Gabriel L

I should have also posted this (cropped) closeup of the paper. FWIW Harry, I don’t think the boshi runs off. It’s hard to see but it looks good to my eyes (for example, look at figure H in my collage). Here’s a question: they look like old NTHK papers yet they seem to be dated from August 20, 2010 judging by the last column. What’s going on here? It’s too bad we can’t see the other side of the papers. Working on the transcription: Column 1: 第　|　一. 五九二 号　|　種別　|　刀 Serial: item #592 – classification: katana Column 2: 銘文　|　吉次 Mei inscription: Yoshitsugu Column 3: 寸法　|　長さ 弐尺 五寸 四分 Dimensions: length 2 shaku, 5 sun, 4 bu (77.0 cm, 30.3”) Column 4: 特徴 (Features): Right sub-column: 鍛 板目…柾まじり　刃文 湾れ (…Can anyone help with this part?) Kitae: itame mixed with masame, hamon notare (…) Left sub-column: 鋩子 小丸　中心　壱　勝手下がり Boshi komaru; nakago ichi(?) katte sagari Column 5: 備考　|　長享頃　平成二十二年八月二十日??? Remarks: approximately Chōkyō (1487–1489); August 20, 2010 [something]

I didn’t see it, but I’m watching it now… Here’s the paper in the meantime: Yoshitsugu… looks quite nice. Here’s a very messy photo collage from the footage:

Mei in image is very faint and seems incomplete. Can you post a photo of the whole nakago, with light that highlights the mei better? Looks like 備州長船平? — Bishū Osafune Taira something, but the "something" is hard to read and doesn't seem like a very good match to the few smiths recorded as signing with that exact string.

Brian, The numbers in the graphic all correspond to the numbered links in my earlier comment. So this is #3. I don’t read the Japanese language proper and unfortunately no papers are pictured, but I presumed from the recognizable line 特別保存刀剣 (Tokubetsu Hozon Tōken) that it must be NBTHK papered. Of course I could be wrong…

Thanks Brian. The sound of crickets chirping after I made that post was a little disconcerting. :lol: Obviously they serve as study exercises for me too, and I do make them with the intention of being able to refer back to them if and when another sword with that mei shows up. But I appreciate the recognition since they do take a bit of labor. --- On that note, I noticed a few more details: The primary vertical strokes of all the mei lie just to the left of the nakago-shinogi, EXCEPT on this sword, sword #3, and sword #10. But again, though #3 and #10 are very similar in mei, the sword in this thread is clearly different. Though I said that this sword (maybe I should call it #0?) is closest to #1, there are still many discrepancies. For example, note in the 宗 mune character, the lower-left stroke on all the other mei somewhat extends off the horizontal line of the “J” stroke; but on this sword, it is very disconnected. Also, the 守 kami character has a stray horizontal stroke inside the “box,” which is different from all the other mei. The “handwriting” feels similar (but not identical), but the details are off. When you combine the myriad discrepancies, it reduces my confidence in this sword: Several small details in the mei significantly different from all the other mei (and definitely different from #3, #10) Nakagojiri is a less-pronounced iriyamagata than the majority of others (except #3; #6 and #10 suriage) Mei vertical strokes lie directly on / on the wrong side of the shinogi, contrary to all others (except #3, #10) Again, there are too many possibilities: earlier style, different generation, daimei, random outlier, gimei, etc. But basically if it were me I would want to examine the actual workmanship of the blade very critically. Regards, —G.

