Jussi Ekholm

Unfortunately I am not aware of the actual price of the Kanenori ōdachi that landed at Nagoya Tōken World. It was at Christies auction few years ago with koshirae and Tokubetsu Hozon paper (which are not mentioned at Tōken World website and koshirae was not featured at display) https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6417474?ldp_breadcrumb=back&intobjectid=6417474&from=salessummary&lid=1 It was not sold at the auction, so nobody was willing to probably go for 30-35,000$ for it at that time. I remember for a while I had a wild thought that I might try to buy it some day and try to make a lower offer on it... Actually now I might be happier to see that the sword landed at Nagoya than to me and historically it is nice too. The museum had very nice special exhibition of Inuyama swordsmiths, of course quality wise that was not in par with their special exhibition I saw in 2024 but there was actually amazing theme going for it. Maybe some day when visiting I will see the amazing Mikazuki Kanemitsu they acquired for huge amount of money, it will most likely be splendid sword but I might still like this basic ōdachi over it. So I might end up liking 30,000$ sword more than 1 million+ $ sword. Of course in traditional appreciation they are on totally different level and I understand that that particular Kanemitsu tachi is of much higher overall quality. However I saw many Kanemitsu tachi this year including several Jūyō Bunkazai and even comparing top work of top smith is very difficult to me. Some I felt were nice swords while some were just amazing.

Well I think my line of thought is pretty puzzling. I checked and there seem to be 3 ōdachi that have passed Tokubetsu Jūyō, of them I would only want the Mihara Masaie ōdachi of Yasukuni Jinja. However I have huge respect of shrines and I think it is much more important to have the sword remaining there so people can view it. The Motoshige and Ko-Bizen Yoshimune ōdachi both seem to be very nice swords but they don't have the shape & size that I would want for my personal collection. I am extremely happy that many of the ōdachi are staying in Japan and there will be a chance for travellers to see them. I also understand that my sword appreciation is way different from NBTHK, Tanobe, Tokyo National Museum, or even high level focused people in this forum etc. I was extremely happy that I saw this ōdachi at Nagoya Tōken World that they had acquired recently https://www.touken-world.jp/search/127485/ It was my favorite sword at the whole museum. I know that they have 100+ swords that are better than this one but I don't really care about that. This summer I saw 18 Kokuhō and 64 Jūyō Bunkazai swords while in Japan, however I think all of my 10 favorite items were various ōdachi and naginata. Of course by traditional appreciation I should value the best swords and smiths of Japan but in all honesty many of them do not excite me at all... This following point might sound very weird to people with high end swords in their collection but for me personally owning a super expensive sword would be extremely stressful. I have been blessed to have been able to view some very high quality items that other people have shared, and it is amazing experience but for me owning an item like that would be stressful. For me it would be much more fun owning 5 to 10 more mediocre items. This might be completely unrelatable thing but it is my personal feeling. I feel much more fun as a caretaker of low-mid level basic stuff than thinking about daimyō level items.

That is very interesting, the fact that even Markus hadn't encountered this before makes it super rare. For me it is also the first time seeing this.

