Jussi Ekholm

I do have lots and lots of data of pre-1500 swords as that is my focus. Unfortunately I have skipped on the later stuff as I don't have time for everything. Most common range for surviving motohaba of ubu tachi of pre-1500 is from 2,8 cm to 3,2 cm. Anything over 3,2 cm width I would consider wide and tachi under 2,8 cm I would see as narrow. While the era and tradition have their stereotypical standards, there is also often lot of variation among the surviving works of smiths. I really like researching Bizen stuff as they have so many dated example compared to other regions. You could often say that late Heian / early Kamakura period tachi would stereotypically be more narrow. However there are of course outliers Ko-Bizen Masatsune has Jūyō Bunkazai tachi with 3,4 cm motohaba and Tomonari has the small ōdachi with 3,3 cm motohaba. And in comparison both smiths have ubu tachi that are 2,5 - 2,7 cm remaining at base (I will exclude one very narrow in case source books have measurement mistake). Famous Ō-Kanehira is 3,6 cm motohaba and while other Kanehira items I have info on are sub-3,0 cm. There are some other Ko-Bizen works that are still 3,3 - 3,5 cm in motohaba and you can find comparable items that are 2,5 - 2,7 cm in motohaba. I would say the similar trend continues during Kamakura period and following into early Nanbokuchō. Ichimonji - Osafune - Hatakeda etc. Now when you research ōdachi that are very dear to me, you start to get into wide items. However unfortunately very few Nanbokuchō and Muromachi period ōdachi survive in original length. For example for the famous smith Kanemitsu there is 88,8 cm ubu tachi that is 3,6 cm motohaba (unfortunately I don't have width for the 103,9 cm ōdachi) and for comparison 73,9 cm tachi with 2,7 cm motohaba. The famous ōdachi by Tomomitsu is 126,0 cm and 4,4 cm motohaba, 82,0 cm tachi with 3,5 cm and 73,5 cm with 2,9 cm. For Kozori Hidemitsu there is 81,6 cm tachi with 3,7 cm motohaba and 74,5 with 3,0 cm. When you get into Ōei there are few wide ones by Yasumitsu, widest being 108,2 cm ōdachi at 3,5 cm. Then for comparison not all long tachi are very wide as Yasumitsu has 86,1 cm tachi that is 3,0 cm motohaba. This may be bit difficult post to catch on but I tried to show with examples that surviving very wide old blades are extremely rare and they are often very long too. Likewise it is very easy to encounter both fairly wide and fairly narrow surviving items by many smiths. But the reality is the vast majority of the thousands of tachi I have info on fall between the average scope.

I think the signature is 雲龍斎義次 - Unryūsai Yoshitsugu

Heian and Kamakura period ubu tachi are very rare and precious items. So do not think otherwise even if the number I will present next might seem large. So far I believe I have found 1238 of them (had to count them manually so it took some time). This number of course includes work and mumei attributions to smiths/schools that would have potentially worked into Nanbokuchō but I did not count any ubu dated tachi after end of Kamakura. And to be noted about 50% of this number are Bizen tachi.

On the Usagiya example as they both used the same prepared steel block, I believe they both were expected to have "Norishige like treats". I would have assumed that they would have appeared quite similar. Here is another example from the smith where he used same steel block divided by two to make 2 swords from it. http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/difference of tempering.html Unfortunately I am not a science guy so I cannot really comment on these things nor a craftsman who would make items.

Here is also quite interesting article by Usagiya. I believe Keiun Naohiro made two kobuse constructed blades from same steel block (using this as the outer jacket). Aiming for Norishige like appearance. http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/Norishigeappearance.html You can see the pictures in the link above, I will just quote his thoughts on subject. Lots of very interesting articles at Usagiya.

