SteveM

Hello Andrew, I've got good news and bad news: The bad news: I'm afraid this isn't a WW2 sword. The good news: It dates from several centuries before WW2, potentially from the 1600s. The inscription is 近江守藤原継 (cut off) Ōmi-no-kami Fujiwara Tsugu... (cut off, but probably Tsuguhiro) It means 近江守藤原継廣 Ōmi-no-kami　= Lord of Omi Province (Omi province is present-day Shiga Prefecture in Japan. Fujiwara = this is a clan name. Not really to be taken as a literal name of the swordsmith. Its the swordsmith declaring he has a lineage to an ancient aristocratic clan. Tsuguhiro = is the swordsmith's name. Not his real, given name, but more or less a professional name. Your sword was originally longer by a few inches, but it was cut down at some point. Shortening the sword is very common. It was always shortened from the tang. So the tang was shortened, and the notches where the brass collar sits were moved up. Could have been done a couple of hundred years ago, or a hundred years ago. There are many swords with fake signatures, and yours too could have a fake signature. Faking signatures was (and still is) very common. Regardless, the sword itself is still a genuine Japanese antique, and could still be several hundred years old even if the signature turns out to be fake. So what I'm saying is, the sword should be preserved, shouldn't be subject to any amateur restoration efforts, and is probably worth showing to someone who knows a lot about swords. It will be hard to authenticate it just by looking at photos. And, the condition probably precludes anyone from making an accurate assessment. But, as I said, the sword is a genuine antique regardless of the authenticity of the signature.

Yes, Ryūbun-dō.

Tried to find a post by Darcy that listed what he considered the variable criteria for cutting efficiency, including what Jacques mentioned above, but also things like skill of the cutter, and the object being cut (leather armor vs. some other thing). If anyone has that, or can remember where it is, it would be useful for Al. I think he listed something like 5 or 6 factors 1. Shape 2. Sharpness 3. Skill of the cutter 4. Hardness of the target 5. (I think there was one other, but can't remember. Maybe the weight of the sword.) And I don't recall if the hardness/durability of the sharp edge was a criteria; i.e. the sword that makes the best initial cut may drop in the rankings for the 2nd or 3rd cut because its edge is now blunted. Anyway, it was a good read and very appropriate to this conversation. If I find it I'll post it here.

There was a dealer with quite a few Nogawa cigarette cases at the show in Las Vegas. Very nice works. I was very tempted. I don't even smoke.

Looks like 松華梼主人好, and it would be a dedication, "Made for Master/Lord Shōkatō" Shōkatō would be an art name of someone, but that name doesn't show up in any results.

Not a mon, but a surname. 稗田 Hieda, Hieta, Hida, etc...

Pretty sure its 大清乾隆年制（製） Da Qing Qianlong Nian Zhi - Made in the reign of Qianlong during the Qing Dynasty. Not really made in the Qing dynasty. Probably 20th century

The Hon'ami are a family of sword polishers and appraisers. "Family" is used very loosely here, because as with most hereditary lineages in Japan there was a lot of adoption and marriages of convenience and branch lines. The Hon'ami were the official sword appraisers/caretakers to the Shogunate. Since swords were highly valued as gifts among the military aristocracy, the Hon'ami family had quite an important position in attributing or validating the value of these gifts. Swords were in constant circulation, going to and from the Tokyo central government, and back out to branch families of the Tokugawa, or to daimyo who provided a favor or service to the government, etc. When the shogunal government finally fell, and Japan starting modernizing in the late 1800s, the Hon'ami were cut loose from steady government employment, and drifted around for a bit. One of those drifters was Hon'ami Kōga. You can read about him here in Markus Sesko's article https://markussesko..../05/02/honami-koson/ Your sayagaki looks to be from the early 1900s. It doesn't look to me like its from the 1800s. So this puts it at odds with the time Hon'ami Kōga was alive. (It also doesn't look very much like Hon'ami Koga's normal signature). It could be a forgery, i.e. someone trying to make the sword look more important than it is. Or, it could be from Hon'ami Kōson (1879-1955), who was "adopted" into the Hon'ami family and married off to one of Kōga's relatives. The monogram written below the signature looks kind of like one used by Hon'ami Kōson. So maybe before he took the name "Hon'ami Kōson" he used the name of Kōga, to whom he was related through marriage. It is also very possible I have the name wrong,or the age of the sayagaki wrong, but to me the name looks like Kōga (written in calligraphic form). There are a lot of possibilities, and I'm just throwing all of these out there so you know the margin of error is pretty wide. Actually, there were two different Hon'ami appraisers who used the name Kōga, but the other one is from an even older time, so I've rejected him as even a remote possibility. The sayagaki doesn't mention anything about polishing, so who knows when it was last polished. Kan is a monetary unit equal to a string of 1000 copper "mon" coins. The values written on any sayagaki in modern times shouldn't be taken literally as a price for the sword inside. It should be considered a relative valuation, and its just a way for the Hon'ami to say "this sword is worth a lot of money". So you'll never find an amount on a Hon'ami sayagaki that doesn't represent a lot of money. Hard to say how much 1000 "kan" would be in today's money because of the huge fluctuation in exchange rates - let's say 1000 kan is about $100,000. Note, the "kan" as a unit of money wasn't in use at the time this sayagaki was written. As I said, its just a way of saying "you have a very valuable sword", which is what the customer wanted to hear when they approached a Hon'ami appraiser. I just read very recently (probably another Markus Sesko article) where the Hon'ami started using "kan" because it allowed them to use higher numbers; 1000 kan looks more impressive than "3 gold pieces", especially when people aren't really using "kan" anymore so they have no internalized concept of how much 1000 kan would be in real life. It just sounds like a lot. https://en.wikipedia...anese_mon_(currency)