Your advice is very solid Rayhan, and I think it is wise for all of us to think about our decisions. Especially new people can buy something without thinking too much and if they would have waited for few months might be able to get an item that they enjoy much more. There was actually a recent thread where several of you guys were giving very solid info and recommendations to a new member. I do think that buying items is important to enjoy the collecting aspect of the hobby. I have fallen more into researcher category as I do enjoy that part immensely but I understand for most people it is the collecting that makes the hobby for them. So for collecting I think that buying & selling items is a major part of the enjoyment of this hobby. While it might not be optimal in terms of gathering funds for larger purchase, I would think it would be more enjoyable for many to have some items to enjoy while they save up for major purchase. Sure the money could be better invested in something else for 5 years for example and then used for larger purchase and it would be perfectly ok to do that too. For the low level items I think it is decently safe to get roughly the same investment back when reselling. Of course the initial investment need to be taken into consideration but if you have modern NBTHK papered item it will always sell for decent price outside Japan. The higher up you go in price the more variable it will get and people need to be cautious. For 2000€ sword losing 50% is only losing 1000€ or you could in lucky case get 150% and score 1000€ in your pocket in resale. Now think about 40,000€ sword and losing 50% is losing 20,000€. Of course you could in extremely lucky case sell it for profit but I think for a private person it will be more difficult to make profit on expensive swords, that is high end dealer playground. I can only imagine it would be extremely stressful to think about so large (money amount) fluctuations in price. As for personal collecting to maybe as a slight shock I don't care at all about the smiths/schools or quality... I don't actually want Masamune, Nagamitsu, Rai Kunitoshi etc. Currently even condition is bit irrelevant for me if I like the shape of the blade which for me is about the only thing that really matters. Even with unlimited budget my dream of personal collection would be 1. Muromachi period ōdachi 2. Muromachi period ō-naginata/nagamaki 3. Nanbokuchō period ōdachi 4. Nanbokuchō period ō-naginata/nagamaki Would it be completely irrational to choose a huge sword with condition issues and no papers over a pristine Tokubetsu Jūyō sword for example, of course. I know myself that I would enjoy that flawed ōdachi more than a very high level sword in my personal collection.

I think one important thing is to scale the time frame to financial means of the person. People will have varying opportunities and it would be of course important to make most out of them. When someone gets into sword collecting I don't think we should expect that he/she will wait 5 years before purchasing a sword. I think that is just unreasonable time frame, if it is that difficult to get into the hobby most people will just find another hobby. For the first purchase I think few months would seem like reasonable wait time. Of course the level of purchase will totally depend on the amount a person will be able to commit. I know some people in this forum (and outside forum too) have actually started at extremely high level, and that is an amazing feat. As a small time collector I have only 1 sword in my collection that I have actually wanted, I got it 3,5 years ago. The few others I have I have just purchased because they were very cheap and I liked them. Most likely when I approach my next purchase that I actually want in my focus I will sell something. For me saving up to items that I actually want will probably take somewhere around 5 to 10 years. It is just fun to spend 5 months of sword saving budget into a cheap item and then sell it bit later on for approximately same amount, that just keeps me being a collector. If I would only buy an item once every 10 years, honestly I think I would not care about the collecting side of this hobby at all.

There is 1 Kokuhō, 2 Jūyō Bunkazai, 2 Jūyō Bijutsuhin and 2 Tokubetsu Jūyō swords. The difficulty I personally see in Miike swords is that extremely few of them are appointed to the founder. I think the vast majority of Miike swords are actually from Late Kamakura - Nanbokuchō period. There is the legendary founder and later Mitsuyo smiths but the school apparently ran until late Muromachi period. However other smiths than Mitsuyo generations are very unknown. I have seen this JūBi Mitsuyo two times in the museum and it is a wonderful sword, however I believe this one is late Kamakura - early Nanbokuchō sword: www.touken-world.jp/search-noted-sword/juyobijutsuhin-meito/14360/

Seems like a nice sword, unfortunately cannot see the details in the video too well. Swords in overall got bit longer during Tenshō period so it is not too uncommon to see these bit longer Sukesada swords during the period. One negative thing for me personally would be the red lacquer stripe on the saya. Dragon fittings are not my thing either. I think you got nice overall package, as for the value you can search Sukesada swords from Japanese dealers and get some reference prices.

Seems to be an amazing show! Thank you for the pictures Thomas. From the pictures the absolute highlight for me would be the Yoshifusa tachi even though I was way off by first glance, thought it would be something later.

