kyushukairu

Hello Paul, It’s a shame that you have just joined the forum. I was attending antique fairs in Tokyo for the past two years (at least two fairs a week), but recently moved to Kyushu (where there are a lot more swords at temple markets). I always found Tomioka to be a bit hit and miss. The tosogu was mostly lower end and over priced (when I was last there), but there was one good dealer (who is always at the Yurakucho International Forum fair), who has some good quality items.

無銘　（文珠） Mumei (Monju) (切付銘) 殺負威光 [殺 - kill/ murder, 負 - defeat/ loss/ assume responsibility, 威光 - power/ authority/ influence] (Kiritsuke mei) The power to assume responsibility for murder

Brian, fortunately/ unfortunately the tsuba has now sold. I’ll be making a small donation at the end of the sales, so hopefully that will help a little with the forum bills. Chris, that is remarkably similar, perhaps the Knights Templar escaped with their gold to Japan

Indeed Piers. It would require a great deal of time and patience to cut each of those shapes by hand and to ensure that it lines up with the next one

It’s what rank and file in the British army would refer to as a bit of ‘Gucci kit’

The tsuba in the Ashmolean Museum

A large (74 x 70mm) and heavy shakudo plate cut with shippo design. There is an almost identical example in the Ashmolean Musuem signed by Goto Mitsutoshi. A visually impressive piece with a well executed design £SOLD

It could be certainly read as that, Uwe. However, I based my reading on the example in the meikan, where it is listed as ‘no shin’ (の臣), with 臣 meaning ‘retainer, subject, minister’, and which I interpreted as ‘a subject of South Matsuyama’ (南松山の臣). The artist is given as residing in Iyo, which was also known as the Iyo-Matsuyama domain, so it makes sense that they are a subject of South Matsuyama (in Iyo). Going off this interpretation, assuming there is some connection with the artist in the meikan, I read Grey’s tsuba as suggesting that the artist signed as the ‘subject of 南家’ rather than the location ‘South 家臣’. Assuming the correct reading is ‘subject of 南家’, alternative readings to Nanke are ‘Nange’, ‘Nanka’, ‘Minamike’ and ‘Minamiya’. It might be possible to determine the correct reading by researching Iyo-Matsuyama domain and searching for 南家 and hopefully the name will also be given in hiragana.

The first character is possibility ‘Kuni’ (國) and looks similar to the way Rai school smiths carved it

It looks like Nanke [no] shin (南家臣) Shigechika (重愛 [花押]) I couldn’t find a 重愛, though it is likely the same artist as 重周 (which is also pronounced Shigechika).

The Choshu tsuba is signed ‘Kiyoharu’ (清春), and I agree with John that the second looks like Kaneuji (包氏)

Personally, I don’t see any problem with the papers. Although they are all older, the attributions seem spot on to be - Onin, Heianjo, Kyo-sukashi, and Owari. If the papers had big names on them and were clearly spurious, that would be a different matter.

Nōshū jū Akinobu (濃州住亮信) A day in March 1945 (昭和廿年三月日) *Instead of 二十 for 20, they use the old character 廿

