SteveM

Left Side 南無阿弥陀佛 (Namu Amidabutsu) down the left side. 雷除　(Kaminari-yoke) Protection from lightning. Also left side, under the above. So, yes this part would seem to be a way of indicating the maker's, or the inscriber's, wish for protection from lightning. Right Side 八幡公所佩貫級刀製　Hachiman kōsho hai kankyūtō-sei Kankyūtō is the same thing as "bashin". It's just another way of saying "blood-letting knife". But I'm not sure why Hachiman (the god of war, among other things) is included in the inscription. I'm not finding any clues online either. Or maybe there is some meaning in the kanji that I am missing. Anyway, if I were to guess I'd say the inscription was way for the smith to invoke the god Hachiman (which may have some connection with the clan of the maker and/or the fief in which he was working).

I like it. Very interesting design. I, too, would have guessed Chōshū or Bushū. I am reminded (and maybe too strongly influenced) by Robert Haynes' assertion that Echizen Kinai tsuba are usually signed as such. So, when I see an unsigned tsuba I mentally exclude Echizen Kinai from the field of possible schools. I don't know if Haynes intended his comment to be treated as an absolute. I doubt it. But it has stuck in my mind.

Typo, I think. Kōjō should be 光常.

清秀　Kiyohide　Late Edo era artist.

I should say one of the things I read online was that this technique was a way of using acid to highlight any forging lines in the base metal, and then incorporating those forging lines into the design that was to be carved on the base metal. (like using the lines to represent water or clouds). Another site I saw said that kusarakashi was a way of adding texture to a plain (flat) base. Hence, it seems to be an elastic phrase - but one which involves applying an acid treatment or a rusting agent to the metal to elicit some textural effect.

I see the NBTHK uses two different pronunciations Yakite kusarashi, and Yakite kusarakashi The meaning is the same (both are the causative form of the verb 腐る - to decay, to rot) Haynes defines it as a surface design or finish that is made by acid treatment. So, basically as Jean mentions above. My dictionary of sword-related terms defines it as applying an insulating substance to the design element, and then applying acid to the rest of the tsuba, so that the design element rises a bit above the surface. Digging around a bit more online, it seems to be a rather elastic term for various acid treatments. Attaching a picture of a part of another NBTHK appraisal to show the alternate reading. I wish they would standardize.

Some slight corrections. (Using the old kanji so that they match with what's on the seal. 檢査證票 (meaning is as above, just one kanji left out) 関刄物工業組合 (meaning is as above, just 刀 should be 刄) 岐阜縣関町　　　(Seki town)

Dedication is: 為渡邊社長　For President (CEO) Watanabe

尾崎平左衛門　　Ozaki Heizaemon Or 尾崎半左衛門 Ozaki Hanzaemon Nothing pops up in a quick search except for Ozaki Gengoemon

The kuzushi version of 重 is very different from the one on this tag, so it can't be 重.

Yes, that's a safe bet. What I was hinting at with my post is that if you contact that city, there is a chance that you might get a lead on how to contact someone in the Dōtomi family. It's a city of fewer than 3000 people. Everyone in that town knows someone named Dōtomi. If you can get in contact with the family, they most likely have memories and records of a grandfather or grand-uncle who was in Manchuria, working for the railway. This assumes that you want to repatriate the sword. You can also try to repatriate the sword through services of a group called the Obon Society, or through your nearest Japanese Embassy. The thing about the Dōtomi name is that it is so rare, and so specific to that one location, it shouldn't be too difficult to try to make some enquiries on your own. But I'm saying this as someone who speaks and writes Japanese, so mine is not an unbiased opinion. If the name were the equivalent of Smith or Jones, it would be quite challenging to find any descendants, but Dōtomi is unique, so I feel it wouldn't be so difficult. If you don't wish to repatriate the sword, and are just looking for information on the person, it becomes a bit more difficult.

