Gabriel L

This is completely why I do these online translations. Every time I do, I learn way more about a given group of smiths than I would have bothered to do otherwise, not to mention reinforce my kanji skills significantly ( for instance the "kane" was immediately obvious to me simply because by now I've had to struggle with so many odd looking "kane" in previous swords). Well, I also do them because I like to see people's stuff ID'd if possible, but that's a bonus.

This is one reason I don't like gunto... so little consistency. You never know who's signing, what metal is used, what forging method, which blades were daisaku by less-skilled workers, etc. It changes from sword to sword and there was constant pressure to take shortcuts. Makes it very hard to pin things down sometimes. And then the blades themselves are so often in very bad condition... headaches all around.

Lance, many thanks. Definitely looks like that must be the Kiribuchi Kanemune in Fuller and Gregory (I have Slough's book but not F&G yet). In which case the blade in question is definitely by a different smith. That's funny about Fukumoto Kanemune, I thought I had seen oshigata of his mei that didn't match...? I have to look again, those examples look quite close, especially the last one is spot on, including the nengo. EDIT: so the example of Fukumoto Kanemune I saw was in Slough's book, and the nijimei in that example is quite different; I wonder if it is nakirishi mei? It has that choppy thin quality. Same with the examples on Dr. Stein's site (one / two). So now I'm doing a 180°, which is embarrassing, but the truth is always preferred. I can always blame that Japanese site for misleading me. —G PS The differences between the Fukumoto Kanemune oshigata in F&G vs Slough / Stein's site make me wonder if perhaps there isn't a Seki Kanemune that is poorly documented and/or confused with Fukumoto Kanemune. Or perhaps it is just a case of nakirishi mei as I already surmised. Or maybe his mei changed at some point. Pure speculation, in any case.

Howard, please don't misinterpret my comments. I'm just saying that I personally am at a loss, and that's the only recourse I would have. I am not at all saying you are wrong and I am right vis-à-vis this blade, to the contrary I was admitting that I can be of no further help on that particular point (except to speculate that it was a wartime shortcut, as I said before).

Lance, Interesting. So in a nutshell, you agree that OP's blade and the blade I posted earlier are by the same smith, but believe that contrary to the Japanese page's assertion, the smith is not Kiribuchi Kanemune; rather it is an undocumented Seki Kanemune smith. The primary basis for this idea is that the Kanetomo students (in Gunma) all adopt the same more modern/complete kanji for Kane as seen on the Kanetomo blade you posted; also, that the looser Kane form is often seen on Seki smiths. This is certainly a compelling argument. Naturally what I'd want to see next is the mei of a known Kiribuchi Kanemune sword, and/or any other Kanemune that match the previous two blades posted to this thread. I have not seen any other purporting to be by this smith online or in my books, so there's no way to verify this at the moment, and I have not seen any other Kanemune gunto documented with this mei, so it's hard to build a case for the other side as well. Still, a plausible idea. I hope we can find harder evidence for or against it. --- Henry, Thanks for the photos. As you more or less surmised would be the case, they don't help determine much more than we have already considered. However they do at least allow me to confirm that it is not stainless, matches the Japanese page's mei very well, is mounted in Type 98 mounts as you already ID'd, etc. Basically shores up our understanding. As to why you can't get a hamon to show, I have nothing more to add, other than getting a polisher to open a window would be my personal next step. Best of luck, —G.

Masame in the yakiba, itame in the ji – very striking indeed. And those are a cut above normal gunto mounts. Nice catch.

Hello, Anyone know if koshoyama.com is active? I've sent them two emails (in English) over the course of a couple weeks with no response. Thanks, —Gabriel

Mei comparison is inconclusive at best. Not very good examples, not a very consistent mei, not very well-identified generations, lots of obfuscation with photos and mekugi ana etc.

I'm thinking the Bunei 1469 one (active 1471-1507), per Markus's index it's the most common one and he made a lot of wakizashi; the steel looks not so great, I'm thinking later rather than earlier; and finally, this is the generation that was listed in the original auction, so it's the one we should focus on first. EDIT: also, it's 三条吉則. EDIT 2: I already started a new post, might as well start collecting sources: Papered wakizashi, Oei 26 = 1419 1467 Yoshinori wakizashi Muromachi Yoshinori katana (papered) Tanto oshigata, "Muromachi," gen? Mumei papered katana, gen?

