Gabriel L

I agree with Peter. 安永五年二月日 An'ei gonen nigatsu bi (a day in the 2nd month, 5th year of An'ei). Or March of 1776 according to NengoCalc… if you take the nigatsu at face value (which you shouldn't).

There's "that'll come right out" damage, and then there's "point of no return" damage. Obviously we are discussing value from a purely monetary standpoint in this case. Everyone here who opened those photos probably had a similar reaction to me, which looked something like this: Because we recognize that it probably had value, not just monetary, but now it's a clunker with no good prospects on the horizon. That's just the issue. It is just not advisable from a cold-blooded financial perspective. It's a bad bet. Doesn't mean it's utterly hopeless, just that it doesn't make any sense to throw money at it. It almost certainly would never even break even on the restoration cost. Right on all counts. Not offhand, I'll take another look in a bit, but in the meantime I agree with Chris (it is usually safe to do so) that the omote (front) reads 阿州海部住氏安作 Ashū Kaifu jū Ujiyasu Saku (made by Ujiyasu, resident of Kaifu in Awa Province). The only kanji there I am iffy on is the "yasu," but for all intents and purposes it makes little difference in this case. You should understand though that simply translating it is just the first step, the signature and workmanship need to be compared against known examples, and that can't be properly done with the blade in this state. Gimei (false signatures) are common in antiques, many gimei were remounted for WWII, many WWII blades were inscribed with gimei as a sort of good luck charm, etc.… Hell, it could have been scratched on by someone looking to offload it on someone who didn't know better. Not saying that's what happened, but basically there are another bunch of reasons collectors will not be keen on this item. EDIT: the ura (reverse) is just too far gone for me… closest I could get is ？二刀？？？ / 本下金？？ but that is gibberish, it doesn't parse at all. See, even with all the doom and gloom, I am still loath to suggest that it should be completely sacrificed… perhaps that says something about the item, more likely it says something about me. —G.

Matt, First, you are in all likelihood completely aware of this, but I am just mentioning it as a point of clarification / semantics: fumbari is more about a short widening near the base of the blade than the overall taper from motohaba to sakihaba. It's something that is usually lost if the sword is shortened even just a few inches. Second, I remember taking a look at overall taper by year before (both for ubu and unshortened blades) and seeing very little pattern in the sample. It was pretty scattershot. But that was with a smaller sample. I may open the data again tomorrow and taking another look… I'll post again if there's anything interesting. --- This was all for an article I was going to write for Barry Hennick of the JSSUS… unfortunately I flaked out of that commitment pretty badly when I moved & changed life plans (it was a crazy time). Now that I've been reminded of it I'll try to see if I can get that article properly done before I begin my upcoming training program.

Dan, It's worth very little precisely because it has been terribly mistreated. It appears to be an antique which was thoroughly destroyed by a completely incorrect amateur attempt at "cleaning." Chris's reading, if correct, and if the mei (signature) is genuine, would indicate a smith who worked roughly around the late 1400s in Awa province. But at this point very few collectors would be interested, because: 1) It may not be possible to properly restore the blade; 2) Even if it is still possible to restore the blade (at great cost), there may be serious flaws hidden under the current surface condition; 3) Even if it can be restored and there are no flaws in the blade, the damaged tang will make it difficult to authenticate except through workmanship; 3) Even if it can be restored and there are no flaws and the workmanship is a good enough match for Kaifu school in general (or Ujiyasu specifically), collectors still won't like it because the damaged tang makes it a bad example. So basically you are facing a big uphill battle with this blade. That's why the value is basically squat. Collectors have no end of very nice sword options that are in good condition with papers & polish and mounts from reputable dealers… who wants to spend money on a half-destroyed mystery item? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news… I think you paid roughly the right price for it. Maybe someone out there will take a big chance on it, but you'd have to be lucky and find the right buyer, and they still wouldn't pay top dollar for it as Chris points out. Regards, —G.

Matt, The data is still rough & incomplete which is why I haven't put it up before… going back to the sources, I see those three swords are these ones: http://nihontoclub.com/swords/0000-0616 http://nihontoclub.com/swords/0000-0612 http://nihontoclub.com/swords/0000-0607 Stan N. of Nihontoclub contributed a big part of the sample, which is why those show up. As to Sanemori, the dating of 850 seems to be based on old sword books… more recently, Fujishiro gives a date of 987, and Sesko lists him as 1135. I think many of the super-old dates in traditional sources are probably exaggerated. The later figures are more realistic. Most of the other swords in the sample do not have this problem of course, as we have much better info on swords made in the late Kamakura period and onwards.