For me swords are historical weapons and that is the fascination I have for them. I believe modern Japanese craftsmen have various views on things. I just read interviews on the Modern Japanese Swordsmiths book, although it is 20 years old it shows that there are few craftsmen out of the 20+ interviewed who stand against the view that swordmaking was at it's high point during Kamakura period. I admit I am not as well versed in history of battles in Japan so I will have to rely on wikipedia article on this one (as I do not have any books specific on this subject). Hopefully someone might have more complete list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_battles When you look at the list from 1250 - 1330 (the perhaps supposed golden age of swordmaking) only major battles were the 2 mongol invasions 1274 and 1281, also to be noted that both invasions happened at Hakata bay in Southern part of Japan. Where were these best swords tested in battle during the lifetime of the smiths? I admit I haven't given too much thought about this before. I just assumed there were lot more major battles going on during mid-late Kamakura... Then from 1330's onwards there are few battles as end of Kamakura starts to close in. Then there were multiple clashes onwards through the 1400's as well and when 1500's started the number of battles started to skyrocket.

Possibly I have a bit controversial opinion but I do admit I don't know as I feel personally I have no way of measuring quality of the sword. In my opinion much of it has to also do with historical and romantical appreciation. Some of the legendary smiths were famed (most likely for the right reasons) for hundreds of years in the past and some cases they were even seen above cutting tests etc., as their legendary fame should be enough. Also I believe the generational appreciation in Japanese culture is also very strong and surpassing the previous generations is in my view often seen as extremely difficult. I like very much what Jean C. wrote above about metallurigical point of view. I do not understand that well but I enjoyed reading his explanation. So I am wondering how would quality be measured, how much difference in performance would be if a master smith vs. average smith will make a sword with same measurements and geometry and it is finished to similar initial sharpness... I would suspect the swords would be pretty much equal in performance. I do think the innovations of late Kamakura smiths after the Mongol Invasions in sword making might not have been perfect for later Nanbokuchō and Muromachi period warfare against other Japanese opponents as the protective gear was also evolving during the warfare. Of course the well made swords performed well as there are legends of famous warriors using swords made by famous smiths. Of course still you cannot cut a warrior in full armor in half with a sword regardless if it was one of various low level Sukesada or the Masamune making the sword. I do believe the swords of each era were most fitting to the use during that era. So for example late Nanbokuchō smiths made fitting swords for use during that period, likewise for example smiths during Ōnin wars etc. For me, I cannot measure the quality so I often just repeat the same thing that is said in traditional sword appreciation and there are certain smiths who are accepted as being the famed masters.

That is very interesting sword, unfortunately I could not purchase it as it was above my level. Nagasa: 72,1 cm Sori: 1,7 cm Motohaba 3,3 cm Sakihaba 3,0 cm Nakago: 18,9 cm

Here is an image of the dated Masamune. It is in the collection of Tokugawa Art Museum. I believe it was burned in the fall of Ōsaka castle in 1615. It was retempered by Yasutsugu, and Tokugawa Art Museum has another mumei Masamune Meitō that burned in Ōsaka and was retempered by Yasutsugu, there are also signed Masamune Meitō along with mumei Sadamune Meitō with same fate both retempered by Yasutsugu located in different collections.

I remember we had good discussion regarding this subject with Rivkin a while ago. I believe there are two dated Masamune that have fire damage. There is Edo nagamei Masamune that bears the date 1314 (unfortunately I have not yet have this one in any books), then there is Ōsaka nagamei Masamune that bears the date 1328, I have this in 4 different reference books. I know there are few Tokubetsu Jūyō that are attributed towards Masamune have the following line for period - 鎌倉時代後期乃至南北朝時代初期 - which I would translate from late Kamakura to beginning of Nanbokuchō (meaning in this that it could be late Kamakura or early Nanbokuchō). I can't figure out Sōshū and it is a mystery to me that I cannot yet understand... For Norishige the youngest date I currently have is 1320, it is actually missing the year but can be judged as it has zodiac and it is only reasonable date in 60 year cycle. There is one that has 1321 date that was featured in old Tōken Bijutsu number but it seems for it the Norishige signature is fake but year signature is genuine.

It is a very interesting sword. At first when it was sold by Tōken Komachi two years ago/last year it was being sold as naginata-naoshi. However now that I see one of the NBTHK papers it has for the first time it seems to have it as a tachi on the paper. https://web.archive.org/web/20201211141455/https://www.toukenkomachi.com/index_ja_tachi&katanaA040120.html

I agree with above opinions, I think you got a good find. I like that saya style and color theme.

