Gabriel L

I would argue that a photo of the kissaki is very useful to help tell if it is nihonto or fake. Getting the shaping of the kissaki right is one feature which virtually every fake I have ever seen fails at. Heck, even very expensive custom-level western smiths sometimes don’t nail the Japanese character of the traditional kissaki perfectly (even if they do a high-quality job). Yet pretty much all real nihonto share certain geometrical features in the kissaki, even when the kissaki is clumsy or repaired. This one section of the blade is about as good a litmus test as they come for separating real from fake (when the rest of the blade is controversial). I don’t think you will find a hamon or hada given the condition, so that’s as it is. Also, I think an overall bare (no habaki) pic including the full nakago *and* blade in a single frame is important. Seeing the entire object is very telling.

Stephen, First of all, I for one never claimed that the mei and the scribble on the saya were done by the same hand (it is a conceivable possibility, but it never formed part of my argument). I think the scribble on the saya is absolutely post-hoc, and therefore not worth consideration. As to the mei, maybe it was done by the same hand, maybe not… Ultimately though, the mei is completely besides the point. There are more than enough specific features and characteristics of this blade to ID it as genuine (but crappy) nihonto, and NOT a Chinese fake. Show me a Chinese fake with a kissaki that correctly shaped, with a habaki that good, and with a tsuba that correct. For that matter, show me a Chinese fake that uses that same species of wood for the tsuka (a species I have seen on several Japanese koshirae in the past). You can’t, because there aren’t any. Looking at it another way, fake nakago often have all manner of horrible aspects to them (poor shaping, crude filing if any, uneven surface, ridiculous artificial patinas)… but this doesn’t look like at all like a fake nakago, it looks like a real one that has been through a fire. Significant difference. I’m not saying that it is 100% absolutely nihonto, 0% chance of being a fake. On the contrary, I still allow for the possibility (perhaps at a 10% uncertainty?). But just this once, counter-gestalt, it’s significantly more likely to be genuine nihonto than a Chinese fake. Has it been burned to hell? Manifestly. Is it crappily mounted? Sure enough. But that does not make it fake, per se. Believe me, in such cases where a blade generates this kind of disagreement among actual students of nihonto, I am pretty much always on the side of “this is clearly a Chinese fake, why on earth are some of you suggesting otherwise?” But in this case, you have to look closer than the initial gut reaction based on some of the superficial elements. --- By the way, from Grey’s site, here is one shot of the Edo no Token Koshirae book I mentioned earlier: These are slightly more “upscale” examples as I mentioned, but they are the same basic fitting type. Note that one of them has a ring, rather than a normal kurigata. Also note that the blades in these examples look fairly poor quality. I *really* wish I had my full library with me so I could A) attempt to read this page, and B) find even better examples (I’m pretty sure there was at least one example that was even closer). But my point stands that this koshirae style was a known one.

If you open a Kickstarter, I’ll gladly publicize it on SFI, myArmoury, Facebook, Reddit, etc. I’ll open an account on SBG just for it (I don’t have anything “against” SBG, just never had a reason to post there before). I’ll pass it along by word-of-mouth for those collectors who live in the “real world.” All that will probably get you… 4 actual sales total? :lol: Realistically it can be hard to get real money into a project even when it seems like there ought to be more than enough community support. But in a way that’s a really good argument for a Kickstarter. If it doesn’t work, nobody loses anything (except time, for the organizers). If it works, you have guaranteed orders. It’s no-risk. So I’m all for it.