Sayagaki says Mino-no-kuni Kaneuji Length 1 shaku 5 sun 2 bu Value 1000 "kan" Signed / Hon'ami Kōga

Yes, thank you. 龍文堂造　Ryūbun-dō tsukuru

Left: 龍雲堂造　　made by Ryū-un dō Right: 龍分堂造 made by Ryū-bun dō

No idea. I found an interesting shape that corresponds with that (bridge for a shamisen), but I don't think its the same. https://irohakamon.c...marunishamigoma.html Hard to tell if its a kamon, or if its a base for some other emblem. Or maybe some emblem affiliated with war production (like some steel producing factory or a ship-building company, etc.).

備前長船住横山祐包作 Sukekane

It's an attribution paper from the Tōkyō Bijutsu Club (Tokyo Art Club) dated Nov. 1972. Attribution to Bizen Osafune Nagamitsu. Most anything less than a current NBTHK or NTHK would be considered out-of-date and therefore untrustworthy. Current means something after about 1980. It doesn't mean that all old papers were wrong. It just means that owners of genuine swords with old papers tended to upgrade the papers to the current NBTHK Hozon, Tokubetsu Hozon, etc.. because these are considered the most reliable both inside Japan and outside. Owners of problematic, or "iffy" swords tend to avoid resubmitting their swords to the NBTHK, because they have reasonable doubt their iffy attribution will be confirmed. Or, they actually did resubmit the sword, and the sword was found to be gimei, or not as prestigious as was originally thought, so the owners quietly throw away the new results, and post their sword on ebay or yahoo with the old papers. A poster named Darcy Brockbank wrote extensively on this. Some good reading in there.

Here are some of the things on the sayagaki that got "lost in translation" (mentioned to Adam in pm). ・Tenshō-age - this is a term specific to the method of suriage, mentioned on the sayagaki, but untranslated. ・Enbun-Jōji shape - another specific term relating to the shape of the sword, somehow mangled in translation. An "Enbun-Joji shape" is the key point for a Masaie attribution. ・Shirake-utsuri - Here too, he is hinting that this can't be Aoe, since Aoe wouldn't (or shouldn't) have shirake-utsuri. The translation of "beautiful utsuri" just misses the target completely. ・Taki-otoshi style of boshi - another strong indicator of Ko-Mihara. Why this was missing from the rough translation is a mystery. ・One of the few outstanding works in excellent condition - A final word of high praise, before he mentions how much it resembles the Jubi Masaie. I'm interpreting Tanobe's use of the word 健體 to refer to the sword's condition (the characters literally mean "healthy + body" ). Hopefully Moriyama-san or Morita-san will provide a correction if they think it has another interpretation. Again, it felt to me like a comment specifically included to point out the fine condition of a sword that is many centuries old, and therefore worthy of attention. I think Franco's comment above is very appropriate to this conversation. The attribution on the paper or saya is important, but how that attribution was decided is also important. We don't have this information on the TH paper, we just have a very qualified "said to be Aoe" on it. Tanobe spells out his thinking in his sayagaki, which is a great help to those of us who don't have the eyes or the memory that he has.

Thank you, Stijn. I was hoping the bōshi would be clear enough to show something, but unfortunately the sword has been handled very roughly, and its too scratched up to see anything. It's not beyond redemption, but it will need a professional restoration at some point. No rush, just keep the blade oiled until you figure out what your next steps are. As you said, the polishing lines under the habaki wouldn't be there if your sword were a WW2 arsenal blade. Well, there were some WW2 blades that were made in the traditional way, but I feel yours is older than WW2. Those dark parallel lines in your picture from yesterday (copied below) are also something you wouldn't see in a WW2 sword. Its a bit hard to discern what exactly they are, and photos sometimes exaggerate things. Hopefully they are an intentional feature put into the sword from the swordsmith.

