Jussi Ekholm

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

Here are 3 closest dated ones I am currently aware of in my references. First is the 1306 dated one that is Jūyō 19, as I looked my files I realized I have actually seen this one 2024 at NBTHK. Didn't even remember it so I guess it didn't make a big impact on me (I like stuff outside of the general appreciation realm so very common I don't remember some fine items as I focus on items that I personally like). Second is 1308 dated Jūyō Bunkazai of Atsuta Jingū Third is 1309 dated one from Jūyō 55.

Very exciting stuff! 😊 Unfortunately I lack the skill to know the subtle differences in signatures but fortunately I have so many references. I checked and I should have 68 signed Shintōgo Kunimitsu tantō and 12 dated ones between 1294 to 1324. I can try to find time some day next week to post some good reference items. 👍

It is to be noted that there is huge variance in accepted Gassan signatures. Unfortunately I wont be able to check my resources at home until next week but I should have 40+ Gassan signatures for pre-Edo swords. I will admit off the bat I would agree that signature might not be stereotypical. However if the work looks like Gassan as it seems to look, then I dont personally see a huge issue. I like Muromachi Gassan a lot and I was lucky to see very nice Gassan tantō today.

If not in hurry and can spend extra cash I would put it to Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa. I only have the 1st NTHK book but I know there are at least 12 NTHK Yushu swords that have been also been papered by NBTHK. In the worst case scenario if the NBTHK attribution would be much "lower" nobody would need to know it was sent to their shinsa... But I think it seems like a nice sword and as it is NTHK Yushu it shouldn't get too bad attribution I'd guess.

I believe that this is their current exhibition and by the item list it seems the swords on display now would be Bizen Shinshintō. https://www.pref.okayama.jp/site/kenhaku/963604.html I will have to hit you up next time Piers and plan a bit advance 😄 as I travel without mobile Internet it is difficult to reach me in rural areas as there is no free connection. And planning is advisable as I just went with flow today and didn't check anything in advance. Ended up waiting 45 minutes for the local train at Osafune station 😁 Even though my comments might have sounded bit negative, to all readers there were many good swords on display. So if you are in the area it is worth visiting. And there will be next special exhibition coming up. Swordwise worst hit of this trip has been Itsukushima jinja. I was happy that my friend could join me as she had time for Hiroshima trip, so Hiroshima in overall was amazing. I had huge hopes when hitting Itsukushima jinja treasure house as I know they have super interesting swords and 200+ swords in their collection. However on display were 6 swords, of which 2 I found bit interesting... Still have to visit there in future too hoping to see some of the ones I really want to see. 😅

備州長船祐定 - Bishū Osafune Sukesada

I did end up hitting the Osafune Sword Museum today, the facility was amazing and staff was very nice. The swords... Well I must explain that at the beginning of my trip I would have felt different about the swords. However during my multiple week stay I have seen 18 Kokuhō, 62 Jūyō Bunkazai and hundreds of other amazing swords. Including numerous amazing Bizen swords from various schools. Most interesting swords displayed in my opinion were a Gassan tantō and multiple nice Tanba no Kami Yoshimichi swords. Also Shinshintō Bizen swords were good. The old Bizen stuff that I especially went there to see was just in my opinion not that good. Of course I understand that the special exhibition is limiting the swords they chose to display. I think I will try to visit the museum some other year too. The displays were really good and museum itself was splendid. 🤗

Unfortunately they have been private messages 😔. Perhaps Nick can share some more measurements & info on the sword when he is back on regular schedule. I believe the Tanobe sensei sayagaki was featured on Facebook. Unfortunately I dont use Facebook so I cant tell for sure. Just seen pics of it.