John, Thanks, just checking. Here is the complete breakdown by year. Please note that these are daitō (nagasa > 60.6 cm) only. Regards, —G.

John, I just averaged the sakihaba for roughly 600 daitō and got a value of 2.07 cm. Glancing at the data the sakihaba does not exceed 2.4 cm extremely often (though there are certainly some big examples). It is easy enough to find examples down at 1.8, even 1.7 cm. Are you sure you didn't mean to write motohaba? The average motohaba for that sample was 3.01 cm. Here is an old graph from this thread: http://f.cl.ly/items/1U0s3y2s233I3P2D1Y ... esData.png Obviously my sample has grown a lot since then, but I haven't published anything on it since that topic.

The lesson is, "it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings." :lol: I was skeptical, but knowing there is a WWII smith with this name, I am doing a 180° on it… still would like to see photos of the sword itself.

I have a bad feeling about this one… were there any other photos (awful or not)? Something about this seems very off to me. The shinogi-ji seems too wide, the nakago seems to have no patina, and the characters are sloppy. Plus two Kane__ in a row is weird. Maybe it is just the poor photo though, makes it hard to properly judge. But I would not be surprised if this was a Chinese fake.

As a point of interest, you may enjoy this website ("NengoCalc"), which is the best Japanese date calculator I have found. I was considering writing my own but this one appears to cover the bases. We are all familiar (I hope) with the basics of reading nenki. However I am never wholly comfortable seeing nigatsu/hachigatsu (second/eighth month) translated as February and August. Of course this works as a sort of poetic shorthand, and it is somewhat accurate in the case of post-1872 dates (when Japan officially adopted the Gregorian calendar). But ignoring the fact that 二月 and 八月 were "auspicious" months for forging—meaning many swords signed thus were not necessarily forged in those months—the historical Japanese calendar does not correspond to the western months. For example, in the old calendar 二月 is closer to March—give or take a couple weeks—than February. Unfortunately there is no simple way to match the old isolunar calendar to the modern Western date, as it varied constantly according to multiple arcane principles (including leap months, various astrological issues, etc.). Two sources, Tsuchihashi & Zöllner, wrote detailed tables which form the basis of NengoCalc. I think this calculator may be of greatest use therefore when (probably out of curiosity) one wishes to translate a nenki which is obviously specific, e.g. 享保元年五月十一日 Kyōhō gannen gogatsu jūichinichi. Casually, and inaccurately, one might translate this as May 11, 1716. Using the calculator, however, we can see that the eleventh day of the fifth month of the first year of Kyōhō corresponds to June 30, 1716 (and a Tuesday, haha) in the Gregorian. I can't imagine that this would have any significant relevance to our interest in the vast majority of cases, but it at least allows us to quote or translate certain long-form nenki with greater specificity and accuracy than we might have otherwise attempted. Cheers, —G. ------ EDIT: this site gives some more information on the difficulty of matching dates. It also appears to refer to NengoCalc, and includes the line "for dates Tenshô 10/9/18 (Oct. 4, 1582) and before, dates are in the Julian calendar." I tested it out and indeed this is the case, so be aware of the change!

I think at least one of the two is indeed Fudo Myoo… photo makes is a bit blurry and the quality of the engraving does not seem high, though. And BTW it's Sanskrit, not "sand script." More specifically, it is Siddhaṃ.

Very cool Alan. And Hoanh, good work on the photos, you're showing a lot of detail. If I could give two friendly suggestions, it would be to stop down more (i.e. reduce your aperture = increase your f-number, like from f/2.8 -> f/8). Some of your macro shots show part of the blade in focus, and just a few mm deeper or shallower the sword loses focus. The second suggestion would be to vary the lighting: try shooting the blade in a darker room with a dark area in the blade's reflection trajectory, and angle your light sources, to bring out more of the hamon. The ISO should remain low, the only thing to go up will be the shutter speed, but that doesn't matter because you have a tripod. You're doing a good job already, and with a very interesting sword. We all have room to improve however… photography is like any other pursuit, there's always the next step. Cheers, —G.

One of my favorite motifs (and done well here), though I only learned of it fairly recently.

If you look in Mr. Watson's glossary at the end of his translation, he defines zokumei as follows: Zokumei: 俗名 A name of the smith in addition to his regularly used name, for example, Hikobeinojō Sukesada. Shonosuke is a zokumei. (EDIT: as in, Fujishiro is talking about how this smith is sometimes listed with a zokumei of "Shonosuke," but the details of why this is are listed in another book.) As to the Meitō Zuikan, this is another book by Fujishiro. I don't have it and I don't think it is especially common. Perhaps Grey can find a copy.