That there are so many people wanting to authenticate their swords and tosogu is, in a way, a validation of the popularity of the current certification system. But it also exposes the limitations of the system. Its become a victim of its own popularity. There is a shortage of people who can act as competent judges, and the blame for this falls squarely on the NBTHK. One of their raisons d'etre is to educate the public about swords and fittings, and to this end they have study groups, seminars, publications, and a great deal of space in their sword museum is dedicated to lecture rooms (the three-story Sword Museum in Ryogoku, has two floors of study rooms and offices, and only one floor of exhibition space). They also know very well the looming problems of an ageing panel of judges, and the dwindling number of experts. So the failure of the NBTHK to educate and train a new and expanded panel of judges is a failure of the current management. Who is the next Tanobe, the next Honma Junji, the next Sato Kanzan? Why hasn't the NBTHK fostered the development of the necessary expertise? In a related note, the museum isn't a tremendous improvement on its previous incarnation (when it was located in Yoyogi). As I said, the swords are on one floor of the three-floor structure. The information cards are in Japanese, except for the the swordsmith name and the dates, which are listed in English as well, with multiple spelling errors. It feels very amateurish. There is a QR code you can scan to get English explanations, but the English explanations use machine translations, and, again, it leaves one feeling that not a lot of effort has been made to accommodate foreign visitors. I should also say that maybe 1/4th of the visitors were non-Japanese on the day I went. Anyway, the appraisal system is, I think, necessary and beneficial to the collecting community, but some things at the NBTHK need to change to ensure it stays relevant to the times and the current population of collectors.

The name Dōtomi is one of the rarest in Japan. On the site I use for researching Japanese names, it says there are only 10 people in Japan with this surname, and they all live in Nagasaki prefecture, Ikishi city (長崎県壱岐市). No doubt they are all related. Source: https://myoji-yurai.net/searchResult.htm?myojiKanji=堂富

For the sword enthusiasts in Southern California, there will be a meeting of the Nanka Tokenkai ("Southern California Sword Club") on Friday, April 12th, at the Gardena Valley Japanese Cultural Institute in Gardena from 7:00-9:00pm. For information check out the club's Facebook page. https://www.facebook...174273/?ref=newsfeed Gardena Valley JCI, 1964 W. 162nd Street, Gardena, CA 90247

From left to right 京都住国吉 　　　　　Kyōto-jū Kuniyoshi (presumably the name of the smith) 生中心 　　　　　Ubu nakago (means the tang is in its original shape) 長サ貮尺貮寸参分有之　 Length of cutting edge: 2 shaku, 2 sun, 3 bu (67.57cm) 井上正實　　　　　　　 Inoue Masazane (a name)

My guess is shibuichi. The box says 東京銀座　Tokyo Ginza 株式会社　　Kabushiki Kaisha 山崎商店 Yamasaki Shoten (was a dealer in precious metals and commemorative gifts in Tokyo) 謹製　　　　Made respectfully/with care

Hello Victor, Reiterating Franco's comments. It's often difficult to just look at a mei and validate the authenticity. This is especially difficult with lesser-known smiths. And still more difficult if, as in this case, some part of the mei is illegible. If the mei is supposed to be Kanetsune, we can say that the final kanji doesn't really look like 常 (tsune). it looks more like 定 (sada). But its too eroded to say with any confidence. And, if there is no known smith who signed as "Kanda-jū Kanesada", then we're stuck with a Kanetsune mei that doesn't look very convincing. But as Franco says, the normal thing to do is to look at the sword and make a judgment as to whether or not the sword looks like a sword from Kanetsune. There is too much uncertainty to say whether the sword is gimei or not (but it definitely looks problematic to me).

金刀比羅　Kotohira shrine in Kagawa Prefecture. The stamp is maybe a quality inspection stamp. I should also say that obviously the "art name" looks like るま堂 (Rumadō), but I'm not full of confidence regarding the names.

middle of top picture 参拝記念 visit to shrine commemoration bottom picture is the gō and name of the carver. Can't quite read the gō 翁？？堂 成子彫　（茂子彫？）Carved by Naruko? Shigeko?

The signature on your sword is 廣近, not 弘近, so the smith on your sword can't be the one below. Plus, the patina on your tang looks very recent. And, as far as I know, no swordsmiths signed with a date using just the zodiac animal. It is too vague a date to be useful. It is like saying, "I made this in a year that ends in "4"". Its just not a useful way of dating things. It needs to have the era name and/or the elemental branch that defines the date.

Hard to tell. I was thinking 子 or something along those lines, but if these numbers are generally preceded by katakana characters, then ネ is a possibility.

Year of the dragon comes every 12 years. It just so happens that 2024 is the year of the dragon. So the previous one would have been 2012, then before that would have been 2000, etc.

奈良利壽　Nara Toshinaga Not an authentic signature.

Not a poem. It should be a signature. 友雄鏨 以彫？鍛 I think its saying made and carved by Tomo-o. I can look for other references if you let me know what the item is.

昭和十五年 (Shōwa 15. The last character is "year"). The other side says 山本正雄 (Yamamoto Masao). Not a swordsmith name. Not typical writing for the name or the year, and the patina looks funny. I have some doubts about this being a Japanese sword.