DK-Prof

Cool - thanks for the super-fast replies from both of you! Thanks for all of your effort Gabriel!! I tried to use your resources, but you were much faster! So here's my follow-up stupid question. When it just says "Shimosaka" as a reference to the school, does that mean it could be either the Edo or the Echizen "side" of the Shimosaka school, or would the lack of a reference to either imply that it must be before the split in the 1640s? Or does it just mean that it could be from anyone in the Shimosaka school, from either side?

I would appreciate any help interpreting the NBTHK paper shown in the photo. As far as I understand it, the attribution is "Shimosaka" - but I am not sure exactly what that means. Does it mean a specific attribution to one of the smiths actually named Shimosaka (like SHI928 or SHI929), or is it a more general attribution to the Shimosaka/Yasutsugu school, without the attribution to a particular smith? (The paper is a Kicho paper, so I am obviously assuming it's not some big fancy or important smith). Any help is appreciated!! I've already got another blade from the Echizen Shimosaka school (made by Munemichi) with a crazy hamon, and I really like this new blade because it also has a pretty wild hamon - so I'd obviously like it if they have that connection.

Hey Alex. I do not know, but hopefully someone else will be able to chime in! Your blade is beautiful!

I look forward to seeing it! Klaus

I have a mumei (ubu) long wakizashi that was attributed to Kaga Kiyomitsu and the Tensho period by the NTHK in Tampa 2012. This is supposedly the 6th (and last) generation of the Kaga Kiyomitsu smiths from the Kaga Fujishima-Yukimitsu group. From what I gathered, he and his brother left and moved to Etchu, and he changed his name to Etchu Takaoka Kiyomitsu. Before the NTHK issued their paper, I was actually convinced the blade was made by the Sadahiro who signed “Kaga no Kami Fujiwara Sadahiro” and who appears to have worked in Echizen (Shimosaka) province from Kanbun (1661) to Enpo (1673) periods, and later in Settsu province during the Genroku period (1688). Klaus

:lol: Thanks bungo. If I go through with the deal, I am definitely going to try to beat him down a little in price, because of the "questionable" origami that I am generously accepting.

Thanks mark! The nakago definitely matches, so I'm not concerned about the blade not matching the picture. I really am confused about why the seller indicated it might not be "real" - the embossed stamp clearly indicates that the picture hasn't been swapped(in an attempt to fool a dumb non-Japanese like myself by perhaps using a "real" origami, but switching in a different photo) - and that would obviously be a pretty transparent fake, because like you said, the length wouldn't match. If anyone can tell me what the origami says about length, I can tell you that the blade should be 67.4cm (just over 26 inches) - which is a bit over two shaku, right?

Apologies about the really big images - but I figure that the detail was important. (These are images that the seller sent to me - I do not have the origami in hand, so I cannot hold it up the light to look for watermarks or anything)

Thanks for all of the responses! I really appreciate it!! The origami is certainly for Hozon, and not Juyo or anything fancy like that. So I also wondered why a forger would spend all the time to make a regular Hozen, and not even Tokubetsu Hozen fake. The origami is dated 2006 (you can tell from the photos below) - so it's purportedly not from the 70s or anything like that. As you can also tell from the photo in the origami, it is not signed/inscribed on the nakago. The seller did NOT tell me why he was suspicious, and I am definitely wondering about that. :| [/img]

Sorry to barge in here with a technical question straight out of the gate, but I have an opportunity to buy what appears to be a nice blade. Despite being a novice at this, I am fortunate to have some very well-informed people that have advised me on this - since there obviously are a lot of fakes (some better than others) out there, as well as blades that may have been damaged in a number of ways. With such good advice, I have found a blade that seems in my price range (between $3K and $4K), and the seller appears legitimate (friends of mine have purchased items from him, including blades, in the past) and he provided a ridiculous number of very deatiled photos. To further alleviate my concerns, it has a NBTHK origami with it. However, now the question has been raised (by the seller, interestingly enough) that he is not entirely sure that the NBTHK origami is "real" :? Are any of you familiar with forged/faked NBTHK origami? Is that a common problem? Have you run across such things, or heard of it? Are there straight fakes, or do people take an existing origami and switch photos? What's the deal? I have looked at this webpage (http://www.nihontocraft.com/japanese_sword_papers.html), which describes post 1982 NBTHK origami in great detail, as as far as I can tell, the origami for this blade looks similar in all the details - small marks, watermark locations, stamps, etc. However, since I am obviously a beginner at this, I definitely do not want to get totally hosed on my first large purchase of this kind. What say you? Any advice or insight on fake NBTHK papers? (I have pretty detailed photos of the origami - I should be able to host them tomorrow, if anyone is interested).