I’m normally first to argue that a given sword is a Chinese fake (I’ve long lost count of the number of times I’ve had to persuade some poor soul of that), but in this case I am reasonably certain it’s real (but junked). The fittings are not typical; HOWEVER, they *do* resemble certain Edo wakizashi/tanto koshirae. This is not an invented wacky Chinese fake style. The oddity is that that specific Edo style is usually more “upscale” or fancy, meant for merchants or people making an aesthetic statement; whereas these fittings appear relatively crude, albeit more or less correct. If you have the books Edo no Tanto Koshirae / Edo no Token Koshirae, I know there is a similar example in there (I don’t have my full library with me so I can’t find a pic right now). More importantly, the relative proportions and shaping of the fittings are right, though not very good; Chinese fakes rarely get the balance right. And things are sitting flush and even in a way that is also rare for a Chinese fake, although again the quality is low. Oh, and the wood is a type sometimes seen on Japanese koshirae, don’t think I’ve ever seen it on Chinese fakes. When it comes to the blade, the shaping of the kissaki is way too good for 99.99% of all fakes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Chinese fake with a kissaki that correct; this feature provides an extremely bimodal split between fake and real. The overall sugata is right, and the nakago looks real (albeit in bad shape) too. The only thing that gives me pause about the blade, apart from the really bad surface condition, is the shinogi; a wobbly shinogi is a total hallmark of Chinese fakes. On the other hand, it could just be a junky example of nihonto; I have seen crude polishes of this poor quality on some authentic blades. Maybe an amateur tried to “restore” it. As far as the inscribed kanji (both on the koshirae and the nakago) are concerned, I think they might be post-hoc, but I’m not 100% on that. Regardless, they don’t look like the typical Chinese gibberish you see on most fakes. All in all, I think it is a real (but never very good) sword that has been through some very bad times. Too many aspects are “right” in ways that the fakes never get right — the overall proportions, the koshirae style chosen, the fit and shape of the fittings, the kissaki geometry, the habaki, the tsuba patina, etc.

I'm glad you found it helpful! Thanks again for all your work (not just on this volume but your other books as well).

Ben, That's the smith this signature is representing, but that doesn't mean that's the smith who made this sword. There are many gimei (fake signatures) for this smith. I am not going to give an opinion one way or another on this specific sword as I don't really know this smith well enough to even form a good opinion. But I am just letting you know that just reading the mei does not itself form an airtight appraisal. Cheers, —G. PS for the best opinion possible (by others, not by me) you would benefit from posting pics of the blade, as detailed and accurate as possible.

Hello, In the 1998 printing of Fujishiro's Nihon Toko Jiten - Koto Hen there are four new smiths not covered by my copy of Mr. Watson's translation. Would anyone do me the favor of translating the body of these entries (or even just part of it)? Their headers are as follows, and I have highlighted the areas I would like help with if possible: 1. Page 96: Naoe Shizu Kanenobu (兼信 直江志津); [Eitoku 永徳 – Mino 美濃] — Chūkotō Chūjōsaku (中古刀 中上作) EDIT: Please ignore the caption highlight, I see it's Katakiriha (Also if you can confirm the bonji that's cool, but I will try this myself anyway.) 2. Page 102: Seki Kanefusa (兼房 関); [Tenshō 天正 - Mino 美濃] — Suekotō Chūjōsaku (末古刀 中上作) EDIT: Please ignore the caption highlight, I see it's "Figure 1" and "Figure 2" 3. Page 245: Jirōbei no Jō Nagamitsu (永光 次郎兵衛尉); [Eiroku 永禄 - Bizen 備前] — Suekotō Jōsaku (末古刀 上作) (Is the year "ni-ni" {4} or something else?) 4. Page 619: Hokke Suetsugu (季次 法華); [Ōan 應安 - Bingo 備後] — Chūkotō Chūjōsaku (中古刀 中上作) ------ Thank you very much in advance! —GLL