Thank you Dennis for presenting your fine sword to the forum and starting extremely interesting discussion. As Markus posted the newest research by Tanobe sensei I admit I have bit hard time in understanding what he is saying. My conclusion was that in current research both blades with the short signatures and long signatures date approximately to same period? The term "bucket attribution" might sound belittling for blades but that is not my intention at all. It is just that some schools get a lot of blades attributed towards them, it just goes like that as in traditional sword appreciation it is often that very specific attribution gets given to mumei blades. I would be perfectly fine with more broader attributions but it is what it is. I posted this in May as I remember I posted this before. Here are the amount of swords NBTHK has had passing through each phase of their shinsa. The numbers are not 100% correct (I would have all Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō data but I am not bothered to count every single item) but in the quite close neighbourhood and they will hopefully give you lot of insight. Starting from highest tier to lowest Tokubetsu Jūyō - c. 1,200 swords Jūyō - c. 12,000 swords Tokubetsu Hozon - c. 80,000 swords Hozon - c. 125,000 swords I admit I don't really understand quality in traditional appreciation sense. Quality as a term gets thrown around so often but my own view on it is biased. I don't think precious smiths or schools are synonym of highest quality (it is also likely I just don't understand them). However I have seen Masamune, Awataguchi, Ko-Bizen etc. that to me have not been that high quality swords, and in comparison I have seen splendid work by some less appreciated late Muromachi or Shintō schools. If attribution was all that was judged then there would not even be the need for multiple tiers of papers (well I understand some of the reasons for multiple tiers). However swords can be of weaker overall quality and still achieve high ranks on other extremely important features. I think there are actually many Jūyō Bunkazai blades that those who focus solely on quality would not really appreciate, and the opposite there are many Tokubetsu Jūyō blades that historically focused person like me might not appreciate that much even though they could be of very high quality.

This might be a bit long post with lot of personal opinion. First of all I must say you have a nice sword with nice koshirae. It might be crazy but I personally might like the koshirae more than the sword itself. Now I must admit that I am not personally a huge fan of Shikkake Norinaga. I will post 3 items that I have personally seen in museums in Japan but to be honest none of them did evoke much feelings in me. This is just my personal preference as there are items that immidiately make me react strongly. This first one is a Jūyō Bunkazai tachi and it is in the collection of Tokyo National Museum. I saw this at TNM in 2023, now when I look my diary and the other swords that were displayed in the same room, this one got little attention from me as I felt others were so much more interesting. This second one is a Tokubetsu Jūyō suriage katana that has kinzōgan-mei. I saw this at NBTHK in 2024 and the sword has been donated to NBTHK and is in their collection. Unfortunately the same thing as with the above tachi, I felt there were so many more interesting swords at display at that time. Here is a Jūyō naginata-naoshi with partial mei that is in the collection of Nagoya Tōken World. I am personally a huge fan of naginata but unfortunately this particular one was not that impressive to me. Now the item has a partial mei and attributed to Norinaga, there is a "paradox" in that which I will try to go into later. You can find this particular sword here: https://www.touken-world.jp/search/44080/ The complicated stuff might start here. Norinaga is pretty famous but can anyone name other Shikkake smith and present signed work by them? I checked and currently I have 35 signed blades by Norinaga (various generations as few are Muromachi work) but perhaps 0 signed blades by other Shikkake smiths. There is possibility of error that I have accidentally thrown a Shikkake smith to Senjuin but in general this shows my idea that pretty much only Norinaga is known from the school. Hence the only logical route for the partial mei naoshi above would be attribute it Norinaga as it bears Shikkake in mei, I mean who other would it be attributed to? I know Japanese experts are the foremost authority and I fully respect their knowledge. However I feel that Shikkake in general is slightly a bucket attribution, and as it lacks any other well known smiths than Norinaga how are they attributing stuff to this school (yes there are typical things that might make people go for Shikkake in attributions but it is complicated as there are no signed references). For example a lot of naoshi with Yamato traits get attributed as Shikkake. The 5 Jūyō Bunkazai blades by Shikkake Norinaga are all signed tachi. There are 6 Tokubetsu Jūyō blades by him 3 of them are signed tachi, 1 Kinzōgan, 1 that has Shusho (even though TJ has it mumei) and 1 mumei. There are dated items for 1319, 1338, 1340 and 1340. I cannot comment on Jūyō shinsa as I have never gotten into the process or asked about it, I just study the results. However I would challenge the AI result of limited passes, there are no specific percentage or number of items that will pass. It is up to NBTHK to decide and there will be fluctuation by numbers & passing percentage that is probably depending on the items sent in and how the shinsa team felt about the items in that particular session. There can be lot of variation in results.