Marius, I defer to Darcy's hard-earned experience in lighting and bringing out hataraki, but I will at least venture a couple ideas/opinions. There are a few separate elements to your post: 1. What lens would you recommend for such pics? This, to me, is the easiest question to answer; for closeups a dedicated macro lens will handily beat the 18-55 kit for image quality (including resolution, distortion, chromatic aberration, etc.). As to which one to get, that depends on your use cases, budget, current lens lineup, and long-term lens collection plans. A lot of good macros have already been discussed in this thread. 2. …and I take them freehand. Get a tripod. It is possible to take good freehand shots, even macro, but it is just SO much easier to do product/macro photography using a tripod that it is a "no-brainer" as they say. Especially since good sword lighting is typically accomplished in a relatively dark indoor environment. 3. …with a simple LED lamp… I think such a light source can be used effectively, but here we are obviously getting a lot of glare in the center and severe light falloff at the edges. That means the zone where anything can truly be seen is quite narrow. I think that to get really good results you are going to need more lights, positioned differently (probably further back and more angled, resulting in more even illumination). But this is one area of photo voodoo which requires a lot of experimenting and personal method to develop a usable solution… I certainly don't claim to have any such formula established myself. 4. The results are (obviously) so so. We have identified a few ways in which they can be improved. I would also add that your depth of field (in-focus range from front to back) is too narrow, meaning your aperture is too large (low f-stop) for such an angled shot. If you are going to angle the sword like this, and shoot closeup (macro) pics, you need to stop down a lot to get more in focus—f/11, f/16 as I said earlier. This in turn requires a lot of light or a still camera, which again circles back to requiring a tripod. ---- As you can see, only one of these suggestions involves upgrading your lens. While that will certainly eke out some more image quality and enable closer focusing, the major difficulty in sword photography is lighting, composition, technique etc. This requires much tweaking and trial and error and I am not an expert myself. Best of luck in improving your method! —G.

Darcy, that's a great point. It is totally logical yet never occurred to me before, that live view should be like an über version of mirror lockup. I use it as a matter of course, my 60D has a swiveling screen so it's a natural fit for live view macro shots. I don't have to contort myself to frame a profile image of an insect near the ground, I can just look down at the screen. And in the "studio" (cough*basement*cough) zoomed-in live view is still so helpful for for nailing focus (on a tripod with a focusing rail, usually) that it's pretty much de rigeur. Still, good to know that it actually can have such a direct effect on image quality.

Hoanh, My apologies, I did a little searching and found out that the XTi does not have a Live View function. I should have found that out before posting! In any case Live View is another luxury, one which makes focusing macro shots easier, but has no direct impact on what actually ends up in the photo; you can still achieve proper focus via traditional means (also "shoot-and-check" as you already know). Regards, Gabriel

Well that was fast. :lol: Nice tsuba Hoanh, and I'm glad you like the lens so far… I'm always nervous when someone stakes their hard-earned cash on something I happened to have recommended. By the way, if you're looking for bleeding-edge sharpness, Alan & Richard have already pointed out a big factor in using a tripod & live view to focus. To expand that advice out a bit, I'd add the following: 1) This lens is sharpest at about f/5.6 (most lenses are sharpest two stops down from wide open). 2) Although you can get good results handheld with the right light, a tripod makes everything much easier. 3) As you can see, the closer you focus, the narrower the depth of field; when shooting angled shots (like your second pic), it is typical to stop down to f/8, f/11, or even f/16 to maximize the depth of field. This lens is still very good at f/8 and f/11 and decent at f/16, but I would not go further than that as resolution begins to drop. 4) If you're on a tripod, using mirror lockup with a remote (or a 2-second timer) will give you better macro shots, since macro is extremely susceptible to camera vibrations. 5) When shooting macro, use manual focus, not auto. Live view is key: use the zoom function on the point you want in focus, so you can easily see when you nail the correct focus. 6) If you go off the deep end, you can get a focusing rail to focus by moving the camera forward and back (rather than by spinning the focusing ring). But that is mostly useful for super-fine adjustments when capturing subjects at maximum magnification… definitely a luxury rather than a necessity. I'm offering these tips on the (totally baseless) assumption that you may not already be aware of them. If you are, then please forgive my reiteration of them. As Richard points out, composition and lighting are far more important than eking out the highest possible sharpness anyway. In any case, have fun and good luck. :-)

Hoanh, I sort of addressed that (distributed between my two posts), but for the sake of clarity and accuracy I just tried it out: On an APS-C sensor camera (like yours), I need the following distances to comfortably fit a katana within the frame: 60mm: ~11 feet 100mm: ~17 feet And thanks for the compliment (or my share of it, at least).