Hi Markus, First of all, thank you so much for contributing this important work, I use it often. This is not errata, hence why I have subsequently deleted the original post I made on that thread you linked to; but I hope you will not be overly annoyed if I make a humble typographical suggestion? „German quotation marks“ are only used in German and various Eastern European countries / Slavic languages. As long as an English translation has been made (a fact for which I am deeply grateful), surely it would be a good idea for that translation to also follow English typographical conventions, most notably “English quotation marks.” It improves readability (or at least reduces distraction) for the people actually using that translation. It should not be difficult to change this, in fact; simply execute two "find-replace" functions, a 15-second operation: 1) Find “ and replace with ” 2) Find „ and replace with “ (Note that the order is important, otherwise the process will not work correctly). I recognize this is a niggling, trivial concern (it's not as if the book is not entirely usable as-is), but as an amateur typographer and typesetter, I would be remiss not to suggest it, as long as another printing of the hard copy is planned. This of course in no way diminishes the much more important and impressive job you have done in assembling this content and making it so accessible! Sincerely, —GLL PS—For anyone planning or writing a self-published book, I strongly encourage you to acquire Bringhurst's venerable "The Elements of Typographic Style," or at the very least to read through the (free!) site "Butterick's Practical Typography." It will make a world of difference in terms of the professionalism of your typesetting, and consequently elevate the "voice" of your message to something more authoritative. Such is the power of design, fair or not...

Fun piece. "Beat" Takeshi's enthusiasm came through in the video, and it was cool that he got to try his hand at tsuchioki. And it's always nice to see a master at work.

The irony is that Picasso actually produced massive numbers of prints and drawings, many of which are thoroughly unremarkable (to put it gently) and go for relatively little money nowadays... pretty much anyone gainfully employed who wants to can own a genuine Picasso.

Now I've seen everything. I get both sides of this, but from my own humble perspective, I have to wonder – is it folded & hardened? And if so, why is it not polished on the ura at least? I agree with you Ford that you can't doubt it's well made (and anyone can see that it's beautifully shaped and filed and carved)... I'm just not seeing if there's any more intrinsic quality to this piece, as opposed to "just" value by artist. I mean, I'd love to have it, but not for $15k, even if I had that kind of money to spend.

Thanks for the photos Ian. I'm afraid I don't have much substantial to add. These photos confirm that it is definitely a WWII gunto (as in, the blade and mounts were made for each other, it is not an older blade remounted), which in turn solidifies the identification of Okada Kaneyoshi (there wasn't really any doubt before, but making an ID solely on the mei is not ideal). It seems to have a genuine hamon, but as is unfortunately often the case with WWII bring-backs, the poor condition obscures any finer detail. It is accordingly difficult to say for certain if it is an oil quench or water quench, if it has a hada, etc. However if I absolutely had to bet, I would suspect oil quench, non-traditional make. That is not an appraisal, just a hunch based on the information available. An experienced person might be able to tell more in person, but maybe not. Anyway that's all I can really offer. Regards, —Gabriel

Sometimes I worry that the availability of information online has backfired. This example is still obvious to an experienced collector or student, but it could fool a whole lot of new people. Ultimately I am comforted that to make a truly good sword, there is no shortcut. So as long as we only buy good swords, we have nothing to fear. But I do worry that in the future, the low end of the market will be completely conflated with convincing fakes. Which would essentially devalue whatever worth real Showato might otherwise possess (eg as militaria).

Barry is talking about assembling koshirae from antique bits and pieces, but of course you can commission new koshirae. Not that that will necessary be cheaper… top flight custom koshirae can be a bottomless pit too!

I see. Thank you!

Thank you very much Kunitaro-san. Just for example, from Markus Sesko's index: So in these cases and similar, you would say that 左兵衛 would be better translated as Sahyōe? I ask this with very humble respect to Mr. Sesko, I only used his index to find these examples because it is so very convenient; elsewhere he lists names with these kanji as Sahyōe and he is not the only one who has included "Sabei" examples. Hence my question in the first place.

Hello, This is not so much a "translation assistance" as a "reading preference question." I know romaji is ultimately a flawed method of transcription, with a lot of competing systems and alternate readings. But just for my own sake, do you prefer to read 左兵衛 as "Sahyōe" or "Sabei," and why? How is it typically pronounced in spoken Japanese? Is there any historical or linguistic reason to favor one reading over the other? I am presuming that going kanji-by-kanji one would choose the former, but perhaps in usage it is closer to the latter? Regards, —G.

