Lee Bray

Yasuhiro was a very good smith but it seems the work signed Kunemori is judged inferior although it is later.

The sword is in need of a polish so unless the seller offers it for a good price, I'll not be buying it.

Saya is damaged and seppa are mismatched so it's not ideal.

If it's not fake, it looks fairly well butchered, to be honest.

The shaping of the seppa dai is wrong.

The mimi has been rounded off somehow and poorly done.

The rectangular latch slot is either missing or filled in.

Possible work done to disguise the tsuba as civilian after the war? Why?

Looks rough to me, I'm afraid.

Poor work done to a possible gunto sukashi tsuba and I'd still lean towards fake.

Sorry.

Thank you, Sir.

No more confusion with this blade...

Went again today and it is signed, "Toto Ju Nin Ikkansai Kunemmori Kin Saku."

First, a Kunishige blade that I can't make out the province.

99% sure it's gimei but...

Second, a koto blade which appears to have had something done to it(mounted for war?) early WWII from what I can read in the mei, "Showa + 16".

Thanks for the help.

Ebay tends to do that, Henry.

It takes note of what you search for, uses that info to search for similar items, then recommends them to you the next time you log on to ebay.

It doesn't differentiate between fakes though, so use your own judgement.

Wow. Some details on those pieces, Guido.

Here's a thought, perhaps not a good one, but...

Given the swords we are seeing with rectangular 'fuchi' look to be very high ranking swords (I very much doubt foot soldiers are taking ruby studded blades into combat) maybe that is a sign, to the Chinese, of a higher level of craftsmanship?

Would it have been easier to create an oval fuchi or a rectangular one?

Then when the Chinese received high quality Japanese blades, they thought them worthy of high level fittings and so the rectangular form was used.

Perhaps the Japanese tsubako saw these extreme examples of workmanship and made their own versions.

Japanese 'copies', as it were, to sell on the local Japanese market as very valuable 'Chinese' sword guards.

They were forging their own stuff, why not forge top quality fittings from the Chinese market and try to pass them off as such?

Kind of a reversal of what we see today with the Chinese copying Japanese blades.

Just a thought...

Maybe more research should be put into who used rectangular "fuchi/ferrule".

The vast majority of Chinese swords that I've seen used an oval or circular shape in that area.

At least with dao and jian.

http://www.northernwu.com/Swordgrp.htm

Perhaps there is more influence from Tibet, as per Rheinhard' post/picture, than initially meets the eye?

Perhaps the Japanese lumped Tibet in with the rest of China without making much, if any, distinction?

Tibetan artwork has always looked very 'jumbled' and 'busy' to me, much like namban tsuba.

The work I see on everyday Chinese swords is generally not as intricate as a standard namban tsuba. Always the exceptions though, and especially with swords for the higher ranked and the big boys.

Just to add to the pics, I'm posting this piece on behalf of Roger Robertshaw.

The ball is floating and there are several 'through cuts' where the overlapping tendrils actually have space between them inside the tsuba. Excellent quality carving, imo, anyway.

A 'proper' shaped seppa dai, lead seki-gane and a Chinese(I'm assuming) kanji at the bottom.

Yes, and aside from a small section by Chris Bowen on the Yasukuni smiths that does not include Yasuhisa, I find nothing relating to Yasuhisa or "tangon dohen".

I may well have missed the relevance though. Wouldn't be the first time...

Yes, I forgot that Hawley is not the be all and end all of ratings and that for Gendai blades his ratings are less than helpful.

That won't affect my decision.

Anyone have any idea as to what "tangon dohen" means?

Either way, I have the two blue books of the sixties and they do not contain the above information.

This will be a long shot but is there anyone with an oshigata of Echizen Yasuhisa?

Thank you very much, Mark.

Something more to go on. 8 pts is not very promising though.

Stephen, the 1966 Hawley's is somewhat lacking compared to the 80's edition.

My mentor, Mr.Robertshaw, keeps threatening me with a PDF version but hasn't got round to sending it yet.

I was starting to think I should have kept quiet about Hong Kong.

There are some genuine collectors and enthusiasts over here.

Nobody wants to look at a newer Hawley's for me?

Ah well...

Apologies if this is the wrong forum section.

I'm looking for information on Onuki Hisashi. Smith name was/is Yasuhisa, of the Yasukuni tosho.

I've read about him in the Yasukuni book by Tom Kishida and any info on him seems to end in 1954 when swords were allowed to be forged again.

Managed to find these references to him in Hawleys and the Toko Taikan but my Hawleys is the 1966 version and doesn't contain this reference and I don't own the Taikan.

YAS-812 and TK-697. If anyone can post the relevant info for these, I'd be very grateful.

My reason for this search is because of a strong possibility of buying a katana in officers(I assume because of the sukashi gunto tsuba) gunto koshirae here in Hong Kong.

I've only seen it briefly but it has an interesting mei. It's in the upper left corner of the ura nakago, starting just below the yasurimei demarcation and seems a later addition. I'm assuming it's some form of dedication/shrine - I don't think it's Onkashi-to as Yasuhisa 'qualified' too late.

The Chinese seller says the additional mei is some form of polishers attribution. I've never heard of that, but...

