of this sword? Best regards

Brian, I won't insist, but look at this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/Antique-18th-Centur ... dZViewItem it looks like alloy, doesn't it? Or take this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/Antique-18th-Centur ... dZViewItem That's some coper aloy shining through the "patina"? Just being paranoid.... Best regards

Wow! Then they are real. What a treasure trove! Best regards

Martin, the reasons for my guess were: 1. bad pictures 2. scarce eBay feedback 3. "Mixed material" in the description, 4. one description for all tsubas 5. "fishy" seppa-dai on some of the tsubas 6. cast alloy look on some tsubas OVERALL: Too good to be true? Some of this seller's tsubas do look good, if real, they would be really worth a lot. But the combination of the factors listed above makes me suspicious. And, I am asking experts because I am not sure if the tsubas are real or fake. i don't know enough to make an educated guess. What is your opinion? Best regards

Dear All, I have noticed a new seller on eBay, with quite a few tusbas. They all look fake to me, but I wanted to ask you if they ideed are alloy copies. If they are fake, they have gotten really better in terms of how they look. A novice (like me) could be easily decived: http://cgi.ebay.com/Antique-18th-Centur ... dZViewItem Best regards

Reinhard, thanks a lot, I appreciate your information about the Kunisuke generations :-) Since you have mentioned that your comments are about sword, I'd like to ask you to tell me what you think about this sword (besides the fact that it is most likely gimei)? Is it a good sword, what do you think about its features? Sorry to pester you, but my limited knowledge results in my insecurity of my own judgement. I like this tanto a lot. Best regards

Brian, Spot on! :-) I have dug out the seller's description of this tanto and this is exactly whom he atrributes this tanto to: "There were four generations of smiths who signed Kawachi No Kami Kunisuke. This signature and work style is similar to the yondai or fourth generation who worked during the Shinto period about 1711. The fourth generation of Kunisuke is rated Chujosaku by Fujishiro. He is said to have learned from Kuniteru because of the early passing of the second generation of Kunisuke. His work is a distinctive gunome with long ashi as demonstrated in this tanto. This tanto has a very distinctive gunome temper in nioi decki, a nice well worked mokume hada with itame mixed in. There is a very fine swept sand finish in the gunome patterns that I could not show in the photographs. The boshi is a jizo with long strands of nie and a long turn back. The nakago is ubu, one mekugi ana, file marks are o-sujikai yasuri, and the nakago is finished kuri jiri. The tang has a five character mei, and the sword is mounted in original old shirasaya. " So said the seller. Do you think he was right? Best regards

Reinhard, I do appreciate it. I bought the sword three years ago, at the beginning of my nihonto passion. I have also bought the "kuniyuki" tanto from the same seller (there is another thread on that one). He was describing the Kuniyuki as gimei, so I have found him trustworthy. He might not have known better with this Kunisuke gimei, anyway. He is not selling swords anymore, as far as I know. Today my knowledge is not much bigger that it was back then, but I know that an unpapered, signed blade is gimei. I would have bought this tanto anyway, because I think it is a good sword. What do you think? was it worth buying? Best regards

Jacques, many thanks. Since my library is in my house and I am away from it, I have only managed to look for Kunisuke in "The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" which I have at hand. I have indeed found him, so he was ceratinly above Chu-Saku. Another gimei blade in my collection, then. Never mind, I like the blade, be it only for the horse-tooth hamon I have bought it three years ago (I knew even less than now back then The seller has told me: "I can guarantee the Kunisuke as shinmei 100% textbook mei and all the characteristics on the sword are correct" Seems he was either not very knowledgeable or simply hm... dressing ups his sword... Thanks again for your help and best regards

Jacques, do you think this tanto comes from the same school? The hako-midare is much more regular on my tanto. Also, why would someone place a false mei on a sword which is so characteristic, then? Was Kawachinokami Kunisuke a swordsmith whose mei would be worth putting on a good sword (I reckon this tanto is good, isn't it?) Puzzles, puzzles, puzzles... Best regards

Dear All, here are the pics of the sugata. Any comments? For those who want to see more, here is my site: http://gallery.me.com/mariuszk#100365 Comments will be highly appreciated - a beginner has to learn continuously Thanks for looking and best regards

deleted my post, as link to pictures is not active any more....

Dear All, attached are some pics of the "Kunisuke" tanto I have promised. What do you make of this hamon and hada? Thanks for looking. I appreciate your comments very much - an excellent opportunity for me to learn :-) Best regards

Remy, I'll take some close-ups today so that we will see the features of the hamon, whch has sunagashi. Also the hada on the sword you have shown us (its muji to me) is different from what my tanto has. Best regards

Dear All, another ko-wakizashi (or o-tanto) from my collection you might want to see - if I am wrong, just ignore this post :-) With my limited knowledge I simply have to assume that all unpapered signed swords are gimei, I make this assumption for this piece too. I would like to ask you your opinion about the tanto in general and the mei, too. Attached are some pics (shot by the seller) and the measurements: Total length: 43.8cm or 16 7/8 inch Cutting edge: 32.2 cm or 12 5/8 inch Sori: 0.6 cm or 3/8 inch Best regards