Ian, Assuming the reading is correct, and that the difference in mei quality from the example posted is due to typical wartime variation (kazu-uchi mei, nakirishi mei, etc.): The style of the mei, the state of the nakago, the name used, the fact that it is a WWII bringback, etc. all suggest that it is a WWII gunto (military sword) by the Seki smith Okada Kaneyoshi. There is little reason to suspect gimei (false mei) in this case because it is a lower-value smith making gunto. To be more specific he was rated chu saku (middling quality, 5th rank out of 7) by Kurihara Hikosaburo, and 4th seat out of 5 by the 1941 Shinsaku Nihonto Denrankai. Many such smiths in Seki mass-made swords for the military; a few of these swords were made via traditional methods (folded tamahagane steel, water quench), most via hybrid or shortcut methods (unfolded mill steel, oil quench), and quality varies greatly from smith to smith and sword to sword. Generally though these blades are significantly less valuable than an average traditional sword. I am of course assuming there is no inscription on the back of the nakago (or surely you would have posted it). Although workmanship (hamon, hada, shape, nakago, other details) can absolutely be distinctive enough to kantei (appraise) a sword to a specific smith, that is generally more true for art-grade swords, in polish, by established traditional smiths. Gunto, especially mass-made swords, often are not in good polish and not distinctive / well-made enough anyway to allow for easy kantei. Still, a given sword is compared against known examples by the same smith to make a determination. It is never possible to say definitively how good a sword is without seeing the actual sword, and you have only posted one side of the nakago. Why don't you post more photos of the blade? Nothing more can really be said until we at least see it. Mounts too, if it has any.

I was about to say I thought the second character was Ta (Da), which would mean the first wouldn't be Seki. But I was still looking for possible readings. I still find the "Kane" character odd, but that is more likely because I am still a beginner at reading mei, and not because there is any good reason to doubt it. Thanks!

Definitely Seki (?) (?) Yoshi Saku. I'm not entirely sure of "ju Kane," I want to keep looking...

Oh duh, I was thinking in terms of Fujishiro's two volumes which are Koto + "Shinto" (& Shinshinto). I missed the fact that Jacques had already mentioned "9 shinto and 3 shinshinto" explicitly, so there are 12 total saijosaku smiths in the "Shinto" volume.

I'm surprised he didn't rate Kiyomaro as saijo saku, Jacques.