Steve beat me to it. I tried to check Yasutoshi from the Satsuma sword book I have but no Yasutoshi were mentioned in it. I know Markus has an entry of Ōei period Naminohira Yasutoshi. I would be bit skeptical of the Nanbokuchō dating that the video has. To me something towards later part of Muromachi period seems more plausible on this one.

Thank you for sharing the knowledge Andrew. I think this post is very important for appreciation of Naotane (and others too), so big thumbs up for writing it on the forum. It was a pleasure to read and very valuable knowledge to have in English too.

Well I am not too eager to sell this as I really like this item but as I want to move up in quality I have to let this go to possibly upgrade to older and signed tachi in the future. I won't be buying anything for several years to come, so not stressed on time selling this. There are not too many "cheap" tachi currently on the market, so I think this might be a great opportunity for someone to get a fairly nice tachi. This is not the finest art sword you will get but a decent priced long and very curved tachi that is c. 600 years old. Here are the stats for the sword (+ description I wrote for the kantei thread some years ago), I think the thread might be of interest for those looking into this tachi: Nagasa: 77,2 cm Sori: 3,7 cm Motohaba: 3,0 cm Sakihaba: 1,9 cm Moto-kasane: 0,65 cm Saki-kasane: 0,4 cm Kissaki-nagasa: 2,8 cm Nakago-nagasa: 20,6 cm Nakago-sori: 0,2 cm Shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, quite slender mihaba, visible taper, thin kasane, very deep sori that is torii-zori. The jigane is rather standing out itame, which tends to masame-nagare on many parts, some ji-nie is also present. There is also shirake-utsuri. The hamon and boshi can be seen in the oshigata. Nioiguchi is somewhat hazy and weak. Hamon is in ko-nie deki. There is bōhi on both sides with maru-dome before the tang. The tang is ubu has a kurijiri, and two mekugi-ana. The sword is mumei. As you'll probably guess from the picture & appraisal certificate the sword was purchased through Aoi-Art. It has a decent quality shirasaya, much slimmer than I am used to. Comes with NBTHK Hozon 波平 - 時代室町前期, Naminohira - Early Muromachi. Aoi-Art appraisal sheet and their oshigata scroll is included and silk sword bag. You can ask any questions you have and I'll try to answer as well as I can. Price: 6500€ (bank transfer is the preferred method)

I believe Z-Sey bought the production of Simon Lee and put it under their brand. Not exactly sure how everything went down, as I am not really up to date in production sword market anymore. The owner? was participating a little on a different forum with very hostile and aggressive tone, and couldn't take critique well. I would not personally want to deal with him after seeing that. Still they are one of the better non-Japanese maker of Japanese swords around but for the price their good swords (very high for what they are) go I would rather get a real modern Japanese sword or one made by some of their competitors (outside Japan) that in my opinion have much higher overall quality. I owned one second hand of their presumably tamahagane blades made when they were still Simon Lee. It was ok for a Chinese made sword. But in overall I have had better made Chinese made swords. Do not feel down, it can take a long time of reading and looking to start to notice the differences. Are you more interested in antique items or modern made Japanese swords for martial arts practice?