I put all the mei in my previous comment side-by-side. The numbers in the image refer to the numbered links from my last comment. If you click on the image it will take you to a higher-res version. EDIT: NOT TO SCALE Some notes: There’s a lot of variation here, and very little effort to distinguish between possible generations. Everyone seems to list theirs as the shodai, but in that case I think there’s either some gimei or else misidentification happening. The common nakagojiri seems to be a pronounced iriyamagata. That makes the sword from this thread and sword #3 outliers (a more rounded and gentle iriyamagata). Sword #3 also has a notably different mei quality from most of the others, including from this sword (but is similar to sword #10). Swords #6 and #10 are suriage of course, preventing comparison on this basis. The common yasurime is sujikai / kesho for every sword except #9. That takanoha is therefore rather suspect. The angle of the iriyamagata jiri and the mei quality are both odd too. For sword #10 (the suriage NTHK [Yoshikawa]), this is the only nakago signed “Tada,” and the mei is very different from the others. I don’t see any other examples of this smith signing with “Tada” (although it is apparently a recorded signature). The mekugi-ana is placed differently with respect to the central ridge as well. This item is a clear outlier, but on the other hand it is very similar in mei style to sword #3. Sword #1 is perhaps the closest match to this sword (but is not perfect). It is hard to come to a definitive conclusion based on mei alone, especially in this case. I think that the reflex attribution being listed on the dealers’ pages (everyone’s a shodai!) seems to be obviously wrong unless the shodai changed his mei style significantly several times. Even if you accept that more than one generation is represented here, it is still difficult to cleanly separate the generations based on mei and nakago. There is of course also the possibility of gimei. ***NOTE: the actual NBTHK papers I have seen for these blades never attribute which generation; the listing of “shodai” or “1661” is consistently listed by the dealer, not the paper. Ultimately shinsa would be necessary to at least compare the workmanship of the blade itself with known examples, but with so little precision evident in the existing papered attributions, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the identification of which generation specifically a given sword might be… I welcome thoughts from anyone else on this matter.

With respect Chris, I think it’s 常陸 (Hitachi), not Mutsu. It looks like you might have flip-flopped the kanji position when checking the province? Markus lists at least two “Hitachi no Kami Muneshige,” a 1st gen in Kanbun (1661–1673) and a 2nd gen in Genroku (1688–1704). Both wazamono. EDIT: in fact this exact same sword has been discussed here before. There is a clearer mei pic and an overall nakago photo in that thread. For anyone wanting to do mei comparisons: 1. NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon – katana (namban tetsu, ubu) - click the url in the middle of the page for more pics 2. NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon – shodai? katana (namban tetsu, ubu) 3. NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon – katana (namban tetsu, ubu?) 4. NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon – katana (ubu) 5. NBTHK Hozon – katana (ubu) 6. NBTHK Hozon – [shodai?] katana (namban tetsu, suriage) 7. NBTHK Hozon – [shodai?] wakizashi (ubu) 8. NBTHK Tokubetsu Kicho (green paper) – [gen?] katana (namban tetsu, ubu?) 9. NBTHK Kicho (white paper) – [gen?] katana (suriage, but with takanoha yasurime? Suspicious) 10. NTHK (Yoshikawa) – shodai? katana (namban tetsu, suriage) 11. Unpapered? katana (machi okuri?) 12. Unpapered? wakizashi (namban tetsu, ubu?) There are other examples, but they’re never-ending… seems he was a very prolific smith! The board literally won’t let me post more links, so this seems like a good place to stop.

Having habaki fit requires much greater precision than any scanner + 3D printer can manage. Probably a good saya could be made (edit: except you'd still need the real habaki…). Maybe an acceptable tsuka, though I am skeptical. EDIT: actually I’m sure you could do a good tsuka, I misread 0.1mm as 1mm… I think the idea could make sense for previewing the sugata of blades before ordering online… but this presupposes a future in which 3D scanning a and printing is so cheap and common that even the traditionally non-tech-savvy nihontō community participates. Another cool idea would be maintaining sugata copies and maybe painting oshigata on them as teaching / study tools. Oshigata are very good as are photos, but a 3D object is much better for relating size, thickness, taper, etc. Finally I can imagine with accurate scans one could apply statistical analysis to categories of blades to refine a sort of diagnostic kantei machine, à la IBM's Watson computer. Coupled with hataraki input, the results could be interesting.

Your father had a lovely collection. I’m glad you seem to appreciate your inheritance* and thanks for posting these interesting and attractive pieces. *I know someone whose father collected kodogu, but then they passed on to my acquaintance’s sister… who pawned them or turned them into brooches etc. The sister was none too pleased about it but couldn’t do anything either.

Where did you get a box of Kanzan oshigata? …And can you post some?