[For the non-francophones out there, Rodriguez is asking if it's shoshin; he knows what the mei says and thinks the workmanship looks right for the school.] --- Bonjour Rodriguez, Bienvenue au NMB. Il faut que je vous dise qu'ici on est obligé à signer avec son nom réel; aussi, même qu'il y a quelques francophones ici, si c'est possible on demande s'il vous plaît continuer nos discussions en anglais, pour que le plupart des membres peuvent participer. Au sujet de Sanjo Yoshinori, je ne suis pas connaisseur, mais j'essayerai. Oui, vous l'avez traduit correctement (que vous saviez encore). Le fer a l'air Kotô (peut-être Muromachi), je crois, et le couleur du nakago le supporte aussi. Malheureusement ma bibliothèque n'a pas beaucoup d'oshigata pour la période Kotô; je ne peut pas confirmer ce mei. Je le chercherai sur l'internet, et si je trouve des images des mei pour cette ligne, je les mettrai ici. Pardon mon français très rouillé, —Gabriel L. --- Hello Rodriguez, Welcome to the NMB. I have to tell you that the forum rules require you to sign with your real name; also, although there are some french speakers here, if possible please continue any discussions in English, so the majority of members can participate. Regarding Sanjo Yoshinori, I'm no connoisseur, but I'll try. Yes, you have translated the mei correctly (which you knew already). The steel seems Kotô (maybe Muromachi), I think, and the color of the nakago supports that also. Unfortunately my library doesn't have many Kotô oshigata yet; I can't confirm the mei. I'll look further online, and if I find any images of this line's mei, I'll put them up here. Please excuse my very rusty French, —Gabriel L.

Like Jean, Alex, et al. I have never considered the historical wazamono rankings to have any actual meaning, except to add to the narrative/color/flavor of a given sword and flesh out its contextual value. A sword is a sharpened piece of metal. It will cut things. Whether it will kill someone or not is not based on its semi-mythical ability to cut even better (a simplistic fixation shared both by period samurai and modern anime watchers), but on who uses it and what they use it on. Put another way, even if there are substantial differences in cutting ability between swords, as there naturally will be depending on geometry etc.… do you really think those differences would be relevant against armor, or that they matter at all against an unarmored spot? And of course while the original rankings formed a much more objective assessment than had possibly ever been assembled in Japan before that point, they still don't have anything approaching the level of scientific objectivity and statistical validity that any modern test, even by a non-scientist, would be expected to meet. Besides, it seems to me that a more interesting and critical question is not which blades will cut (they all will), but which blades won't break (not all of them, evidently). Anyway I think I am preaching to the choir... and this is getting pretty off-topic now that I look back at what thread this is.

They can; but who wants to pay pro togishi prices for a sword that will never recoup the cost, and which togishi wants to take the job, are other questions. Regards, —G.

Apologies, somehow I overlooked that you've been at this site for over a year (edit: and have owned blades much longer than that). I was operating under the (false) assumption that you were a newbie to nihonto/gunto in general. My bad. I'll set aside the eternal argument about amateur polishing, the common stance of this site being well-established, and simply say in that case that it is interesting/odd that your sword has no hamon. Curious to see it. I have no personal experience with ginsui-to (assuming this sword even is gunsui-to, and not just more usual showa-to by the same smith) so I won't be able to speculate on its properties or why one might not differentially harden such a blade (but still sign and date it, etc.). Perhaps it was a metallurgical experiment. Perhaps it was simply a wartime shortcut. Maybe someone else here will know better than I; it is extremely possible. Regards, —G. PS — looking around for more info on gunsui-to, this NMB thread has some good comments. If this sword or the other were gunsui-to, they could be considered gendaito as they were folded and water quenched. However, just because Kanemune did some experimental development of gunsui-to, does not automatically mean all the swords he made were gunsui-to... that's another consideration. I'll keep looking.