I will try to write an actual reply when I have time but here are the Jūyō numbers from all 70 sessions. 36 Shikkake Norinaga blades (signed + attributed) 103 Shikkake blades (attributed)

I believe the signature actually is 奥州会津住下坂 - Ōshū Aizu jū Shimosaka.

Here is the link to this particular sword. https://www.e-sword.jp/katana/2510-1062.htm In person I have only seen one ōdachi that has had nakago extension, and it was performed in slightly different manner but much more smoothly than this. I think the extension in the linked sword seems quite crude fix.

As I believe multiple swords were talked in this thread, are you meaning the Ryūmon attributed katana talked in the first post Alex? https://web.archive.org/web/20250424135336/https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-attributed-to-ryumonnbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/

I think the Catawiki website uses very tricky wording, and that it makes it seem like Julien has personally chosen the items, while I believe they are just from various sellers. So it is confusing as for example in OP sword the seller itself is an antique dealer. The sword in OP is from Kyodai Originals https://kyodaioriginals.nl/product/katana-by-echizen-ju-hyuga-fujiwara-sadakuni-ca-1664-nbthk-hozon-certified/

Thank you for posting this Gary, very cool item. I must admit I have never understood this weapon but it is super cool.

Looks like a very nice item. I think there is high chance the signature is also legitimate and I would think it would be from early 1400's. Here is 1423 dated tachi for a reference. Here is a katana that is judged from late 1300's to early 1400's https://www.kusanaginosya.com/SHOP/88.html And here is a 1459 dated katana for reference. https://www.aoijapan.net/katana-bishu-osafune-yukikage-with-imperial-army-honor-guard-style-koshirae/

Yasukuni jinja has massive naginata that I believe is signed 九州筑前住人源信国平四郎. Unfortunately I don't have this in any references just have seen it 3 times at the museum. They have Muromachi dating for this massive naginata in koshirae (and given the size I could easily believe their description). So this one would seem to possibly predate the Yoshimasa smiths. However it could be possible that Yasukuni jinja description is bit too early and the blade would be a massive early Edo period naginata.

Amazing

As I am not proficient in Sōshū, and I only have few books on Masamune, my few questions would be. Which reference gives the 1312 as the date of death for Shintōgo Kunimitsu? What reference mentions Norishige used commonly 吉 in his signatures. (as I have so far encountered only 1 signed Norishige that has that character). There are all kinds of weird things that can be seen in Kotō signatures. It is unfortunate there are extremely few early Sōshū dated blades in general. For example later on during Nanbokuchō when Akihiro signed, for him it was common to have just 3 character nengō, era and year (Yes you can find also longer dated Akihiro swords). For the months in general I believe some months were auspicious (I hope that is the correct word) and used in dating, and for the opposite you very rarely encounter swords made in the 4th month. I think it could be possible that your tantō is signed 国光 / 徳治三 and then last character or 2 could even be later addons. To me they seem be weak compared to the upper characters.

