SteveM

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 Most anything less than a current NBTHK or NTHK would be considered out-of-date and therefore untrustworthy.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

Does the page have any writing or caption in Japanese that might be a description of the design/technique? I've never seen it before. Looks quite unique.

Very reasonable, and a wise choice. Well done.

Here are a few The one in the last link is about midway down the page https://kako.nippont.../swords/KT125576.htm http://kajiyahiroshi.../token-ka118042.html https://www.meihaku....word-basic/sayagaki/ oops, I just reread the question. You are looking for hakogaki specifically (rather than sayagaki)?

Yes, that's what it is. Thanks for that.

Kunihiro 國廣

Hello Marcin, There are several smiths listed in Markus Sesko Swordsmith Index with that name, making swords in that time period. The inscription on your sword is "Masakiyo of Ishikawa Sekishū made this", and none of the entries in Markus Sesko's index mention anything about "Ishikawa", so it might be difficult/impossible to pinpoint which of the ones in his index, if any, are your swordsmith. It is also possible that the smith who made your sword is not listed in any index (an "unlisted smith", or, in Japanese, meikan more). It happens occasionally. The other paper doesn't mention any names for your koshirae. To be exact, the maker of the wooden "scabbard" part would never be mentioned. The makers of the metal parts would normally be mentioned if there is a mei on them. Your tsuba has the name Gotō Teijō (後藤程乗) on it, but the tsuba is a fake (replica) and the name on it is a forgery. The paper mentions that the tsuba for this koshirae should be a brass tsuba with an image of a dragon in clouds. The dragon tsuba has been removed, and replaced with the fake Gotō Teijo tsuba that is now on your koshirae. The dragon tsuba was probably sold off separately a long time ago. This is one of the reasons that old papers aren't to be trusted.

Very nice. The red stamp at the top is 店 (shop) inside a circle.

Giordy has some good advice. I completely agree with the recommendation to avoid problematic swords, and instead look into buying a low-end-but-certified sword. And avoid ebay. There are several dealers on this site who probably have such a sword in their stocks. I think the wine analogy is a good one. If you want to learn about wine, you don't need to buy the most expensive bottle in the shop, or even a mid-range bottle. But you do need to buy a bottle that isn't broken or corked or way past its vintage date. So avoid swords that are broken, chipped, grinded, sanded, rusted to the point where you can't see anything, etc... These swords have nothing to teach you, and are just a pointless waste of money. A koshirae is nice to have, but not necessary. (The sword should come with a plain "shirasaya" scabbard for storage). Koshirae are a different area of study, and aren't essential to learning about sword basics. Usually you end up studying koshirae one way or another, but it isn't mission-critical that your first sword comes complete with a koshirae. Gimei is a topic unto itself, but there can be very good swords that have false signatures on them. But this starts to get into the "deep end" of the pool. I would stick to the shallow end before diving head first, because the shallow end has a lot of important lessons. The shallow end is where you learn the skills to go deeper. When you buy a junk sword you waste money and time that could better be spent on studying something that can actually help you. Now this is really getting deeper, but if you have the time and the patience, this article is well worth reading.