Chango

I understand you can never go back in time and 100% verify a sword's damage was actually sustained during a historic samurai battle, but when kirikomi is pretty obviously damage from another sword like straight cuts and skips on the mune: and can't be polished out, what is the practical effect on the sword's real value?

Just for fun : http://www.emuseum.jp/detail/100511/001/002?word=&d_lang=en&s_lang=en&class=6&title=&c_e=&region=&era=&cptype=&owner=&pos=65&num=2&mode=detail&century= Question: I recently bought a Kanemoto blade that also has lots of kirikomi on the mune and shinogi ji + a moderately chipped up ha. I think it will polish OK and that the ha can be restored but most of the other kirikomi along the mune is probably too deep to polish out. I gather that serious collectors aren't impressed by kirikomi (and for good reason... should have seen what I did with reproduction swords when I was a kid!) but when it's pretty obviously damage from another sword in the right location(s) does kirikomi actually hurt the value of an otherwise good sword? Would it ever actually add value if it wasn't historically documented damage? Some dealers seem to hype kirikome as a sales point, kinda feels like it's just a hook to fish for starry-eyed newcomers to the hobby...

Guess I should have found a better link! Here's a better one with real examples: http://www.sho-shin.com/katteuchi.html

Looks like the question has been answered by smarter people than me but here's a good quick summary:http://www.thesamuraiworkshop.com/university/content/5/272/en/kata_te_uchi.html Bottom line, a katate-uchi essentially is an O-wakizashi (or barely past the arbitrary 2 shaku limit for a daito) 150 years or so before the definition of a wakizashi was formally enshrined in law by the Tokugawa Shogunate and decades before wearing a daisho was standard. It was intended as a "quick-draw" secondary offensive weapon for unmounted warriors but by the time of the Sengoku Jidai, trends and tactics favored the longer (2-handed ) katana over the katate-uchi. I think the so-called kazu uchi mono mass-produced blades were the "rank and file" swords of the Sengoku Jidai and they were like the OP's sword, only of much poorer quality. This is just my own random guessing but this is also around the decades when metal plate armor showed up on the battlefield to counter matchlock guns; maybe 1-handed swords just weren't up to the task? Swords were of lessor importance on the battlefield anyway so it could have just been dictated byfashion. Ultimately you'd have to define "katate uchi" by their short nagasa, sakisori, short nakago and having been made in that 1450-1530s time window, not to mention being mounted as one and not a wak/katana (just like how a tachi is only a tachi if you don't mount and wear it upside-down ) The concept didn't die though... instead it evolved into the shinogi zukri wakizashi as part of the daisho, so you could have the benefits of both a shorter 1-handed and longer 2-handed sword on your belt.

A bit too late and too big for a "katate-uchi"; such swords fell out of favor by the early 1530s and had shorter nagasa and nakago/tsuka for strictly 1-handed use Just plain "uchigatana"... not a bad sword though!

I had a reproduction cavalry sabre (made in India) once with a scabbard exactly like that one, might be a sword cobbled together from various original WW2 and modern replica parts. Regardless it's not a Nihonto; if you want a gunto it might be wiser to save your pennies and buy a nicer (and more collectible) one.

Yeah, this one is eating me alive and if it's not haunted already, the sword will be after my head explodes all over it. For the record I've been trying to focus on the features of the blade, not the mei and I don't think I'm dealing with a gimei sword because all the other features match so well with the school but I have been wrong before... just ask my wife! I really do think there was a big group of smiths pumping out piles of "Magoroku Kanemoto" blades throughout the 1500s; I don't know how else there could be so many of 'em with so many small variations in museums and private collections nearly 500 years later.

Yes but Magoroku's signatures have an awful lot of variation. Here's a few I've collected, some with comparisons. From: Mino toko Meikan: From Hosokawa Collection (Book Lords of the Samurai: Legacy of a Daimyo Family): From Victoria and Albert Museum: Various internet examples: ...And probably closest match I've found, from Marcus Sesko's reworking of Nihon Koto Shi (pic 338, page 263) Now that example isn't identified as Magoroku in the book, just Kanemoto, along with other mei which are Magoroku Kanemoto that I've found in other sources as well. Could it be Sandai Kanemoto?

Thanks Darcy, I appreciate your advice and I think that's a fair assessment considering the information I can provide online. While I am still learning, I've done A LOT of searching, reading and online comparisons with every Kanemoto blade I could find from all generations. I'm thinking the same person who made this sword made mine: http://sanmei.com/contents/media/A69044_S1290_PUP_E.htm It seems the style of the sanbonsugi in the Sanmei example is very similar with the smaller roundish gunome and tall (but still somewhat rounded) togariba of varying heights but otherwise laid out in the standard "1 tall, 2 small, 1 tall" pattern. It's hard to get in pics but under the right light the tight unbroken whitish line outlining the hamon pattern (Nioguchi?) is visible on my sword too; in my pics it throws off the true shape of the hamon somewhat as you are only seeing the "inside" of the hamon, not the whole thing. I'm not so sure there is a hadori polish on my sword as was discussed earlier; what looks like a "suguha hamon" at an angle seems to be a result of the whitish "haze" in the steel from the ha to about the depth of the lower gunome in the hamon, as can also be seen in the sanmei example (and other Kanemoto examples I've seen pics of): And the mei for comparison: Now Sanmei attributes their sword to Magoroku but the NBTHK papers only name Kanemoto without a generation, so I have to wonder... do they have it wrong, or do I? I would hope they are a wee bit more knowledgeable than I am though. Another thing that makes me wonder is a spot of thick black scaled rust on the blade just above the habaki that looks just as old as the rust on the nakago and the large amount of kirikome (many straight cuts and "skip marks" across the mune and shinogi ji, not to mention fairly heavy blade chipping). Anyway, it would seem it's been a LONG time since my sword got a polish and it's either been in a serious fight or was purposely damaged to look that way. The damage is not consistent with someone just "messing around" with the sword; it's generally where/how samurai trained to block attacks with their blades and most heavily chipped along the ha where the blade would contact with the most force. Finally, the damage seems non-fatal to the blade; there are no cracks and plenty of room to polish out the chipping (minus the damage on the mune anyway) so being a (presumably) fine Kanemoto sword, why didn't it get repaired and used again back then? The next piece of the puzzle is the koshirae; even if it's not a Magoroku Kanemoto, someone must have thought it was something special to dress the blade in kairage-zame. The saya and tsuka are almost certainly made for the sword but the tsuba (obviously an Edo piece) was not fitted for the blade and rattles around so I don't think it was originally part of the koshirae. Other than a single menuki (a war fan tassel) the rest of the fittings are missing so I can't tell much other than it seems to be much older wood/same and of finer workmanship than my other similarly dressed (late edo koshirae) Tadayuki: So the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this sword was donated to a shrine after a battle during the Sengoku Jidai or kept as a trophy and past down within a samurai clan until it was looted after the war and brought to the USA. Yeah, I know it's just a guess but regardless of whether it's a second or third gen Kanemoto it very well might have a documented history somewhere. Anyway, I am continuing to look for more information and intend to preserve the sword in it's current condition until I have some assurance that It's not an important historical artifact. I'd be grateful for any advice on where to go looking for information and constructive critique on my analysis and/or random starry-eyed musing... I know every new guy seems to think his battered old sword is a priceless treasure but I'd rather look like a fool online than be the guy who let a real priceless treasure slide by unrecognized or get messed up from thoughtless restoration due to his lack of knowledge!

Plain silver according to Hosokawa Tadaoki's teamaster.

Thanks! It's definitely not a cast reproduction; the gold wire inlay is real and the piece is naturally aged. I've cleaned it up quite a bit too; there was a lot of grime and rust obscuring the details when I got it. Although it was on a sword I bought it was not fitted to the blade and would be too loose for actual use. The sword is also missing it's fuchi/kashira so I suspect the tsuba is not an original part of the koshirae. I appreciate the info, now I have more to go on as I look for comparisons. Thanks again!

I'd be grateful if I could get some help on identifying the school, era and if possible maker of this tsuba, as well as an idea on the motif/symbolism of the tsuba and menuki if anyone knows. These pieces are from the Kanemoto wakizashi I asked about in the Nihonto forum. Unfortunately I'm missing the second menuki. Thanks!

Gotta agree Paul... it's far too easy for me to get overly excited about this one and with my lack of knowledge on the subject it's also too easy to fill in the blanks with potentially bad guesses. Kanemoto is a hard school to research; there's a dearth of information and examples but just about everyone who has a Mino sword with Sanbonsugi seems to be trying to shoehorn their blade into Magoroku's description (and who can blame us, after all it quadruples the value! ) creating too much bad and/or conflicting info and the workmanship among Kanemoto smiths is apparently very similar if even the the NBTHK has trouble placing them in specific generations. For example, the Connoisseur's Guide says Magoroku did a "Jizo" boshi and later gen did Ko Maru but there are plently of dissenting examples going either way. Another is that Magoroku's hamon was "drawn" very low on the blade and hugging the ha, but I've seen quite a few dissenters and some that I wonder if the hamon appears so low simply because the blade has been polished down so much as there is only a tiny or no hamachi left. Other sources say Magoroku had a very wide variety of sanbonsugi patterns from barely identifiable as sanbonsugi at all to quite regular in execution. I had an easy time identifying, studying, verifying traits and feeling comfortable with ID-ing my first sword (Tadayuki) even though it's in worse condition. This Kanemoto is proving to be much harder for me... ... still, if nothing else I'm learning a lot, have begun to establish my personal nihonto library and am having a good time!

I think it must be Jean but then I keep finding stuff like this which throws me off and makes me wonder: This example seems to really match my blade well (Nagasa is 60 cm on the example vs my sword's 56 cm). I thought it was a second generation Magoroku Kanemoto (Kanemoto 4) based on google translate of the website but I found an oshigata of the same sword on Nihonto-no-Bi: http://www.users.on.net/~coxm/?page=oshigata_sword_k45 which identifies this example as Magoroku Kanemoto along with an inscribed date from 1528. The Kissaki pics aren't quite right in my comparsion (picture of my sword was taken at an angle) but other than a slight variation in the angle of the yokote the actual blade matches the oshigata when resized on my phone/computer and placed under the sword. Likewise, the nakago is slightly longer on the example but otherwise is a perfect match and the Mei seems very close (I've found other Magoroku attributed swords that show the minor variations between my blade and this example, such as a more rounded "Kane" character and the mark above the "moto" that is pointing up at an angle rather than parallel). Is it possible Magoroku Kanemoto did regular sanbonsugi toward the end of his carreer or would it be more sensible to figure later generations very closely copied Magoroku's sugata/mei? Guess I need shinsa for a definitive answer but considering the evidence I'm thinking there is a possibility my sword is Kanemoto II, unless I'm missing crucial information somewhere. Am I interpreting this right?

Yes Jussi, of all my obsessions this one has been one of the most enjoyable and got me in the least amount of trouble... not a bad deal! Thanks Jim, I haven't come across a couple of those yet... the 4th gen does have a very similar sanbonsugi. The blade has cleaned up some more and I can make out my sword's hada now; looks like masame on the shinogi ji and a masame itame and/or mokume (wood grain pattern anyway!) mix below that. There are also a few lines that look like delamination; apparently that's actually a (shodai) Magoroku trait according to what I've read. The whole blade shines like crushed diamonds in direct sunlight despite the sword's surface damage and the nioguichi? is visble as as tight thin unbroken line outlining the hamon pattern. I don't know... the nakago is a perfect match for Magoroku, sugata matches (http://imgur.com/e4otKU3 and is the right size and with koshirae for a katate-uchigatana which fell out of favor in the early 1530s) the mei compares well with his too (although the semicursive "kane" and square "moto" character with the "hook" on the left stroke combination doesn't seem to be together on the same sword as often) and all the features of the blade seem to match up as well, minus the regular sanbonsugi pattern (although I swear I can see all the individual gunome shapes on my sword scattered throughout Magoroku's extant examples). Then again, maybe I've just been thinking about it for too long! It would be beyond amazing to have discovered a Kanemoto 2 in the ebay junk pile but a later gen Kanemoto is nothing to frown at either. If nothing else it seems to have originally been a very high quality blade that someone thought very highly of and has apparently seen action (and survived it, not to mention a few centuries of sitting around), so I'm a happy camper either way. (Edit) My pic attachments aren't working for me sorry for the big pics:

http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2014/1410_1000syousai.htm Still finding interesting Kanemoto examples... I think this is now officially an obsession.

Thanks Darcy; I enjoy your posts and always learn something new from them! As a new guy looking around, I do have to wonder, what is this obsession with papers all about. Is it the same among Japanese collectors? Is it due to a lack of collector's confidence in their identification skills, the mountain of (frankly) garbage and outright fakes we have to sift through to find quality nihonto, the hassle, price and intimidation factor of putting a sword through shinsa, maybe all of the above and more?

During my info digging I've found there is an incredible amount of variation in swords attributed to Kanemoto 2 (Magoroku), multiple variations in the mei and seemingly exceptions to nearly every "magoroku trait". For example, in Sesku's Koto Kantei there's one with a ko maru boshi instead of a jizo boshi and the literature says irregular sanbonsugi for Nidai Kanemoto but I keep finding examples like the subject of this thread that seem quite regular. There also seems to be A LOT of examples in museums and in private hands/on the market for a single illustrious smith from 500 years ago especially when the swords were made for and would have been used/abused/destroyed during an extended time of widespread and brutal warfare. I've gotta wonder if there was a group of smiths turning out swords under the Nidai in quantity and/or a 100+ years of Kanemoto smiths turning out very similar work and everyone just wants to believe they've got an example from the master.

Thanks! paying more attention to this.

Thank you for that trick Ray, an English version of the page is exactly what I needed! I couldn't find this sword on their English page when I tried to search from that angle. I did notice the Hozon papers only showed "Kanemoto" without naming a specific generation but I'm gathering that's more or less standard for the NBTHK on this group of smiths and it's rare to get a specific generation attribution at the Hozon level. I guess I'm mostly wondering what trait(s) about the sword would lead Sanmei to call it Magoroku's work despite the regular sanbonsugi hamon. According to the other stuff I've been reading, Magoroku did irregular sanbonsugi and it didn't get regular until later generations. I'm not actually in the market for this sword (wish I could drop $30K on a Nihonto!); my question goes along with a sword I am studying that I posted in the Nihonto forum... Thanks!

http://sanmei.com/contents/media/A69044_S1290_PUP.htm Just a quick question; researching a sword of my own and judging by the price and wonky google translate results Sanmei looks to be attributing this sword to Magoroku Kanemoto (2nd gen Kanemoto)... is that right? Sword is also papered: http://sanmei.com/Pictures/Sword/k_A69044_S1290.jpg Just wanna check opinions on if it's safe to consider this a legit example of a Magoroku Kanemoto blade with a regular sanbonsugi hamon or if it's a questionable attribution (or if I'm reading it wrong). Thanks!

Another example: http://sanmei.com/contents/media/A25917_S8871_PUP.html (I think this is 4th gen Kanemoto?) And a couple more: http://sanmei.com/contents/media/A69044_S1290_PUP.htm http://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords2/KT222042.htm (Edo Period Kanemoto?) and http://www.giheiya.com/shouhin_list/japanese_sword/iaiyoushinken/01-1091.html (edo period Kanemoto?) A Magoroku (?) daisho from a Japanese museum: http://www.touken-sato.com/event/katana/2014/03/D-kanemoto-01.html Plenty of stuff to look at if you are interested in Kanemoto swords...

Ok, now this is just getting weird. Did someone recently dump their entire Kanemoto School collection on the market? Otherwise it looks like a very nice sword, I'm very interested to hear what the experts say about it...

Hey Tim; I'm the "other guy" with a kanemoto. I saw this blade when it was on Ebay; the price was nice but as they say, you get what you pay for. I certainly think it has the right shape to be a late Koto Mino School blade but I suspected it was one of those mass-produced (kazu-uchimono) swords from the Muromachi period that was cut down into a "budget Wakizashi" later on. If so it would have very little value to a serious collector even in excellent condition and when the sword is hacked down to Wakizashi size and just plain worn out with a bad polish (could just be because it was too far gone before the polisher had a go at it) it has no value at all. Granted that's for serious collectors; for us "normal" people it's still a bona-fide piece of Samurai history and very well could have marched with Nobunaga's army or been swung around at Sekigahara. Bottom line, no amount of money thrown at the sword will make it better per se... it will only take away from the historic fabric of the artifact. The sword is what it is but not all value is monetary either! It's still an uncommon piece of history and worth preserving, warts and all. And if you feel bad about what you paid, go price chinese clones; what you paid will buy you a mid-range reproduction Wak but for the same money you got a REAL one. I'd like to see more pictures though, I'm curious about it...

Settsu is a place name (present day Osaka area) and one of the major sword production areas of the Shinto era and "no kami" is an honorary title, also quite common. If I remember right, Shodai Tadayuki signed "Settsu No Kami Tachibana Tadayuki" late in his career. He did several hamon patterns (mine is suguha) but Tadatsuna school blades are probably best identified by shape. A single photo of the nakago just isn't enough information to make an educated guess on authenticity (or lack of).