Speaking humbly, I am of the opposite opinion of Peter – it looks like it was ordered by someone with questionable taste and a very low budget. It is odd and interesting, but far from excellent in either workmanship or aesthetics. We at least agree that it is probably a late job. On a side note, I instinctively suspect from the sugata that it was converted from a broken sword. This would be hard to prove though (easy to disprove if the nakago is suriage or ubu).

…Not all of us share your infinite knowledge of the universe. Holiday spirit from everyone aside , in this case Grey already stated as much, and there is a quote by Fujishiro to this effect. “There are no genuine works with the mei on them” – H.W.’s translation. But yes, “book knowledge” or no, I think it’s been firmly established that it is gimei… FWIW I agree that the mei is beside the point as it looks like a very nice Sōshū-den blade in good mounts. I hope Glenn will have it restored and we can see the results posted in the future. On that note Glenn, I did give some contacts on the first page of this post… the same people who can help with polish or shinsa can arrange other restorations like tsukamaki etc. Cheers, —GLL

Can you post a better photo of the first couple date characters? Second looks like 治, followed by ?年二月 (? year second month) but I can’t begin to guess the first kanji. Too bad about the mekugi-ana blocking such a critical section of the nenki… You can submit it to shinsa (NBTHK or NTHK) in Japan. There are agents (e.g. Paul Martin, Chris Bowen, etc.) who may be able to help you with import/submission/export, or maybe this Australian dealer can give you advice. Maybe you could contact the Sydney Token Kai for help as well.

Kengo! It was even in Markus's entry, but I missed it. :lol: I'd buy that interpretation, thanks Chris. Also I somehow missed the "kore" at the end. Need new glasses I guess. EDIT: Adam, that makes it: Suō kuni Yamaguchi jū Shinryūshi Kengo Fujiwara Nagahiro kitau kore "Suō province Yamaguchi resident Shinryūshi Kengo Fujiwara Nagahiro forged this"

Back on-topic… Here is the best I could do to un-distort and enhance the nakago photo: With this I can say more specifically that it seems to say the following: 周防國山口住 真龍子 謹? 藤原永弘鍛 Suō kuni Yamaguchi jū (Shinryūshi?) kin (?) Fujiwara Nagahiro kitau Suō province Yamaguchi resident (Shinryūshi?) careful/respectful [something] Fujiwara Nagahiro forged Obviously I am not sure of several characters, in particular the second character of the putative "Shinryūshi" doesn't match and I'm not sure about the "kin-?" following it. Please treat this as a candidate translation, not the final word. Adam, this Nagahiro is rated above average and is moderately valuable, and gimei (false signatures) do exist. These photos are not really good enough to assess if the signature is correct or not, especially since the workmanship of the blade is crucial in making such a judgment. Even with better photos however it would probably have to go to shinsa (professional appraisal) for a definitive assessment of the authenticity. We can advise you on restoration, but it is expensive (several thousand dollars) and you assume a lot of risk, e.g. if it turns out to be gimei (false signature). There's a chicken-and-egg problem in that it ideally should be in good polish for shinsa, but you don't know whether to spend so much money without shinsa. Value of the blade depends very strongly on quality of the workmanship and authenticity of the signature, so we can't really tell you how valuable it is in its current condition, at least not based on these photos. Best case, it's in good enough polish that it can go to shinsa, then you decide if you want to restore it. We await further photos. :-) Regards, —GLL

Welcome! Per the forum rules please add your real name as a signature in your user control panel (first name & initial is fine). It is a genuine traditionally-made blade. As to whether the signature is authentic (i.e. if it is gimei or not), that is a separate issue. I’ll try to make sense of it but the included photo isn’t quite good enough to see the mei, and the transcription is a little scattered, so we’ll see… You’re welcome. Oh, I see Matt has already contributed. To give you some context, “Suo no kuni junin Shinryushi Fujiwara Nagahiro” basically means “Shinryushi (family name ) Fujiwara (common honorary clan name for smiths) Nagahiro (art name), resident of Suo province.” EDIT: this is assuming that Matt's reading is correct, which is hard to say from the poor photos. The date seems to be Meiji sannen nigatsu kichijitsu according to your friend’s transcript, which means a lucky day in the second month of the third year of Meiji (1870).

