Chango

Guess I've just been mythbusted! Good to know...

As it's part of a set of pics from (a) Fujishiro I had hoped maybe it was lifted out of a Japanese language book somewhere with more information. As I said, a longshot I guess what I'm really interested in are any examples of Kanemoto II with a more regular (1 tall, 2 small) sanbonsugi hamon rather than the more typical artistic free sanbonsugi his work is generally noted for ...

This isn't an elitist argument and polishing a Nihonto is NOT just a matter of making steel shiny... the work of a qualified sword polisher is a highly technical and demanding pursuit requiring advanced knowledge and techniques to be done right. Certain important features of the blade can only be brought out with certain stones, skills and techniques that you just don't know. It takes a 10 YEAR apprenticeship to become a certified togishi in Japan... the difference between you and a togishi is not your race or language... it's a $*&!-load of highly specialized training and experience. So why does it matter? Nihonto were weapons of war in the past but today the majority of Nihonto value is in their artistic merits and Nihonto collectors tend to be a studied, discerning and demanding bunch. If you ever decide to sell that sword down the line it will be instantly obvious that someone who didn't know what they were doing shined the blade up and that it isn't up to the standards of the industry. A potential buyer will have to figure the costs, risks and time associated with getting the sword re-polished to the high standards of the "Nihonto world"... basically where the sword was when it first fell into your hands. Meanwhile, you will have put dozens of hours into it for nothing and all you will get for your effort is a less valuable and less desirable sword that will be worth less than it might have been, not to mention that twice as much metal will need to be removed from a blade that may be 500-700 years old, hastening the sword's final demise in the future. If that's not a good reason to back off, I don't know what is.

Probably a longshot but does anyone happen to know which swordsmith made the sword shown on page 33 of "Art of the Samurai" book by the Met Museum? The book states the photos were by Fujishiro Okisato. Thanks!

Julian, listen to these guys and don't do your own work on that blade... I understand the temptation (having fought it off myself) but even though it's probably not made by one of the top 10 geatest Japenese smiths ever it still looks like a very nice Koto piece with plenty of art-sword potential. The best course of action is patience and stabilization until you can get it to a qualified togishi. A few months of regular wiping and oiling with a HQ clear oil (like sewing machine oil) will do a lot for clarifying blade details in a non-invasive way too.

This is posted elsewhere on the forum but I bought an interesting Muromachi era katate-uchi on Ebay last year in the sub $1k price range. It's not in the best shape but is a good candidate for restoration and has a more than passing resemblance to Magoroku's work: I'm still waiting for my Masmune to show up for sale for 500 bucks though...

A cute lolita holding the Kasen Kanesada would be nice but I don't think my wife would be OK with me getting another sword...

I think it depends on the era more than anything... i.e, swords may have been considered more as "use up and throw away" items during the Sengoku era than the Edo era when they weren't as likely to be used and/or destroyed in battle. But even then there is the mystical aspect to Nihonto that is apparently taboo to modern Western Nihonto collectors. The world of the Samurai was one of magic and the supernatural and the sword played a prominent role in both worlds. This is especially true during the Edo period. I think the people of feudal Japan would be baffled by our modern interpretation of Nihonto as pure art objects and "pieces of history"... to them (in general) Nihonto were living objects full of magic that demanded respect and "wanted" to be used for their intended purpose. We are not of that culture and era(s) and are free to make our own meanings for Nihonto, but restoring them as near (and correctly) as possible to functional use is definitely in keeping with the spirit of the culture that produced them. This is verified by the fact that unlike virtually any other antique, the actual monetary value of a Japanese sword goes up with a new polish and remounted koshirae vs the same worn out old sword with bits that are hundreds of years old. There is a cultural difference too... in America we ascribe value to things simply because they are old regardless of the item in question. Maybe it's because our history is relatively short in most areas of the country (my hometown was only settled 150 years ago, for example). Anyway, it's not the same in places with longer histories and lots of surviving artifacts like Japan. In the end, I wouldn't feel bad about a total restoration of an old sword... only a badly executed restoration.