@BrianOf course it can be added to the files section. I chose the current measurements mostly as they are the most accessible ones that many major references give out. As almost all Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon info comes from dealer sites, the dealers list varying info about swords (with also varying accuracy). I remember when I originally started this I didn't yet have Jūyō books and the books I had listed variable amount of measurements. Kissaki measurement for example would have been fun one too but unfortunately very few dealers have measured the kissaki. I deleted kasane measurement when I realized that it is too inconclusive, as we discussed in here lately too that dealers measure it differently, so I do not trust that measurement. I think weight is an important measurement but extremely few books even even dealer websites have that one mentioned. I didn't want to have a row that would be 90+% just blank. And if someone wants they can of course send me information about the sword(s) not featured in here. For privately owned swords I have tried to limit it to modern NBTHK or NTHK papered ones, as I cannot judge non-expert evaluated swords as I lack the skill. For the swords in Japan I have included Museum swords, shrine swords etc. I know some Japanese experts might say sword X in Tokugawa Art Museum is not legitimate or Imperial Collection sword Z is a gimei. I have however listed them as they are in the collection of that museum and perhaps deemed correct by other experts. I have tried to keep my own opinions about the items in minimum. I saw few swords at various museums this year that I think might not be legitimate, however museum experts have noted they are legitimate pieces and they sure know more than me. The Japanese kanji should always be correct as I have put a lot of focus that the Japanese is correct. I have had few mistypings on translating the year to our calendar, and I will correct them every time I see my mistakes. Mostly it has been just mistyping 1 year in either direction by human mistake. I think that something like c.98% of year conversions should be correct but there can be an error every once in a while.

Well as I was travelling in Japan this summer I realized I should share the current data I have, because if something happens to me all my long time work is lost. There have been some unexpected passings in the last few years and I have been gathering the data for this file for around 10 years now and it would be shame to lose it all. This is still a work in progress and there is even tiny bit of Finnish language mixed in there. This will never be finished and I will continue to work this hopefully for a long long time. As I managed to pass 15,000 swords in the file I thought it would be time to share it. I am strong supporter of openly sharing the knowledge, so feel free to use this for research, just would be nice to be credited if this is used in research. My original idea was to stop around c.1450, and I mostly did. However I wanted to include some Muromachi stuff I like and old ōdachi in general, and few years ago I started adding late Muromachi and early Edo Naginata to the list. So I think the number of pre 1450 swords might be closer to 14,000. Of course would be amazing to have all swords included but as a solo project just stopping around Early-mid Muromachi has proven to take majority of my sword hobby time. There are most likely some errors somewhere in there and I correct then always when I notice them. It is just due to human error as this is my solo project and 15,000 sword entries there are bound to be errors, and there are still many items that might have XX etc. that I need to do more research. I have included reference for each and every sword, so I do have all 15,000+ swords in my personal references. I have been using this my personal reference system for a long time so for me it is easy. I am always updating this when I have time but I think I have 1000+ written references at home as I have c.800 issues of Tōken Bijutsu. For a long time I have tried to find motivation to finish seeking all the City Bunkazai from city websites but so far I have only gone through 187 cities and I think there are 700+ in Japan. The reference system might be bit confusing but at the bottom I should have quite up to date list of the reference codes I use. Few years ago I started adding additional information and attachments. I should have started it from the beginning as I need to go through references multiple times now. It is still a work in progress but for example additional info I should have around 300 Meitō, I think there should be provenance (denrai) for 1300+ swords currently. Maybe c. 150 shrine dedications etc. For attachment example I should have info on close to 1,500 sayagaki. Just looked and I think I should have c. 400 Tanobe sensei sayagaki. Listed as authentication I should have around 2,500 Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon papers for these swords. I know there should be 3,000+ but many Japanese dealers never post the NBTHK papers. If I know the location of the sword (museum, shrine etc.) I have written it in authentication field along with the designation of the sword if it has such. I had a huge dream of a website and I had an amazing vision in mind but unfortunately reality hit that I could never achieve that, and on top of that copyright issues would hit hard. As I said I have every item somewhat accessible to myself however I cannot really share them to public. I try to be up to date with current information where smiths belong etc. and try to switch them around. However it is difficult as new theories emerge from Japan. I just read recently that in one view Ōmiya Morikage is now considered to be Osafune smith instead of Ōmiya, and just few years ago I switched Yoshikage from Sōden-Bizen to Ōmiya, maybe I need to do more switching... so some smiths might be in wrong school, or there can be alternating theories. In my defence I have all the references where I can check but there can be conflicting information among the references. Unless the item is dated I have tried to give a decent time range for the smith as I dislike very narrow ranges for mumei items. Some references can narrow the dating of mumei sword to very narrow time frame and therefore I have written what they see the item being. As for me size and shape is the most important thing for me it was logical to arrange the items by length first and foremost. So if present the swords should go ōdachi - tachi - katana - naginata - naoshi - kodachi - wakizashi - tantō - ken/yari. Then for same length I have usually gone higher ranked first (at least that was my plan). Well that is a brief summary of the database file. I hope everyone will have a great summer Koto tietokanta PDF15000.pdf