Slough' only rates the smith at 1M yen but it seems a good sword with interesting mei. Yasuhisa seems to have been a star sakite at the NTK as he was chosen as the only sakite to go with a couple of top smiths to open a new 'school'.

So, I'm a little confused... The rating doesn't speak highly of him but there are indications that he is/was good.

Therefore, I'm trying to find out more but seem to have run out of sources.

If anyone has anything more on him, I'm all ears.

Cheers fellas.

http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/kenda ... tsword.htm

A blade made from 50% 1095 and 50% meteoritic iron by bladesmith Rick Barrett.

Scant detail in the article but a couple of pictures and the smith is easily contactable for possible information.

I'm not so sure it's traditional for the Kris but it certainly happened. From what I've read, weapons(kris) forged with meteorite ore were considered magical or talismanic.

There is a meteor known as the Prambanan meteor in Surakarta to this day which is considered Holy. It is recorded that it fell close to Surakarta in approximately 1757 and a chunk of it eventually made its way to the palace in 1784 where it was forged into various kris, some of which are still in existence in museums today.

The main body of the meteor was brought to the palace in 1797 where it now resides.

This is loosely copied from 'The Kris - Mystic weapon of the Malay world' by Edward Frey.

If anyone's interested, I can scan the pages and a couple of pics and add it here.

This is from the original translation of the "To-ken Kantei Dokuhon" ( now available as " The connoisseurs guide to Japanese swords"

 

page 326, nioi and nie, and on checking...it's repeated in the Kodansha edition... :D

 

" Nie and nioi are the crystalline effect which is called Martensite in Western metallurgical terms. There are also many other terms such as Austensite, Pearlite, Trotskyite, etc "

Page 344 under 'nie' in Kodansha edition for anyone interested.

Thank you, gentleman.

I thought I'd broken a taboo after seeing no replies for a few days. This is instructive, cheers.

Ford - Do not apologise for being 'elitist'. It is the only way traditions, especially of this age and complexity, can survive in my opinion. Once terms and definitions are diluted or changed to suit something the original intent becomes lost.

Please continue to be elitist with your opinion and your work.

Whilst it may have been very obvious to some, I'm not one to go for the 'Emperor's new clothes' and wanted something a little more substantial than the circumstantial.

I've been lucky enough for my location to find and be given the opportunity to look first hand at some very impressive swords, namely Tadayoshi and some of the Gassan school, the latest one being an Enomoto Sadayoshi. An awesome piece of work.

I think I'm still at a stage where I can appreciate the difference in quality but my brain doesn't fully absorb the details due to the 'wow' factor and and the fact that I'm concentrating on not drooling on the blades...

'Studying' pieces on the net takes away the 'wow' factor for me and leaves you to concentrate on details and not worrying about 3 feet of someone else's very sharp, very expensive piece of steel.

Pointers such as the yasurimei definition at the polish transition and the actual corner sharpness of the nakago jiri...priceless.

Thanks.

Thank you, Jacques.

Having reread my post, I hope I didn't come across as aggressive, I'm just curious as to why people think it's gimei.

The horimono is not a valid reason, in my opinion, and whilst the fact that it is a 'Kotetsu' coming out of Japan is a give away, I'd like to know what it is about the blade that says gimei.

Appreciate the pointers, Brian, thanks.

Got some pics of the blade and more info.

It's signed tachi mei as above and also dated as Showa Ju Hachi Nen Hachi Gatsu Yoshi Hi (Lucky Day in August; 1943).

The kanji for Masa is your first version.

The hamon appears to be midare.

I have Slough's reference book but no mention is made of this smith.

Anyone have any knowledge on the matter as I am looking at purchasing a blade which may well be the same one?

That's the best chuckle I've had in days... thank you. :D

I've been looking at this sword as well and as has already been pointed out, the horimono is naff, and glaringly so.

That, to me, doesn't prove a fake or a gimei straight away. It looks like a recent addition so that suggests it's covering up a flaw, although I'd rather look at the flaw than that horimono...

So with that said, what else about the blade suggests gimei?

Ignore the horimono.

Ignore his dodgy English; that maybe why he wrote 17th century Muromachi, doesn't really matter, who reads the blurb? (Apparently it's Nagahisa as well, not Hisanaga, so it would seem his Japanese isn't top notch either.)

Ignore the papers; I thought they were fake until it was pointed out to me they weren't NTHK or NBTHK.

I also have strong reservations about the seller from some of his earlier ebay introductions. I'd swear I've seen a couple of 'non Japanese nihonto' in his beginning auctions but I could be wrong, so ignore that too. :D

I'm curious as to the sword and what about it suggests gimei.

The nakago is well finished and the mei looks to be well struck.

The tameshimei appears to have been struck at another time from the mei, which I'd expect.

It looks to me like a very well made blade, although the polish/geometry around the yokote area seems somewhat rough.

I'm not looking to buy it, I'm just very curious as to its 'pedigree' aside from the horimono, and the fact that it is a cheap Kotetsu coming out of Japan.

Instinct says fake, I'm wondering what about the sword says the same?

Could be.

In my private emails with him he ended up using some rather colourful invectives and a similar style to the stuff I've read in his auctions, so I've always assumed it was the same fella.