For the record, here are 3 mei from Kanemoto 3; two from Fujishiro and 1 currently for sale on Tokugawa Arts (http://www.sanmei.com/contents/media/T81251_S5892_PUP_E.html) which is probably Kanemoto 3 but may be #4

To be honest, I haven't been building a Magoroku library, but a more general Koto era nihonto happy shelf and this sword actually wasn't all that expensive as the previous owner didn't check to see what name was chiseled onto it. And yes, I'm loving it! Wish I had a bank account to match my interest but there is still pleasure to be had in the learning and reading aside from owning lots of the good stuff.

Here's a couple of pics of the Koshirae in profile with a fuchi added ... It makes for a very light, quick and well-balanced 1-handed sword that surprisingly doesn't feel too short. What do you guys think... Edo or earlier in vintage?

Still digging up info on this topic... if nothing else it will make good reading for others interested in Kanemoto school swords... Here are a few more I've found with comparisons to my blade: Two Magoroku swords that are in the Seki Sword Tradition Museum: A gakumei Magoroku Wakizashi that was on display at the Kyushu National Museum (http://www.kyukoku.or.jp/meihin/detail.php?id=00000673): : I asked about this Wakizashi in the main forum not too long ago: (http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/20725-Japanese-readers-please-help-with-a-quick-translation-of-info-card-in-seki-museum/): My understanding is that it has traits of both Shodai Kanemoto, Magoroku and Nidai Magoroku and can't be definitively attributed to one of the three. Other than the hamon pattern, my blade seems very similar to this one. Although my sword is in bad condition, a few moths of repeated oiling and wiping has gone a long way towards making the hada more visible, though I can't seem to get a decent photograph of it with my camera phone and mediocre photography skills. Here is a clear image of a Magoroku hada: After looking at my sword under magnification I have to say my sword's hada looks very very much like that.. My sword also has "hada wara" lines along the shinogi that look like delamination... another Magoroku trait. Something that is fascinating to me is how the whole surface of the blade shines like millions of tiny diamonds at the right angle with a light (in the dark) even through the surface damage. My Shinto katana doesn't do that and has a very similar look on the "in the dark" photos of a Magoroku papered katana that was up for auction on AOI art a couple months ago (http://www.sword-auction.jp/en/content/as16489sk%E5%88%80%EF%BC%9A%E5%85%BC%E5%85%83%EF%BC%88%E4%BA%8C%E4%BB%A3%EF%BC%89%EF%BC%88%E5%88%9D%E4%BB%A3%E5%AD%AB%E5%85%AD%EF%BC%89-katana-kanemoto-2nd-generation-magoroku). I wish I could show all this with pics and I've tried but they just don't turn out. As for the hamon, I now understand why it screams "Sandai Kanemoto" in my earlier pics but I think it still differs from "ginsu knife" sanbonsugi of later generations (like this one: https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/22248/lot/1119/) The sanbon-sugi doesn't deviate from the "1 tall, 2 small" pattern but the lengths and shapes of the togari and gunome vary across the blade and the hamon seems to get closer to the ha as it approaches the hamachi (though not to the extent of other magoroku blade pics I've seen): And just to drive me nuts, here's an Iaito (fake) Magoroku sword from Japan with an identical hamon (http://www.omiyage-nara.com/fs/sikaya/gd476): Does that count as a reference? Anyway my "scholarly hobbyist newbie" conclusion is that this sword falls in that "grey zone" between Kanemoto 2 and Kanemoto 3 (1520-1530's) with a decent possibility for Magoroku but I'd put my money on an undetermined Kanemoto 2-3 like the earlier mentioned wakizashi in the video http://www.militaria...in-seki-museum/ My reasons are: 1. I interpret the sword's sugata and koshirae as being intended for use as a "Katate-uchi" (Nagasa is 56 cm, BTW) which fell out of production after about 1532 according to internet sources... ... and the blade's ragged yet formerly extravagant koshirae seems to support that as the tsuka is longer than a regular edo wakizashi yet still 1-handed and the kojiri (or rather the spot where the kojiri should be) is flat, not rounded. The tsuba is katana-sized but was not fitted to the blade so it probably isn't part of the original koshirae. I also have another edo era katana with a kairagi-zame saya to compare it with and this one seems to have been far better made, thinner and seems generally older than my edo example. Still, the Koshirae may not be as old as the blade but I've gotta wonder if it's older than Edo... what do you guys think? 2. Sugata and hada seem match the work of Magoroku near as I can tell. The nakago is a dead ringer for Magoroku and I can match it up perfectly with several ubu Magoroku nagako life-sized pictures and drawings. Yeah, it's shorter (Katate-uchi vs uchigatana!) but taking that into account, they match scary-well. The mei is at least trying to advertize "Magoroku Kanemoto" but the "kane" large stroke is rounder than the majority of the examples I've found and looks more like Kanemoto 3's mei to me. The "moto" on the other hand is very much like Magoroku's and not like Kanemoto 3's, which are usually running style and are generally more sloppy looking. The Kissaki shape is also a match and it seems to have a "jizo boshi" that matches other Magoroku swords. As for the hada, it's masame on the shinogi and itame (almost mokume in places) in the ji. There are hada wara lines in the shinogi. 3. The hamon is not typical Magoroku, though some elements of the togari/gunome are similar in shape to extant Magoroku blades. In the end though, it looks more similar to later generation Kanemoto to me according to what I've learned...but I still wonder. English sources invariably state that Magoroku did irregular sanbonsugi but Japanese sources seem to leave open the possibility for a Magoroku blade with a regular-ish sanbonsugi hamon along with his more typical style(s): "After the shodai Kanemoto, Magaoroku Kanemoto appeared, and he is known as the originator of the sanbonsugi hamon. His sanbonsugi are usually gyoshotai (a kanji character style between the kaisho and sosho styles), and he does not use only one style, but uses has all kind of patterns. His hamon can contain up and down variations with togariba, and the togariba can be groups of two or three or four or five. They can be continuous and become a fused group, and between these groups of togariba the vallies of the yahiba almost disappear. Up and down uneven variations of togariba are continuous and the entire hamon can be composed of sanbonsugi. Also the hamon can be formed using mainly using round topped gunome and can be called sanbonsugi, and just like on this sword’s mixed hamon. Thus Magoroku Kanemoto made all kinds of hamon and variations." http://www.touken.or.jp/english/translation/637.htm I think I could describe my sword as "gyoshotai sanbonsugi" but I could be wrong ... any thoughts? So after an embarrassing number of hours devoted to researching this sword and spending more $$$$ in books than I did for the blade, that's what I've got. I am ready and willing to be schooled.

Yeah it's a beautiful blade but I'm guessing the majority of the pricetag is due to it's illustrious provinence... imagine owning a sword linked directly to one of the most famous warlords of the Sengoku era! That's the interesting part to me anyway...

Thank you Piers!

Still digging for Kanemoto info (especially an example in "katate-uchi" sugata); I think I finally found one. This is from a youtube video someone took at the Seki Sword Tradition Museum (@ about 3:13): He did a few videos of the museum, it's interesting stuff for for me and I definitely have to go there someday. Anyway, I am getting a confused jumble with google translate and can't tell if this info card says the short sword in the below pic is attributed to second generation Kanemoto (Magoroku) or the following generation. I'd be interested in a quick translation of the whole card if anyone could spare the time... Thanks ahead of time!

This has been a really interesting ongoing discussion; I never thought kirikomi could be such a deep subject! The general "mistique vs clinical analysis" argument is especially interesting to me as it's a tough thing to balance out, especially for a newbie to Nihonto like me. Perhaps the old saying: "leave an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" is applicable here... Anyway, what I've learned here is that kirikomi generally doesn't make a good sword "bad" but it doesn't add anything (tangible anyway) either. Also, kirikomi can't truly be traced back to actual battle damage unless the blade comes with a recorded history... and since most swords outside museums don't, it's really just a sliding scale of probability based on the era of the sword and nature of the damage. Am I pointed in the right direction?

I'm new at this too and it's hard to tell from the pics but it doesn't look legit to me... more like a fake aging job gone wrong on a modern clone. The kissaki especially looks horribly misshapen and totally wrong. Hope you didn't drop lots of $$$ on it anyway...

Look what's on Ebay today: http://www.ebay.com/itm/NBTHK-TOKUBETSU-KICHO-Certificate-GASSAN-SADAYOSHI-paper-only-for-study-/272380034208?hash=item3f6b1d7ca0:g:FIAAAOSwmfhX3VpX http://www.ebay.com/itm/NBTHK-KICHO-TOKEN-Certificate-OSAFUNE-KIYOMITSU-paper-only-for-study-/401190351444?hash=item5d68cef254:g:P90AAOSwmfhX3VtZ For sale, NTBHK papers only, "for study" It seems like it would be very easy to scam someone with authentic looking papers... especially if buyers didn't read Japanese and the fact that there's no way to verify origami outside of Japan. You wouldn't even need to luck into a similar sword; just scan them, do a little bit of photoshopping, get some similar paper and you could make the origami to any sword you want. Is this a problem for collectors? This makes Ebay seem like a very scary place to buy "papered" Nihonto...

Can't help myself! I'm in my late 30s now but I'm still at the front-end of the generation that first heard the story of feudal Japan through anime and video games and until a couple of years ago my only experience with swords was through reproductions (and now mostly from books and a couple of swords from good smiths but in bad condition). Guess I still have some mental fluff to go through and clean out as I try to learn and better understand the real deal. I do appreciate the sincere teaching I get from you guys (though I could do without most of the heavy newbie ribbing ). I'm listening and learning...

I figured the "Kirikomi Masamune" wasn't the greatest example, since it has a documented history... but then again,it seem like most Masamune blades have illustrious histories too. I made a quick video of my 1st example: https://youtu.be/Zq1wfZCV1hA I still think the mune damage at least came from another sword and I think the blade in general (minus the rust anyway) looks exactly what one would expect a good sword to look like after an hours long full-scale Sengoku era battle...though I realize it's highly unlikely such a sword would sit unpolished and unused for another 4-500 years after a battle and there are far more likely possible sources for the damage. I am definitely more enamored with the history of nihonto than the art aspect of them...I guess I have to be careful to not let it cloud my judgement when I'm putting money down for a sword. I guess the root of my question is this: if I have this sword polished, am I gonna be throwing good money after bad as most of the damage on the mune can't be polished out? Also, if pigs fly one day and I actually find this particular sword documented in period sources as something that was previously preserved in "battle damaged" condition, will I have destroyed a piece of history or saved it?

Thanks for all the information everyone, my question was answered and then some.

I see my attempt at humor has failed.

You guys are no fun. Clearly this sword was given to John Blackthorne by Lord Toranaga and was damaged as it was being used to kill hordes of evil ninjas! Anyway I'm pretty sure the straight cuts on the mune came from another edged weapon (certainly could have been practice or just messing around too) but the chipped up blade could have been caused by anything. Back to my question... This might be a bad example but say the Ishida Masamune was up for auction against another otherwise equivalent Masamune work... I guess what I am understanding is that it would likely sell for an equally high price despite having a couple big chips hacked out of the mune, mostly because it's still a Masamune. On the other hand, if you had 2 equivalent average smith's blades and one had the same kind of damage, the undamaged blade would be more desirable to collectors and a sneaky dealer would hype up the kirikomi to unload it on a less savvy buyer, right?

Exactly what I need to know. I ask because I keep seeing kirikomi advertised as a "feature" on swords for sale and am questioning that logic.

I've shown this sword on the forum before; it's got quite a lot of damage: Either it was in a serious full scale fight or somebody used it for sparring... Anyway, just wondering more in general how the market sees "battle damage" on blades?