With all this talk of the suspicious mei I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned how blatantly artificial the patina looks. Am I crazy?

EDIT: I don’t need the entire translation, just anything that they say about the blades. Of course an entire translation would be nice too! Hello, Would anyone do me the favor of translating these captions? It is in relation to the debate on this thread. EDIT: Shoot, I just noticed that that was only the caption for one sword. I am also attaching additional captions relating to this page. Thanks so much, —GLL

There are two pages of bonji in the back of Hawley’s centenary edition, FWIW. I haven’t compared the list to see if any of them haven’t already been shown in this thread.

Ask and ye shall receive!

Second one is Fudo Myoo, most common bonji. I’ve actually wanted to put together or find a good bonji list since the Nihonto Kanji Pages gallery no longer had the images... haven’t done so yet, though, so I don’t recognize the first one off the bat. Cheers, —GLL

Yep, total fake. Sorry.

Kurt, It’s a less standardized market than some. Price is influenced by (absolutely not in any particular order): Artistic quality Condition (polish, nakago, flaws, etc.) Age Rarity Size “Collectibility” (ancillary documentation, prime example of a particular feature, accessory items, part of a set, etc.) Paper level, date, comments, and organization Reputation of the seller Rating systems (e.g. Fujishiro) Featured in reference texts or exhibits And so on... But of course you knew all that. The point is, how do you disentangle all these variables to come up with a single number? You develop a sense of price by watching deals go down over the years. Even if you don’t know the closing prices on some things, you can at least see the relative values by watching dealers’ sites/tables/shops, tracking auctions, trolling the classifieds, etc. Early on, NTBHK paper level (Hozon, TBH, Juyo, TBJ, etc.) offers a pretty good “bracketing” system for prices – one reason why papers are so desired in the first place, is because they significantly affect resale value. Eventually it does come down to “how much am I willing to pay for this?” People, even educated and intelligent collectors, can have wildly different opinions on what makes something desirable or not. Sorry that all I have to offer is this non-answer, but really that’s how it goes as far as I’ve ever been able to determine. Cheers, —GLL

Wow Markus, that's spectacular! I really appreciate it, you saved me a lot of inefficient work. On the other hand I'm glad I did at least one entry myself as it both helped me learn more kanji and spurred me to continue at least a casual self-study of the language. Warm regards, —GLL

OK, so nobody wants to do the heavy lifting… I don’t blame you. Unfortunately I don’t actually know anything about Japanese grammar, etc. and have not studied the language outside of mei kanji. But I bit the bullet and laboriously looked up each kanji for the first entry, then tried my best to interpret the phrases logically. Could someone please double-check my translation of this entry and answer the specific questions / doubts I have? 1. Kanenobu --- 兼次門 左衛門尉と称す, 作品先反短刀 小五ノ目乱 草の龍, 剣, 梵字等の彫を見る He is of the Kanetsugu Mon and is called Saemon no Jô. Earlier works include curved tanto with ko-gonome midare hamon. I have seen horimono of so no ryu (arabesque dragon), ken, bonji etc. Questions: First of all, I’d like to be sure the translation of “earlier works” is correct. Also, Fujishiro writes 反短刀, and I took 反 as shorthand for “sori,” so interpreted the phrase as “curved tanto.” Is this right? Likewise, he uses 乱 alone, and I am assuming this is a shorthand for “midare.” Please confirm. --- 小五ノ目乱匂締まり小錵つく, 小反備前, 吉井等に似る. Ko-gonome midare in tight nioi with ko-nie attached. Kozori group in Bizen; resembles Yoshii etc. Questions: pretty sure I got the translation right, but I don’t get what 小反備前 (Kozori Bizen) is doing in the middle there. Is Fujishiro indicating that this smith is part of that group, or is it supposed to belong to the next phrase (Kozori-Bizen, Yoshiie etc.)? Having trouble interpreting the intent. --- Thanks very much to anyone who can help with this! Doing it this way (having never taken a Japanese lesson) takes me a damn long time, so any charitable soul who wants to also go ahead and translate or transcribe any of the other entries is more than welcome...