Adam, I sent you some comments, and I wanted to note here that there are some loosely translated bits that don't quite provide the full impact of what Tanobe is trying to say. (And there is a glaring mistranslation of the date noted on the Juyo piece he's comparing it to: Tanobe says the sword resembles a Masaie sword from the Ōan (1368-1375) era, and the person who did the rough translation mistranslated it as "Keiō" era). At first, I wasn't so sure it was a wise idea to get Tanobe to write a sayagaki that would be in conflict with the TH attribution, but I've done a 180° turn on this. Tanobe-san is strongly hinting at the Jūyō quality of this sword.

Hi Stian, Can you give us the length (tip to the machi) and some close ups of the boshi? Looks like it could be much older than WW2.

Sukashi tsuba of "Fish Dragon" (gyoryū) Tetsuji, octoganal sukashi tsuba Mumei, "Canton" The "Canton" attribution is another way of saying Nanban.

Keep the blade as is. The kinpun mei is mostly illegible, but there is enough to deduce the word "yoshi". This is why yoshi (吉) appears in a box on the appraisal paper. The part above yoshi is completely illegible, which is why there is a blank box on the appraisal sheet. Then, under that blank box, the paper says "den Aoe" in parenthesis. "Den" is already a hedge, and there has been a ton about this written on here. The shinsa team is saying, "there is a previous attribution which we do not completely endorse, but neither do we wish to reject it outright". The placement of the "den" attribution in parenthesis is one step farther away from an endorsement. It's their way of saying, "we respectfully note a previous attribution" and that's about it. So they are not really on board with the previous attribution, but they hesitate to reject it completely, probably because ↓ The kinpun mei is attributed to Hon'ami Kōson. Kōson's signature (光遜) cannot be read completely, but there is enough evidence to deduce it as Kōson, and we know this because his name also appears in boxes on the authentication paper. Again, the boxes around the kanji mean the kanji is virtually illegible, but there is enough to deduce what it must be. Maybe they can tell from the kaō. In any event, they are confident enough to declare it as a Kōson kinpun mei, which means presumably the "yoshi" was also put on there by, or at the request of, Hon'ami Kōson. So given all this, you've got a very good sword which was attributed at one point by Hon'ami Kōson to Aoe school, to somebody with "yoshi" in their name. The modern shinsa team said, "no doubt this is a TH sword, and we can sort of see why Kōson made the attribution to Aoe, but we're not so sure". So they validate the sword, and they note the previous attribution, but they don't quite want to accept or reject Kōson's attribution. Tanobe, who is free from the constraints of consensus-building at NBTHK, can be more decisive. But who wants to grind off a kinpun mei from Hon'ami Kōson, who is attributing it to Aoe?

Medicine/pill box, is my guess. The hanabishi on the sides look like a mon (shippo-ni-hanabishi). The aoi mon on the top look like decoration, but could be an allusion to a crest. https://irohakamon.c...ppounihanabishi.html

The kogatana is good. The saya, not so good. I would feel no regret if that kogatana got liberated from that saya. The poem on the kogatana is what makes it interesting to me. Trying to read it, but I can't get it. I think it is a poem related to the flower on the blade (yuri - lily).

Or, you could avoid the classification altogether and just call them soroi kanagu (揃金具), or "matching furnishings". 　

You can come to the Southern California sword club (Nanka Tokenkai), which meets once a month in Torrance. Mike usually comes to those meetings to present swords. I can't speak for him, but he's always been happy to look at things people bring in. The meetings are open to the public, but its best to check with the club, as sometimes Mike is away and is unable to attend the meetings. Facebook is the best way to contact the club. If that's not a good option for you, you should be able to contact Mike at his business, Tetsugendo (also on Facebook). My gut feeling is that your sword may be too scratched up to make any kind of determination. The mei looks very close, but the important thing is the sword itself, and it will be hard (if not impossible) to see the steel grain and the hamon and activities through the scratches. Yours has no "kiku" flower symbol on the reverse side of the tang? If not, the authenticated sword (left) would have been made around the same time as yours.

Maybe it will help if its broken up like this. 光遜先師ノ鞘書ニ　曽テ薩摩ノ本阿弥忠信ノ左国廣ノ金粉銘アリシ　ト云フ　然レドモ 私見デハ　南北朝最末乃至應永ノ　石刕出羽住貞綱　ト鑒シ候 菖蒲造　而　大板目ニ鍛へ　互乃目ガ盛ンニ乱レル刃文ヲ焼キ 処々連レ厚ク沸ヅキ砂流湯走カゝリ出来宜矣 Note the word in the final line is カゝリ (or, かかり as normally written). 睦月 = mutsuki