Howard, As I said before, no way we can tell you what you have until we actually see what you have. Written description can give us suspicions but nobody will state anything definitive based on secondhand information. First some vocab. Literally, gunto = military sword. Gendaito = "modern sword" (1876-1945). Showato = "Showa sword" (1926-1989). However, collectors use these terms with a bit more connotation than that. Usually when we say gunto or showato, we mean a non-traditional blade (traditional blades must be folded from tamahagane and water quenched). So this includes handmade blades but with modern materials or methods, e.g. mill steel / oil quench, or machine made blades, stainless, etc. Usually when we say gendaito we mean completely traditionally made blades, like Yasukuni-to (swords made by the Yasukuni shrine smiths) or prewar swords by traditional art smiths. Of course there are exceptions to these usages, so we will often talk about a "traditional blade in gunto mounts" for instance. I am just trying to help you get the landscape sorted out. The sword I linked to looks like oil quenched handmade (and not folded). This would match with Kiribuchi Kanemune's history in developing "gunsui-to" (see this article for more information). It is still a "real sword" for practical purposes and yes, the hamon is real, just not water quenched. The hazy habuchi (transition) and lack of interesting features are common characteristics of oil quench in a factory steel. Assuming I am correct, this would therefore not be a cosmetic hamon. I think you are getting sidetracked by the poor state of polish which masks the appearance of the hamon in some areas. The mounts of that sword are the well-known Type 98 shin-gunto army officer mounts. Very common. However, small differences in style can make it a different type, so I am not stating that your sword is necessarily a type 98. As to your sword, again you must post pics before we can say anything. Stainless blades are rather obviously stainless, they have a bright clean nakago with minimal patination (not cleaned, simply naturally rust-resistant). If the blade doesn't have rust but the nakago has a patina, obviously it just means the blade was protected (e.g. oiled, kept in a dry environment with little air circulation, etc.). EDIT: here is an example of a stainless sword. This is all conjecture until we see your sword though. As to etching etc., please please please don't do that. Even if it's "only gunto" and out of polish there are very strict and correct ways of caring for these items, and amateur etching is very much frowned upon. Read the care guides here and here! A qualified, traditionally-trained togishi (polisher) can open a "window" to see if there is a hamon. That is the recommended avenue of investigation if the old polish is too hazed over to see if there is a hamon. However, it is difficult to find qualified togishi willing to do a full restoration of showato unless they are totally traditional. And it makes no financial sense because a traditional polish will cost more than this kind of sword is worth, so you only do it if you are really attached to the sword. Just fair warning. Basically, show us the goods!

You should post pics of the blade, nakago, etc. here so we can give our assessment based on more than a mei rubbing. Stainless blades can have inscriptions but I don't recall offhand seeing one with a traditional art name and nengo [EDIT 2: oops, I saw one with a nijimei on this very site a while ago, lol]. In any case I reserve judgment / comment until I see the blade itself. With that larger image I can see the nengo reads 昭和十?年四月 Showa ju ? nen shigatsu (Showa 10+? year 4th month [April]). I am still struggling with that all-important kanji after "ju" though. It could read 八 hachi (, which would make it Showa 18 (1943). I am not going to put money on that however, it's just the best fit I can see for it. I looked at the oshigata I have for gendai Kanemune smiths but haven't found a good match (yet). EDIT: so this might be 桐淵 兼宗 Kiribuchi Kanemune: http://blog.livedoor.jp/budojapan/archives/4451475.html Seems like a decent mei match, that "kane" character is very distinctive. Oh, and that sword was made in Showa 18 (1943), BTW. Lower grade gunto smith.

Howard, Pic is a bit too small, but I can see 昭和?年?月 (Showa ?th year ?th month) on the ura, and 兼宗 (Kanemune), I think, on the omote. I'll check in a bit and see if I can match the mei to a smith.

I was assuming it was temporary distraction or hunger or a similar act of god, Ken, I know that sort of thing wouldn't normally escape you. :lol: Regards, —G.

Well "ju" ought to be obvious, right? Osafune ju Kanemitsu saku? After "Kane" it gets much harder due to the resolution and glare, but I'd bet it says Kanemitsu saku.

Thanks guys. I have to make up somehow for the fact that I don't have the same experience, knowledge, or resources as some of you. EDIT: also, this is just a really good excuse for me to actually study a bit. Before today, my knowledge of this school was "Edo period, boat-shaped kanji, sudare-ba." Now I know a good bit more, which is always worth the effort. I hope Piotr appreciates it... :lol:

Sadly in my apparently very humble library I have no Tanba no Kami Yoshimichi oshigata at all. I'll just add notes here as I work... the Nihonto Koza says that the generations all resemble each other, but gradually the hada becomes "muji" (too small to see) and "the hamon becomes uniform in tone... lacking in elegance... impression of both the ji and ha being too hard." In Hawley's index, the second generation (ca. 1644-48) through sixth generation (ca. 1751-64) signed with both the kiku mon and the five-character TB(n)KYM mei. But it is not clear if the lack of kiku mon after that in the listings means that they stopped using it. Hawley's index is a little outdated and bare-bones in any case. According to Sesko's index, there are not many 3rd gen blades extant. For what that's worth. Looking for papered nidai+ examples online now... Second gen (katana): http://www.samuraisword.com.au/html/yos ... aisho.html Second gen: http://www.d8.dion.ne.jp/~y.noda/TANBA.html Second gen? Looks distinct (and better) than the first two: http://www.samurai-nippon.net/V-905/ Fourth gen: http://new.uniquejapan.com/early-edo-ta ... -in-kyoto/ Fourth gen: http://www.busido.cz/en/odborne-clanky/ ... yoshimichi Fourth gen: http://www.samuraishokai.jp/sword/13320.html Some more fourth gens, comments: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15603&hilit=yoshimichi Fifth gen: http://new.uniquejapan.com/a-tanba-no-k ... wakizashi/ Fifth gen: http://www.tokka.biz/sword/yoshimichi5.html Several gens, compared: http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/vogue33vv/8862176.html Tried to read this one, but I don't think they specifically attribute a generation, and it doesn't seem to be papered. But a very similar mei to the blade in question, I labeled it ??? in the montage below: http://kendonews.at.webry.info/201304/article_190.html So here's fun comparison I whipped up... probably the most convenient side-by-side now online, haha: This is a small sample size and only includes some of the generations. But the fifth generation mei looks pretty good to my eyes. I hope Markus will not mind too much if I post the relevant entry from his index? That's all I got.

In this case I am not at all an expert on nihonto, but I am 100% sure that that is a Chinese fake. If nothing else I am far enough along to know that much for certain.

Speaking in a purely general sense: It is possible to date blades to specific smiths (or ID them as gimei, fake signature), if enough data is available. The mei needs to be compared against recorded oshigata (tang rubbings & blade illustrations). That is just one aspect of the sword, however. The nakago (tang) needs to be evaluated, for its shape and patina and filing marks etc. The actual workmanship of the blade is key — the geometry, the pattern of the differentially hardened edge (hamon), the surface grain from folding (hada), and many other details. Ultimately you can get an online opinion through good photos, and depending on who is giving that opinion it can be quite helpful. One can sometimes be confident that a blade is gimei, but to go the other direction and be confident (as a newbie) that it is genuine, one would typically want to send the blade to shinsa (professional appraisal, e.g. by the NBTHK or NTHK-NPO). --- Speaking specifically about this blade: Please post good photos. Some tips: do not use flash. Include a photographer's grey card in the shots (or at least a white background, e.g. sheet of paper) so we can color balance if necessary. Make sure you get the images in focus and without camera shake. Experiment with lighting to yield the most detail. 1. Overall shots of the bare blade, both sides. By bare blade I mean no mounts, fittings, habaki, etc. Make sure there is ZERO perspective distortion (i.e., shoot from directly above) so we can accurately judge the proportions, curvature, shape, etc. 2. Overall shots of both sides of the nakago, again with zero perspective distortion. Aim for diffuse white lighting so we can accurately judge the color of the patina (the photo you already posted is decent enough). 3. Detail shots of the kissaki (point). Try to get the hamon (hard white edge steel) in this area to show up, so we can assess its condition and style in this critical section. 4. Detail shots of the hamon in several sections of the blade. Experiment with light to try and bring out as much detail and contrast as possible. Try aiming down the blade towards a light source, e.g. a light bulb. 5. Detail shots of the hada (surface grain) if possible. Again, experiment. Post measurements, ideally in cm: 1. Nagasa (edge length, measured in a straight line from the point to the munemachi, i.e. notch on the spine). 2. Motohaba (width of blade at the machi, i.e. notches at base) 3. Sakihaba (width of blade at the point, except I assume this blade has no sharply defined point section, so you can ignore this) 4. Nakago length With all that information... some of the collectors here might be able to give a better opinion than I could. As an exercise for myself I will attempt to ID which generation it might be based on the mei, assuming it is not gimei, and post my opinion; however, it will be just that, an opinion (and not the best one you can get here). Regards, —G.

A lot of the low stuff in this auction is relatively junky Muromachi stuff with bad hada. They are estimated accordingly. I wouldn't touch 'em.

Kiku (imperial chrysanthemum) followed by "Tamba no kami Yoshi-" -something (cut off). Presumably Yoshimichi. Kyoto branch. See here: http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/yoshmich.htm PS for future reference the first character is a dead giveaway for this school. Super distinctive.

Sean, This is a Chinese fake. The last character is "saku" (made) but I wouldn't even bother trying to translate the rest as it's not a real mei anyway. The lines are wobbly, the swirly surface pattern and amateurish kanji (directly on the blade) are all total giveaways. Stay far away.