With regard to the horimono, the first mention is just a basic description: ‘On the surface: plum tree (表: 梅樹) On the reverse: elementary ken carved in relief (hitsunai), claw’ (裏: 櫃内素剣、爪) And the part Jussi already mentioned: ‘Plum carving is Echizen horimono’ (梅の彫越前彫物である) Regarding the smith, it was made by ‘Higo [no] daijō Fujiwara Sadakuni’ (肥後大掾藤原貞国). The explanation mentions that ‘the scenic ji is the forging of the Soshū den, and can be seen in the Echizen faction such as Yasutsugu and Sadokuni’ (地景の入った地は租州伝の鍛であり、康継・貞国等越前一派にみられる) and that ‘Sadakuni did more suguha than Yasutsugu’ (直刃は康継より貞国に多く) Here’s the excerpt about Sadakuni from Sesko’s Index of Japanese Swordsmiths: ‘SADAKUNI (貞国), 1st gen., Keichō (慶長, 1596-1615), Echizen – “Higo no Daijō Fujiwara Sadakuni” (肥後大掾藤原貞国), “Higo no Daijō Sadakuni” (肥後大掾貞国), “Echizen no Kuni Shimosaka Sadakuni” (越前国下坂貞国), Shimosaka school, he signed first with Kunikane (国兼), there exist several theories regarding this smith, one says that he was the brother of Dōtanuki Masakuni (同田貫正国) and moved during the Tenshō era (天正, 1573-1592) from Higo to Echizen province whereas he signed with “Higo Dōtanuki Fujiwara Sadakuni” (肥後同田貫 藤原貞国) whilst still working in Higo, another theory says that he was the master of Kotetsu (虎徹) and another one sees him as student or younger brother of the 1st gen. Yasutsugu (康継), from the point of view of workmanship, there seems to exist a certain connection to the Mino-based Shimosaka school and the honorary title Higo no Daijō was back then primarily granted to Echizen smiths, e.g. also to the 3rd gen. Kanenori (兼法) and the 1st gen. Yasutsugu, many katana and tantō of Sadakuni are in katakiriba-zukuri and have the typical wide mihaba of the Keichō era, but there are also smaller tantō without sori extant, the jigane is an itame-nagare with ji-nie or a dense ko-itame mixed with ko-mokume and/or masame, the fine ji-nie on the latter interpretations identifies them as Yamashiro-oriented, the hamon is a nie-laden suguha or suguha-hotsure, partially with ko-ashi, the bōshi is ko-midare, sugu like the rest of the hamon, or a slightly undulating notare-komi, mostly with a ko-maru-kaeri whose turn-back starts late, we know various horimono which are mostly quite fine, for example ken, gomabashi, bonji, Fudō-Myōō, or santai-butsu (三体仏, three Buddhas), the tip of the tang tapers to a kengyōlike kurijiri, the yasurime are sujikai, the signature can be small and fine or large and thick, jōjō-saku.’

As Bruce has correctly stated, it’s an authentic sword, and in military mounts, though the blade itself is a lot older, and quite likely from the Edo era. However, whether the signature is genuine is another question… I have attached some shoshin (genuine) examples of Masanori’s signature for you to compare yours with.

It is signed ‘Yamato [no] daijo Fujisawa Masanori (大和大掾藤原正則)

The tanto is signed Kuniyuki (國行). The torokusho does not belong to that tanto, but is instead for a mumei wakizashi with one mekugi ana, a nagasa of 49.5cm, and sori of 1.3cm

The attribution is ‘Nagasaki shippō’ (長崎七宝). No date is given.

To me, it looks like 江氏, but that does not seem to be a place or a surname... It’s most likely some variant on Edo (such as 江府） Ps. The reading of 李 is ‘Sue’ (I think you may have mistaken it for 孝), and the name also use the older character 隨, but it still has the same reading as 随, so the smith’s name is most likely Sueyuki.

On the lid: Ichijō (一乗) Snowflake design tsuba (雪華文鐔) Inside the lid: Cut-corner mokkō-shaped shakudō (隅切木瓜形赤銅) Snowflake design thick-rim (雪華文土手耳) Signature: Gotō Hokkyō (銘後藤法橋) Ichijō [kao] (一乗花押) Summer 1969 (昭和己酉夏) Recorded by Kanzan [kao] (寒山誌) [花押]

Quite a nice design. To me, the mei looks like “Bushū jū Masatsune” (武州住正恒)

The mei looks like ‘Yasufusa’ (安房). I had a quick look in the meikan and it seems there was a smith by that name who was a student of Yasuchika. However, as can be seen in the attached image, the style of the kanji is slightly different and there is no kao to compare. With regards to the oxidisation, I have had a low-grade shakudo tsuba with some light patina issues like that in the past and the application of choji oil cleared it away. However, you may want to seek the advice of those with a background in metalwork before using choji, just in case it has any detrimental effects upon the integrity of the metal.

Bruce, I recommend the book Yasukuni-to. A member also recently listed it for sale for a fair price:

A field officer’s parade tassel box in my collection, with a very well preserved label. From left to right: Type i - Field Officer - Correct Tassel (い號 - 左官 - 正緒)　 Tokyo, Kudan (東京九段) Kaikosha Canteen Department (偕行社酒保部)

Bruce, The name on the mei seems to be ‘Moriwaki Kaname’ (於湊川神社森脇要作), and I think the year may be Showa 16/ 1941 (昭和十六)