I think traditional way of Japanese sword appereciation has kind of route that you "should" follow (like I feel is very traditional and strict in Japanese culture), and there are some things that experts elevate above others. I personally cannot totally grasp the ideology and Sōshū superiority is one thing I totally lack understanding for. I have been trying to read the reasoning etc. a fair bit this year but I think this art side is where I fall short. As I can often barely see nie with my eyes I cannot understand "utmost beauty" in Masamune nie, or "most important point in appreciating Masamune's work is comprehending nie quality" etc. (granted I have only seen 1 Masamune in museum). Therefore even though some opinions are controversial in sword circles, I think it is nice that someone like Nakahara can voice out some bit controversial opinions contrasting the main stream. To be honest I have next to no clue how Jūyō evaluation works in practice, I just keep record of the results and look into interesting items. I know some very interesting ubu items that have not passed (that I think should be Jūyō worthy) while lots and lots of suriage katana that are in fine condition keep passing year after year. Of course the status of NBTHK evaluation should not be "the" factor in importance, some items will be very important even if they will never achieve Jūyō status. So I may be biased but I would much rather have 2nd signed and dated item from average smith like Bungo Munekage passing than 102nd suriage katana attributed to Rai Kunimitsu / den Rai Kunimitsu or 128th suriage katana attributed to Naoe Shizu / den Naoe Shizu... Of course in those 100+ blades there is a huge gap between the best and worst passing. For example in Rai Kunimitsu attributed blades many of the best ones have passed also Tokubetsu Jūyō evaluation. However I think for Naoe Shizu attribution they will have to "upgrade" it to Shizu at Tokubetsu Jūyō. There are 0 Naoe Shizu at Tokubetsu Jūyō but there is one that passed Jūyō as Naoe Shizu and was changed towards den Shizu at TJ. Then there are in my count 17 suriage katana that are attributed to Shizu at Tokubetsu Jūyō. I think with that it is getting into very difficult rabbit hole where traditional qualitative factors in appreciation come into play for mumei swords. I am not qualified to really comment on that but I admit it can be totally puzzling to me. I feel so much weight is carried by the attribution, and it is confusing. Might be one of the factors why I would rather focus on lower tier signed items.

I was looking at chū-saku smiths (the lowest Fujishiro rank) at Jūyō and there are few that have made it (most have not made it). I excluded lineages that have higher ranked smith generations as I can't check every item specifically and most likely items passing in those cases are work of more famous generation. Yoshii Kiyonori - 9 blades Niō Kiyosada - 2 blades Kai-Mihara Masamori - 1 blade Kanabō Masatsugu - 4 blades Shimada Motosuke - 3 blades Bungo Munekage - 1 blade Terushige - 3 blades Ujishige - 1 blade Of course there are lots of smiths that are not ranked in Fujishiro too. As Jūyō swords are well past 10,000 items I think they can have a sword or 2 from even lesser ranked smiths perhaps representing the top tier of their work. But the correlation between Fujishiro rank and Jūyō is a good one to think about, I admit I haven't really thought about it before.

It has been very fun thread. I must admit I wouldn't have guessed Senjuin as I would have expected bit "rougher". Of course the tips with dealer hinting it as early-mid Kamakura and one smith (Nobuyoshi) being featured are now easy to see after knowing the result. I agree that Senjuin has slight "problems" as work by them (and attributed to Senjuin) span from earliest work seen as being from late Heian period up to end of Nanbokuchō. So there is a lot of ground to be covered. For Senjuin Yoshihiro I have 2 dated swords a tachi from 1358 and tantō from 1353. I know there are possibly items from 1340's by him but I have not yet seen pictures of them in references. But perhaps Honami have had different info on him. I enjoyed this a lot, very tricky one

I was happy to guess the direction with Yamato Shizu, and there are so many interesting hints by Rivkin about the origin. I am not well versed in traditional practices of kantei so my thinking will be maybe bit out of box, as I do not know traditional style and traditions (who gets featured etc.). I hope I will go forward into right direction following the hints and not in the wrong way (that can often happen for me when I try to think too much). I think my second guess would be Taima. I am not well versed in finer details and traits that differentiate these schools from one another. I would think Taima would be traditionally considered as "the best" of Yamato schools. Taima would also be fitting the late Kamakura - early Nanbokuchō time frame quite well. I feel also the earlier description about very specific attribution to smith for which there are not really mumei attributions would in my opinion suit Taima Kuniyuki. I know several signed tachi by him but not a single mumei sword attributed towards him. He is often thought as the founder of Taima but I believe some Taima work pre-date him in current state of research.

I am very clueless without measurements and slight description, as I lack eyes for details many members have. Going to guess Yamato Shizu on this one. Not really fitting what was described in opening so I think it could be not typical work by the maker to whom this was attributed to (as I believe this to be a suriage sword).

