Blundemo

Jean, in reference to Jigane I meant whitish as in the blade steel looked light gray in color as opposed to a 'dark' steel associated with shitahara den. Kesho polish can make this very difficult to see, but the blade is out of polish so it's easier to see the real face. Shirake Utsuri can also contribute to the lighter color. But again, I don't really know. I've never held and examined a Shitahara sword. I paid little for the sword and although I think it's a good sword besides it's kizu, I don't think it's worth restoring/shinsa which is why I'm asking for opinions here.

Hi and yes, I'm not still not settled on Shitahara den. The Jigane looks whitish, not 'dark' as Shitahara is described. But I don't think it is Sengo school either. Sengo school made wide mihaba and thin kasane with mitsumune and the kissaki looks very sharp, not rounded fukura. Motohaba for this sword is 3-3.1 cm. I don't know how to measure Kasane. I've never seen a Sengo blade in suguha without some sort of Notare or Gunome variation to it

Jean, thank you for the links for more info. The blade definitely has all the characteristics of the Shitahara (Shimohara) school minus the mokume uzumaki hada. Looking at the hamon on this sword from the bottom up is quite pleasing. The nioiguchi is very tight and with good brightness, plus the irregularity of the suguha makes it look like a lightning bolt. I have to add one discovery I've made today and would like some help on this. I carefully examined this blades nakago and noticed something abnormal. This swords tang is abnormally thin when compared to the motohaba area. I've never seen this on any other sword, it's usually the other way around, particularly with Koto blades. It feels like steel has been removed by filing. The nakago also doesn't feel 'soft' like on aged Koto swords, it feels like rough like on Shinshinto swords. Here's how I can describe it: When holding the blade edge up and looking down from the hamachi, there is an initial thickness that pertains to the blade. When continuing to look down the nakago, it thins out. Here are pictures: Ha side: Mune side: and unless my eyes are tricking me...is that a MURA character? It's very faint and only shows up if you hold it to the light a certain way. Possibly fake signature removed by filing?

Thanks for the opinions. Shitahara school is probably more likely because the blade doesn't appear to be shortened. I don't know much about that school though, because there isn't much information I've found available. The blade is healthy, but there are some pretty bad kizu here and there, as can be seen if you zoom in on the photos. It's very well balanced and feels compact with shallow niku. The blade looks and feels like late Koto, not Shinto...but again, I'm not an expert in these things, so I don't know. Here's a better picture of Jihada. Much better results by the window if you ask me.

Hi everyone, I'm new to posting however I'm not new to the site. Lots of good information here. As I'm still a novice, I'm seeking out opinions more knowledgeable than mine. I bought this sword with the intent of studying it before releasing it out into the wild (ebay or other auction site). Looks like Muramasa den at first glance, but I dismissed that and thought it belonged to Shitahara school because some characteristics don't add up with Sengo school. However, upon examination of Jihada, it doesn't look like Shitahara either (there are no "Shitahara Rings"). Would appreciate other forum members thoughts. A few stats: Hamon is suhuga with nioi and ko-nie. Hard to determine which is the more dominant over the other, the blade is in old polish, so it's difficult to see. Nioiguchi is tight. It is not a perfect suguha and there are many ashi and yo...difficult to see anything else. I think there is shirake utsuri. Hard to tell. Nagasa is 21 inches long Mune is Iori Hada is Itame with ji-nie. This was very difficult to photograph...sorry for my bad pictures. Sincerely, Branson L.