Thanks Alan. :D You've got some nice photos there as well. Hoanh, I should point out that Alan's 100mm macro (a very popular lens, for good reason) on his full-frame sensor camera gives almost the same FOV as my 60mm macro (an underrated lens IMHO) on my APS-C size sensor. Filling a whole katana in the frame on your Rebel using the 100mm will require a LOT of distance, about 20 feet if I am not mistaken! I'm not saying the 100mm is a wrong choice. Indeed, if you combine the 100mm (for macro shots) with a general-purpose zoom )(for overall shots & versatility), it would be quite a potent combination! Just letting you know you should be aware of these issues.

Hoanh, I have a number of lenses, including the following which are germane to this discussion: EF-S 10-22mm EF-S 18-55mm II EF-S 60mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro Sigma 150mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro I love the Canon 10-22mm, but certainly not for closeup photography (e.g. swords). For one thing, it's maximum magnification is a mere 0.17x; good for a superwide and certainly enough for architecture and landscape photography, as well as special effects (superwide perspective distortion), but not quite enough for high-res closeups. Don't confuse short focal length with a short focusing distance, they are entirely different concepts. Also, at such a wide FOV, the tiniest error in perspective creates significant distortion; on an APS-C sensor, something around 35mm is going to give a much more neutral rendition for an overall view. FYI, at 22mm, getting a whole katana in-frame requires about 4 feet of distance; you certainly do not want to shoot lower than that as perspective will begin creating significant distortions. In contrast, the dirt-cheap Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II (only $200) may be the best value lens for the money there is… and crucially for this application, its maximum magnification is 0.24x, which is not bad for a non-macro lens. However if I were getting an all-around lens, I'd look at one of the higher-grade options, especially with a bigger aperture. For true closeups, a true 1:1 (1.0x) magnification macro is where it's at. I have two dedicated macro lenses, and for you I cannot recommend the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM enough. It's small, light, fast (big aperture), extraordinarily sharp, zero spherical abberation, great for headshots & product photography, not so long that it can't shoot a whole sword (with a lot of distance), etc. It's just an all-around wonderful lens. When I got it it was only $350; now it's around $470, which is a bit more expensive, but still a good deal for a lens of this quality. The only shortcoming is that 60mm requires too close a working distance (3.5") for 1:1 shots of live insects, which is why I got my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro (7.6" working distance). However, a longer focal length is going to make it more and more difficult to use it for shots of larger subjects, e.g. swords. At 60mm, you already need about 12 feet to fit a whole katana in-frame. Those are just those lenses I own which I think are relevant to your needs. There are other possibilities, and I strongly recommend you check out the following sites for excellent reviews: http://www.the-digital-picture.com http://www.photozone.de PS—As long as we are sharing our macro shots.

What about it? "This item is reserved." I could opine a little, but I'm not sure if that would be in the best form for a sale that has already gone through (and sold by a regular member of this forum).

EDIT: sniped by John. :lol: ----- Hello Karl, Nice gift. That is correct, this is an antique Japanese sword, not a WWII-made blade. Nice to get someone in here who does their homework first! It does indeed read 備中國中水田国重作 Bitchū kuni Mizuta jū Kunishige saku (made by Kunishige, resident of Mizuta in Bitchū province). There were a couple of smiths who signed this way during the early Edo period (late 1600s / early 1700s). I am not familiar with them offhand so I will research a bit and write back if I can get a better idea of which one precisely signed your blade; or a more knowledgeable member (plenty of them here) will jump in (edit: like John did before I posted this, haha). Something to keep in mind is that gimei (false signatures) were common in antiques, so just because it is signed this way does not automatically mean it is by this smith. On the other hand, I am not saying there is anything obviously wrong at first glance, and these are not super-famous high value signatures; just letting you know that more research needs to be done. On first glance the blade looks restorable. But ideally it should be brought to a club or show to have experienced people view it in-hand to check for subtle flaws (e.g. edge cracks), judge the workmanship, etc. as restoration is very expensive ($3,000+). I wrote an "owner's guide" for Reddit users that I like to refer people to. You can check it out here. It has some basic FAQs on care, research, restoration & authentication. Regards, Gabriel

Hi all. Just admiring this 1820 joint work by Suishinshi Masahide (signing Amahide after Bunsei 1 = 1818) and Masahide II (orig. Sadahide). I was surprised to see a hot stamp on the nakago, I didn't realize that practice was established this early. When were hot stamps first used, does anyone know? What kind of technological progress did Japan need to make to enable it—or was it always possible, just not traditional?

Good luck pinning it down Edward. I am just glad that Moriyama san and I are thinking along the same lines. Maybe there's some hope for me after all. :lol: