SteveM

兼房　Kanefusa is another slight possibility. But I would lean towards Kanehiro. I'm not mega-confident in either of these. Now the sword has to tell you who made it. Tough for it to do when its out of polish. Edit: Looking at this on a better screen now... I doubt its Kanefusa. Still not confident about any of the possibilities so far.

Congratulations Brian. Great site, great effort, great resource, great contribution to the nihonto/tosogu world.

Michitaka from Chōshū is listed in Wakayama, so I'm liking the looks of that one. The Myōchin mei I feel confident that its intending to be Ki no Munetsugu, but there is no Munetsugu listed in Wakayama. I did find a few references to Myōchin Ōsumi no kami Ki no Munetsugu (same kanji) on the net, but they were mostly for auction sites. Wakayama says there were a lot of metalworkers of the Myōchin Ki branch who signed Mune~ (and then put their own kanji after the Mune). So I think if anyone has a comprehensive Myōchin lineage family try of the Ki branch, you might find Munetsugu listed there.

For the other, I would say 紀宗継 Ki no Munetsugu But I'm away from my books now, so I can't check on either of these. Will look later today.

長州住通高　Chōshū-jū Michitaka would be my guess. 　

I thought Hiro (廣), too.

For the carving: 表 omote (front) 蓮台上に天照皇大神宮 Tenshō Kōdaijingū (aka the mythologica goddess Amaterasu) arising from a lotus 裏 ura (back) 蓮上に八幡大菩薩に二筋樋 Two grooves, and Hachiman the boddhisatva arising from a lotus I'm very intrigued about the representation of Amaterasu... possible to get any pics of the carvings?

I don't understand what you are looking for. I already gave you the kanji. 榮 It was simplified after the war to 栄. Normally it is read as Ei, but there are a ton of alternate readings possible (including Hide). https://mnamae.jp/c/6804.html 英 is a completely different kanji, and it is different from the one written on the tag in your photo.

Was having second thoughts about that 榮 (Hide is an unusual reading), but I think its OK.

Looks like you've already got all we can give you. Your translation of the name tag looks right to me 陸軍少尉　　Rikugun Shōi 岡崎榮喜 Okazaki Hideki (could be other possible readings) Kanenobu also looks right, but I think the date is Shōwa 18 (1943). The shot you posted is too far away to tell much about the sword. You might find other WW2-era Kanenobu signatures on the web if you search around for them. Make sure to leave a first name and initial - forum rules.

No. The family crest is inherited from the previous generation. Typically it will get put on kimono, gravestones, buddhist alters in homes, and other places depending upon how much "bling" you like. There is no law saying you can't change your family crest, but it would be unusual, to say the least, that an officer would discard his family crest in favor of one belonging to someone he idolized. The fuji crest is common. As Malcom says, it originated with the Fujiwara, and this mon shows up now in a lot of families, both those claiming (hoping) to be direct descendants of the original Fujiwara, and those of branch families, as well as completely unrelated families. In any event, it hints at a noble past, and so any family would be proud to have this crest, I would think. Finally, a few crests are so common that manufacturers of items with family crests can carry stock of those items and always be assured there will be some customer for it. The fuji crest is one of them. Think of the souvenir key-chains you find at tourist sites...you can always be sure to find one that says "James" or "Robert" or "Steve". But if you have an unusual name you might have to special order it. It is the same with family crests. I don't know how the crests on these military swords were ordered, but I can imagine certain, common crests were mass-produced, while more unique crests had to be special-ordered. This is just pure speculation on my part, however.

Hello Ed You mean Katsumitsu, right? I'll get you started - the first full column (right side) is for the mei, and it reads 備前国長船二郎左衛門尉勝光 文亀二年二月吉日 Bizen no kuni, Osafune, Jirōsaemon-no-jyō Katsumitu Bunki 2 (1502), February, auspicious day The red square seal is the seal of the NTHK. I don't know if its inclusion or exclusion has any significance. Usually you would expect the kantei-sho to have this square seal on it, but I did a google search and found others without it.

Looks like 匠, but in reverse.

I am trying to answer the original poster's question as objectively as possible, and lead him away from the romantic or mystical aspects of nihontō. I don't deny these things exist (I'm repeating myself here), I just deny that there can be any objective consensus as to how the market should value "mystique". In the case of Yasukuni swords and such, I think you mistake rarity and quality for mystique. Rarity and quality are objective things, and the market attributes a value to these. I have yet to see a valid argument that kirikomi add monetary value. If one kirikomi is good, are two better? Are five even better? Should we expect swords with a lot of kirikomi to have consistently higher prices? Should the beginner be steered towards swords with kirikomi, because (presumably) these add value? Ultimately we like what we like, regardless of whether or not those reasons make sense to anybody but us. But the question is not: "Does anybody like kirikomi?", or "Are there swords with kirikomi that are highly valued?". These questions hardly require any input from us. Instead, the original question is one about the monetary value of kirikomi. Art is subjective, and so the question of why anything in the art world has value leads to divergent views. In this case I don't disagree with Darcy. He says kirikomi are a physical manifestation of the sword's history, and this is something that should be valued. I have no argument with this. I just don't think this is what the original poster was asking. I also don't think we can know whether a scratch in a sword was the result of a battle, or if it was the result of something else. I think we should be suspicious of cuts and scratches in swords. Our first reaction should be to discount the sword when we see these things. We shouldn't trust the sales pitch (or our internal bias) when it says, "these scratches are from a battle, and therefore the sword has a premium". Let me try to reduce the argument. Kirikomi add mystique, and therefore they are valuable. ← This is a valid statement. It has a valid counter-argument. I don't think this is what the original poster was asking though. Rarity is objective. Mystique is in the eye of the beholder. Rarity can add value. Mystique can also add value, but you are taking a step away from objectivity, and are more into the realm of faith and salesmanship. The NBTHK and the Japanese sword dealers may well be impressed with the rarity of a sword, but they will never be impressed with mystique. Mystique is not a part of the evaluation process for the NBTHK. I think the discussion is a good one, though. Hopefully it is interesting to people. It has made me think hard about some difficult questions. I hope Jason doesn't think I'm picking on him for asking this question that has led to such a long discussion. It was a good question. And I like thinking about the past owners of my swords and their histories, so I'm not totally oblivious to the romance and mystique. I just think its better to quarantine those thoughts as much as possible when thinking about monetary valuations.

Fuchi is 翠柳軒　　Suiryūken 友長老人 Tomonaga rōjin (kao) Seems to be a late Edo-period metalworker - aka Suisan-tomonaga. No other info. For the sword, a better picture of that last kanji on the tang might help determine what it is.

The relevant bit is: This piece is finely crafted with ridges around the seppa-dai and hitsu-ana, and while the theme is reminiscent of Mino, the lack of ridge around the rim, as well as the the carving of the design seem to have lead to an attribution of "Kyō-kinkō". However, Kenichi Okubo's "Minobori Metalwork" features some unconventional Minobori tsubas from the end of the Edo era which similarly have no ridges, therefore this piece can be said to fall into the category of late Edo Mino tsubas.

The one on the left reads 中惣, which is an abbreviation of 中屋惣兵衛, apparently a toolmaker based in Niigata in the Meiji period. The third photo (far right) is too small and dark for me to read.

The middle photo says 登録 俊弘丸 (Registered: Shunkōmaru) Not entirely sure on the reading of 俊弘丸 Shunkōmaru. It is the brand name of the Koyama Edged-Tool Works Co., Ltd. of Miki-shi, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan. http://www.mokuba-tools.co.jp/goods/nomi/04.html

Here is one of the bits describing Japanese titles. I think there may be another one floating around. http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/19758-no-no/?hl=title Also, check out the great reading list under the "articles" section of this board. One more thing: if/when you get the plain wooden scabbard made, and even if you decide to get Edo-period furnishings made, you can still (obviously) keep the world war two mounts as keepsakes. When I said they were a write-off, I didn't mean to imply they should be thrown away. But once the sword is clean and free of cosmoline, you wouldn't want to keep it any longer in its WW2 mounts, because the inside of those mounts could be coated with grime.