Wim V. made an index of the Koto Hen. Here are all the Koto saijosaku smiths: Aoe Moritsugu 青江守次 (Ninpei 1151–1154 in Bitchu province) Aoe Tsunetsugu 青江恒次 (Jogen 1207–1211 in Bitchu province) Awataguchi Hisakuni 粟田口久國 (Kenkyu 1190–1199 in Yamashiro province) Awataguchi Kunitomo 粟田口國友 (Jogen 1207–1211 in Yamashiro province) Awataguchi Kunitsuna 粟田口國綱 (Kennin 1201–1204 in Yamashiro province) Awataguchi Kuniyasu 粟田口國安 (Shoji 1199–1201 in Yamashiro province) Awataguchi Kuniyoshi 粟田口國吉 (Koan 1278–1288 in Yamashiro province) Aya (no) Koji Sadatoshi 綾小路定利 (Bun’ei 1264–1275 in Yamashiro province) Bizen Saburo Kunimune 備前三郎國宗 (Koan 1278–1288 in Bizen province) Bungo Yukihira 豊後行平 (Genkyu 1204–1206 in Bungo province) Chikushu Sa 筑州左 (Shohei 1346–1370 in Chikuzen province) Etchu Norishige 越中則重 (Genkyo 1321–1324 in Etchu province) Gojo Kanenaga 五条兼永 (Chogen 1028–1037 in Yamashiro province) Goro Nyudo Masamune 五郎入道正宗 (Karyaku 1326–1329 in Sagami province) Hatakeda Moriie 畠田守家 (Shogen 1259–1260 in Bizen province) Hikobei (no) Jo Sukesada 彦兵衛尉祐定 (Entoku 1489–1492 in Bizen province) Ichimonji Muneyoshi 一文字宗吉 (Jogen 1207–1211 in Bizen province) Ichimonji Norimune 一文字則宗 (Jogen 1207–1211 in Bizen province) Ichimonji Sukefusa 一文字助房 (Genryaku 1184–1185 in Bizen province) Ichimonji Sukemune 一文字助宗 (Jogen 1207–1211 in Bizen province) Ichimonji Suketsuna 一文字助綱 (Koan 1278–1288 in Sagami province) Izumi (no) Kami Kanesada 和泉守兼定 (Eisho 1504–1521 in Mino province) Jiro Kunihiro 次郎國廣 (Gentoku 1329–1331 in Sagami province) Jiro Saemon (no) Jo Katsumitsu 次郎左衛門尉勝光 (Eisho 1504–1521 in Bizen province) Ko Aoe Sadatsugu 古青江貞次 (Jogen 1207–1211 in Bitchu province) Ko Bizen Kanehira 古備前包平 (Eien 987–989 in Bizen province) Ko Bizen Masatsune 古備前正恒 (Eien 987–989 in Bizen province) Ko Bizen Nobufusa 古備前信房 (Eien 987–989 in Bizen province) Ko Bizen Sukehira 古備前助平 (Kanko 1004–1012 in Bizen province) Ko Bizen Tomonari 古備前友成 (Eien / Katei 987 (1235)–989 (1238) in Bizen province) Magoroku Shodai Kanemoto 孫六初代兼元 (Kyoroku 1528–1532 in Mino province) Miike Motozane 三池元真 (Joho 1074–1077 in Chikugo province) Ohara Sanemori 大原真守 (Eien 987–989 in Hoki province) Ohara Yasutsuna 大原安綱 (ca. Eien 987–989 in Hoki province) Osafune Kanemitsu 長船兼光 (Kenmu 1334–1336 in Bizen province) Osafune Mitsutada 長船光忠 (Ryakunin 1238–1239 in Bizen province) Osafune Nagamitsu 長船長光 (Koan 1278–1288 in Bizen province) Osafune Nagayoshi (Chogi) 長船長義 (Joji 1362–1368 in Bizen province) Rai Kunimitsu 来國光 (Genko 1331–1334 in Yamashiro province) Rai Kunitsugu 来國次 (Genko 1331–1334 in Yamashiro province) Rai Kuniyuki 来國行 (Shogen 1259–1260 in Yamashiro province) Rai Magotaro Kunitoshi 来孫太郎國俊 (Shoan 1299–1302 in Yamashiro province) Sabei (no) Jo Kagemitsu 左兵衛尉景光 (Gen’o 1319–1321 in Bizen province) Sanjo Munechika 三条宗近 (Eien 987–989 in Yamashiro province) Sanjo Yoshiie 三条吉家 (Kanko 1004–1012 in Yamashiro province) Sengo Muramasa 千子村正 (Taiei 1521–1528 in Ise province) Shintogo Kunimitsu 新藤五國光 (Showa 1312–1317 in Sagami province) Shizu Saburo Kaneuji 志津三郎兼氏 (Koei 1342–1345 in Mino province) Soshu Akihiro 相州秋廣 (Joji 1362–1368 in Sagami province) Soshu Hiromitsu 相州廣光 (Enbun 1356–1361 in Sagami province) Soshu Yukimitsu 相州行光 (Kagen 1303–1306 in Sagami province) Taima Kuniyuki 当麻國行 (Shoo 1288–1293 in Yamato province) Togenji Sukezane 藤源次助真 (Bun’ei 1264–1275 in Sagami province) Toshiro Yoshimitsu 藤四郎吉光 (Kagen 1303–1306 in Yamashiro province) Ukyo (no) Suke Katsumitsu 右京亮勝光 (Bunmei 1469–1487 in Bizen province) Yoso Saemon (no) Jo Sukesada 与三左衛門尉祐定 (Taiei 1521–1528 in Bizen province)

There's also Thomas Buck. And I think Samuel Rediske?

Dealers should come much later in your studies as has already been suggested. However, when you do get around to looking at stuff for sale, know that this very site actually has a decent list already posted: http://www.nihontomessageboard.com/links.html