Jump to content

Jussi Ekholm

Gold Tier
  • Posts

    2,323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Jussi Ekholm last won the day on April 21

Jussi Ekholm had the most liked content!

About Jussi Ekholm

  • Birthday 12/29/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Tampere, Finland

Profile Fields

  • Name
    Jussi Ekholm

Recent Profile Visitors

8,798 profile views

Jussi Ekholm's Achievements

Kuge

Kuge (13/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator
  • First Post
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

4.4k

Reputation

  1. Thank you for the pictures it does seem to be a very nice sword. To me judging the polish is extremely difficult. Final result by Moses looks stunning in pictures. I think the old polish seemed good to my eye too. Of course the higher up you go in item quality I believe the higher your standards will get.
  2. Just to be noted those are my personal take on things and the correctness of it is up to debate. Just that lot of sources have slightly varying information. I have been wondering about the Mihara smiths too, as it is very rare to encounter one that would have been attributed to late Kamakura by authorities. Of course dealers will tout Ko-Mihara attributed blades as late Kamakura items, and I admit for many mumei swords I have personally late Kamakura - Nanbokuchō as the range. The different generations might be bit varying from book to book. For example for Ko-Mihara Masaie there are 7 different one in Nihontō Meikan and 5 in Sesko Index. For Ko-Mihara Masahiro there are 3 different ones in Nihontō Meikan and 2 in Seskos. Here the notable difference is that Meikan has 1st Masahiro working roughly 1320s to 1330s while in Seskos the first gen is listed c 1360's. There are actually few items that are attributed to late Kamakura Mihara Masahiro by authorities. However all dated items I have found by Ko-Mihara smiths so far are from Nanbokuchō to Ōei. Range is 1353 to 1415 among 15 dated blades. Then you have Kokubunji Sukekuni at late Kamakura, for him there are few dated blades ranging 1323 to 1329. Then for Hokke Chikatsugu has 1352 dated blade Kaneyasu has several blades 1369 and 1370 There are 5 other dated Hokke blades by various smiths ranging 1367 to 1390 For Ichijō I have only found 1411 dated blade And one 1459 dated ōdachi by 2 Hokke smiths Then there is Tatsubō school in Bingo province And for them I have 4 dated blades ranging 1365 to 1373 Here is one problem that I am not sure about, I am not sure if the attribution Hokke Ichijō (法華一乗) is referring to one smith/lineage or a larger group among Hokke smiths. And of course attributions are attributions they need to throw out some fitting classification bracket.
  3. Here you can see them side by side so it is the same sword. Attributions can change when NBTHK evaluates the item again. There has been actually quite large shifts in attributions few times when the item has been sent in for re-evaluation. I feel in general mumei attribution Hokke Ichijō by NBTHK would usually indicate the sword is late Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi. That is how I see things personally. As a general rule NBTHK does not award Tokubetsu Hozon to mumei swords made after early Muromachi (yes I have seen few exceptions but I believe that is their norm). There might be different views on Ichijō generations I checked Meikan and there 1st Ichijō is listed around Ōan (1368-1375). However so far I have only managed to find 3 signed Ichijō short swords and so far I haven't been able to find a single signed tachi remaining by specifically attributed to Ichijō as the Ichi signed tachi and katana have general Hokke attributions.
  4. The blade at Aoi used to have just Hokke attribution at Hozon, so they specified it a bit more at Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa. I admit if I would look at that blade from pictures without attributions I would not pin that to Nanbokuchō nor early Muromachi.
  5. Thank you from the pictures Mark. I always get quite comfy vibe about the US shows, they would seem like cool places to hang out even without intending to get anything.
  6. Thank you for the pictures and report Gerry.
  7. Unfortunately I have never seen the Ayanokōji ōdachi in person, and I know that Tanobe sensei wrote the sayagaki for it, and his expertise in undeniable. However as an ōdachi researcher I cannot understand that particular sword at all. It is just too different to all other historical ōdachi I have seen, and I have seen fairly large number of them in various shrines in Japan. The huge number of holes makes 0 sense to me. I know that Tanobe sensei wrote that it is slightly shortened, that further makes it more puzzling why it would have 8 holes (yes I count the partial hole at bottom too).
  8. Someone got a very nice item
  9. This is from my file that I did about year ago
  10. Oof, seems like Lanes Armory won the Knutsen auction for this item. Well it is good to know for the future that the item resides with them. However unfortunately I don't think I can ever afford to buy it from them. It seems it was 3,400 GBP at auction, don't even want to ask what the price is now...
  11. I admit I am completely clueless about guntō, it is always fun to visit the military sword section as guys in here have so much knowledge on them.
  12. Your sword is signed - 伯耆守平朝臣正幸 / 文化年寅八月日 - Hōki no Kami Taira Ason Masayuki / 1806 8th month (I think he might be also read Masayoshi but I usually read Masayuki)
  13. NCJSC always pulls off amazing display, thank you from the pics Thomas. It is wonderful people can enjoy such a high quality event.
  14. If you are in Tokyo, definately hit this up. Ake is great teacher
×
×
  • Create New...