In this case, "Lord of Kozuke" is a title (a kind of privilege, a peerage, if you will), and doesn't necessarily mean the smith was actually living or working in that location at that time. In this case the smith has written on the opposite side "Resident of Osafune, Bishū Province", so I think its safe to assume that this was forged in Osafune (assuming always the signature isn't a fake). My preference / recommendation would be to restore in Edo period fittings. It is a hand-forged sword from Japan's feudal, past. That it spent 5-10 years of its ~300 year life in military mounts doesn't impress me. If the mounts were in pristine condition it would be one thing. But your mounts are in an advanced state of distress, and I think they are a write-off from a collector's viewpoint. Also, finding a set of military furnishings that will fit this hand-made sword would be a frustrating and, I think, pointless search. The sword was not made as a WW2 sword, so spending money and time bringing it back to an anachronistic condition is not something I would do. If it were a factory-made WW2 sword, I don't think it would be too hard to find replacement fittings. The fittings would be appropriate to the time and purpose and history of the sword. However, your sword was hand-made, so the length and curvature are different from a mass-produced sword. I think you do your father no disservice to return this sword to its pre-war condition. But first, you should get your sword looked at by someone who knows their stuff. Maybe there is a dealer or restorer nearby where you live who can help you out. Your sword could be a forgery, as is common with Japanese swords. It definitely needs the cosmoline removed and replaced with a lighter oil, but not until you have a clean scabbard in which to store the sword. If you are lucky you can find a reputable dealer who can take care of all of this at once for you: appraisal, advice, and sending the sword off to a scabbard-maker so you have a clean, plain scabbard made for it. He should be able to tell you if its worth sending the sword off for professional polish. Do not attempt this yourself. A centuries-old sword needs specialized polishing skills, and you can easily ruin your sword by trying to scrape off rust. Avoid the temptation to remove any rust. I would say leave it in the cosmoline for now, since it has probably minimized and stabilized any rust, and since it is probably also coating the inside of the scabbard. In short: 1) Show it to somebody who knows swords - a reputable dealer or collector. The forum can help you out. 2). If authentic, get a plain wooden scabbard (shirasaya) made for it. 3). Once you have it cleaned and stored in a shirasaya, you can decide how much you want to spend on restoring it: polish and furnishings. (The shirasaya also makes it easy to ship, should you decide you want to ship it somewhere to be restored.

Hello Bruce, There is no date. The one side of the tang with the long inscription reads; 横山上野大掾藤原祐定 Yokoyama Kōzuke Daijō Fujiwara Sukesada You can find this name in Stephen's post above. Yokoyama is a family name, Kōzuke is an old province in Japan, corresponding to Gunma prefecture in today's Japan. Daijō is a title roughly corresponding to "Lord" or "Governor", but don't read too much into this. There is a great article on this site that describes these titles and what they mean, their background, etc... Fujiwara is a clan name, also something that you don't need to spend too many hours wondering about. If you google "clan names" + "Fujiwara" you might get some more background on this. Finally you get the smith's name: Sukesada. A very common name, used by multiple generations. I think there are something like 40 smiths or more who used this name, although not all of them used it just as it is here. Anyway, hopefully Stephen's post makes more sense to you now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dzuke_Province On the reverse side is 備州長船住人 "Bishū Osafune Jūnin" (resident of Osafune, in Bishū province). Again, Bishū and Osafune are two well-known location names in the sword world. Yumoto's book must have some info in it about them. If not, use the search engine on this site and look for more info on Osafune. If we assume your blade is indeed a centuries-old blade (and it does seem that way), it was repurposed with military fittings for use by someone in the Japanese army. Given the unique, hand-made nature of the sword, the fittings may well have been a hodge-podge of non-standard things. You now have an interesting dilemma: what does historical accuracy mean for this sword? Do you restore as an authentic, hand-crafted, feudal era sword, with lacquer scabbard and fittings appropriate to the time of the Edo-era in which it was made? Or do you restore it as a military memento from the mid-20th century, keeping the military fittings? This could be the start of an interesting discussion here.

I would say late Meiji souvenir saya. Difference in the number of petals indicates to me this is a rough piece not intended for the high end market. I would say either a careless mistake, or just inattention to detail. In either event, it would be unthinkable if this were being made for someone whose crest is kikusui - hence my guess that it is intended for the foreign market. Looks like the mei on the saya is Fujino (不二の). I know nothing about this artist. Mei on the tantō and on the shirasaya is Munechika (宗近) as you stated originally. The blade could be much older than the antler-horn saya. Does the blade have papers? If so, I would be tempted to ditch the kitschy horn saya, and have a proper lacquer saya made for the blade. I mean, the horn saya is somewhat interesting as a late 19th century curio, but I don't think it has much value, and I don't think it shows off the blade very smartly. I think the blade would look much better in a lacquer saya with same/ray tsuka. your mileage may vary.

濱埜矩随　Hamano Noriyuki, I think.

Japanese wikipedia says that screws (neji) first appeared in Japan 1543, along with the first matchlock rifles brought in with the Portuguese. It says the first domestic screws were screws that went into the production of matchlock rifles, but that making screws was very difficult and almost all matchlocks feature screws that were recycled from other matchlocks. It wasn't until the end of the Edo period - when the machinery could be imported from overseas - that widespread use and machine production of screws began in Japan. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%AD%E3%81%98

As with the Masamune blade owned by Ishida Mitsunari, the above blade, being a signed and ubu blade Bizen blade from the Kamakura/Nambokucho period, is an important art blade despite the kirikomi, not because of it. Particularly telling is the complete lack of reference to either the hakobore or the kirikomi on the NBTHK appraisal paper, and on the sayagaki. I cannot imagine anyone at the NBTHK saying (of any blade), "Flawless sword. Too bad it doesn't have any kirikomi.".