I've been used to lone wolfing as living in bit remote location for this hobby. I think learning can be had with and without sword clubs the most important thing is putting in hours. Flying solo I think best way is to spend hour after hour using good quality references. I would agree with Jacques that just Aoi website is not the way for learning. If not having good books and even if you have, I will recommend going through ALL Japanese dealers with good online precence at regular intervals (for example weekly). I strongly believe quantity is important in solo learning, so you must have volume and log in lots of hours. With teachers and good groups you could learn more in less time but I am still in the hard work camp. If you have for example 1 hour of daily sword study you should start to notice some results in few years. Sure it will nice to attend meetings every once in a while but I am firm believer of daily grind and putting in the hours.

My hat is off to everyone running sword groups and involved in it, it is very tough task with few rewards. I have tried getting people interested in Japanese swords locally with pretty 0 success. I felt it took way too much time and stress and I am selfish in that regard and I will rather focus my efforts in my own study and research which might well be totally uninteresting to people but means everything to me personally. I think your living location has a lot to do with accessibility of sword clubs. I am in "relatively good" position where I got Scandinavian branch having meetings in neighbouring country, and I have visited few of them. However unfortunately I cannot afford to fly and have vacation weekends like that at the moment, and in current state I would rather use those funds to add 2-3 extra days to my next trip to Japan than have a weekend in Europe... But living in Stockholm area, I would definately visit every meeting I can get, same with Germany in the area of Main European branch meeting places etc. At least in Scandinavian Branch there was usually bring your own stuff at some point of the meeting, it was nice that there was so great variation in stuff. There were swords, armor, guns, etc. all kinds of stuff. People are often encouraged to bring in items. I remember I brought in my 2 tachi to one meeting, and senior members pointed out things on my swords I hadn't seen with my own eyes. None of the members commented negatively on items of various quality brought in the meetings, and good discussion could be had even on the lower end items. For me one "problem" is that there are so many various groups and sites online and real life, the few people very active in the hobby get spread thinner and thinner. I for one enjoy NMB a lot, and perhaps it could serve as a hub for various sword societies too (I know Brian was maybe toying around with an idea like that some time ago)? Perhaps having members only and open to everyone sections for sword clubs? Being open to everyone and sharing stuff in open is something I feel is important. I know lot of stuff happens and stays in privacy and I do always respect that, as there can be various reasons for that. The same top tier items popping up on a book after another (or online reference) is a problem too. Yes they are excellent items but when I have encountered the same item in c.20 different sources it makes me want to get more and more obscure books from Japan that hopefully do not have the same top items again and again. That is the biggest reason why my book hunts at Japanese sites have gotten to very niche as I want to find new items, not the same ones again in different book. I do understand the point Jeremiah is making, it is nice especially in the beginning to see items that might be possible to own at some point.

It is good that you have a club nearby, I think we have a member from the board in that club too? It will be nice to attend the meetings and get to see some items. I agree that getting an item is also helpful and of course fun. I think part of the idea on the above Sueyuki writeup was also that even though people in general speak c. latish Kamakura being the "golden age" etc. I feel it is not worth to get bottom of the barrel item just to get a potential Kamakura period item. I think it would be much better to get a decent Muromachi or Edo period sword for example. I know people talk perhapas negatively about recommending Shintō when "everybody knows collecting is all about Kotō stuff". I just personally feel that Edo period or late Muromachi item in good condition is much better early on than a questionable Kamakura item. Of course I don't really practice what I preach and I go for quirky old stuff (but it is important to know the downsides of the questionable items and if you are ok with them it is different ball game)... I think the important thing is that you like the item you will buy. You might end up selling it to fund another purchase along the way or you might evolve liking into different types of swords etc. For the mistakes in sword care I will recommend avoid using uchiko on a sword. I know late member Darcy was very vocal in his view in ditching uchiko (I believe you will enjoy reading his very analytical views on rankings, value, etc.), I do believe he is correct. Several years ago I used very slightly pressure when using uchiko and it caused few scratches in the polish. I was bit shocked how easily the scratches came and after that I have been using just pure alcohol for cleaning.

I think there are many in Europe that can wrap your iaito. Here is one in Sweden, I have never worked with him but pics look good: https://www.instagram.com/nihontoiaito.restauration/