I think these would be the sayagaki 相州住正宗 - Sōshū jū Masamune (for this I did not know the first kanji but it seems common way of writing 相 in sayagaki as I checked some reference sayagaki from various authors) 大和国貞行 - Yamato Kuni Sadayuki 和泉守兼定 - Izumi no Kami Kanesada X国弘 - X Kunihiro (I cannot read first letter with confidence but guess this could be Sa Kunihiro 左国弘) 濃州住兼X - Nōshū jū KaneX (I cannot read last one confidently) 尾州住政秀 - Bishū jū Masahide 備州長船兼光 - Bishū Osafune Kanemitsu 備州長船祐定 - Bishū Osafune Sukesada X兼安 - X Kaneyasu (I cannot read first one confidently) - This one is too artistic for me to read 越前国下坂貞治 - Echizen Kuni Shimosaka Sadaharu 無銘粟田口 - Mumei Awataguchi 相州住定宗 - Sōshū jū Sadamune (Not the Sadamune but a different one from c. Tenbun) 三条小鍛冶宗近 - Sanjō Kokaji Munechika

I admit that Japanese experts have incredible skill in determing authencity and details. However I must say that sometimes I prefer neutrality against extremely specific while still theoretical opinions. I know foremost experts put non dated items (sometimes even mumei items) to a specific point in smiths career based on some tiny details on worksmanship or tiny variations in mei etc. I tend to favor more neutral uncertainity. Of course that is not nearly as exciting. Sōshū is not really my thing. I start to like them only from Sadamune attributed items onwards and I think Hiromitsu might be my favorite Sōshū smith. This year in Japan I saw Aizu Shintōgo (National Treasure), TJ Kunimitsu tantō, and a Jūyō Kunimitsu tantō. Granted these were all in museums through the glass but all I remember is the very fine worksmanship, as these items do not interest me that much. However one thing I have come to realize when travelling in various places in Japan is that memory is a fickle thing. And to be honest I have always thought I have decent memory especially when it comes to swords. This brings me to another point, how long has passed between the evaluation of the swords by the expert. I am not trying to put down experts in any case, they do have incredible knowledge and pretty much all our current information is based on several generations of Japanese experts. Still I think even the Japanese experts will rarely get to study the most important items side by side as they are owned by various, Museums, Shrines, Individuals etc. I saw some absolutely incredible stuff in various places in Japan this summer but I realized it is way too difficult for me to accurately judge swords against each other if I saw them in different museums on different days, not even considering about comparing to items I saw last year for example. Even if an item would be bit out of norm, if after polish it would exhibit very fine worksmanhip after the polish, then I would think there is a great chance it would be seen as a legitimate item. As I am at home in a fever, I did this just for fun. Here are the Kunimitsu kanji for 11 dated Shintōgo Kunimitsu tantō. And I did scramble the mei so they are not in any ascending or descending dates.

貝三原 - Kai Mihara