Mark S.

Thanks for the hint... after looking at a few more examples I 'think' I have the three characters above Kunihiro. Once again, like the Kuni, it seems the 'Fuji' is a bit more simplified than some of the examples I saw. ? ? ? kami Fujiwara Kunihiro

The following pictures are from another military gun/surplus site and the owner is asking for help. It also gives me a chance to practice my VERY limited translation skills... such as they are. Tsuba: I believe second character in mei is 'Hiro'? I thought first character would be easy to find... but couldn't. Is it an abbreviated 'Kuni'? Kogatana: Am I (again) seeing Kunihiro as last two characters? The rest was a bit beyond me. Thank you in advance Mark S.

Hope I don't do anything 'wrong' by posting this (and hope it hasn't been discussed before), but if so, please remove... I was just browsing e-bay, and came across this blade... http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-Old-Jap ... 1e902f5b64 I started with just wanting to translate the mei for practice and I came up with Harima Fujiwara Tadakuni...??? Hopefully got that part right. Not sure if gimei or not... THAT I leave to the experts... Mark S.

Regarding an ubu mumei Kai-Mihara katana (I posted about a while ago) with both Kosh-hi on the omote side and Gomabashi on the ura side, here is where I start wondering if I just have wishful thinking... but two quotes from the above website: "In medieval Japan, when a smith makes a blade for some god or Buddha, he tries to make a best blade, but no will to put his signature on the tang. He refrains from putting his signature on the holy thing that will offer in shrine or temple. When the smith gets an order from some high class lord, he takes the same way. It is a manner to respect the objects humbling the smith himself... The originally unsigned blades with good quality would be made by such situation. Probably they were made for some god or Buddha, or by order from high class person." AND in combination with (from same website): "Koshi-hi (short groove) This is a short groove with rounded top. Usually it suggests the sword of the Buddha "Fudo-myo'o". Its meaning is the same to the engraving "Ken" that is the symbol of power of Buddha. Sometimes Koshi-hi can mean any Buddha. It is the most simple symbol of prayers. It is not a decoration, so it must appear on one side of the blade. Hashi or Goma-bashi (chopsticks) This is double narrow short grooves with the same length and rounded top. These are symbol of chopsticks that used for a Buddhism ceremony. So they also mean a power of Buddha. Combination of grooves Bo-hi or Futasuji-hi doesn't have any special meaning by them selves. When they appear on each side of blade, it can have a meaning of prayer. They may suggest a Buddha and his two valets. A main Buddha with two second Buddhas is common motif in Buddhist images." In my blade's case, could it point to an order from a shrine/temple... or a 'high ranking' person with deeply held religious beliefs... or other...? Of course we will never know... and sometimes a little information (as above) put together can lead to some pretty wild 'guesses'... but a man can dream... Mark S.

The change in lighting cleared up things on the nakago... but the poor blade has seen better days.

Hard to tell from pics, so these are guesses at best: 1, 2 & 3: Shortened more than once? Also, can't tell if #2 looks like some type of 'weld' or other type of 'work' or simply a point where it was previously shortened? 4: Hi of some sort? Means blade was probably shortened quite a bit? 5: A bit of a signature, stamp, or other?

Sorry to state the obvious... but a SUBSTANTIAL drying time after reassembly of the shirasaya should also be planned for. After the steaming process, and the water that is in the rice glue, a good amount of water will probably be soaked up by the wood. The thought of a blade 'sealed' in a shirasaya that is still evaporating water should give one cause for concern...

O.K. I'll try again... Yasutaka康隆 or Yoshitaka慶隆 ? But also seeing "Nori" as first character as well...?

I ususally don't translate out of fear of embarrassement ... but is the first part of the smith's name "Yasu" 康 ?

What is your interest in owning it? I mean, what do you want to 'do' with it? Without pics, can't say the parts are even worth the total amount he wants (or even what you want to spend) and the blade doesn't sound like much to learn from. No point in wasting more $ on any type of resto. I can't see any 'upside' to spending good money that could go for books... or sake... :D Mark S.

Another thread got me thinking about this issue again, and rather than start a new one, I'm resurrecting an older thread to keep this information together. I've also tried to write out my questions many times, but it always gets too long for various reasons (too many justifications, or nuances), so I am just going to ask my questions and let chips fall where they may. Can someone explain the reasoning behind always submitting blades 'blind' to Shinsa teams, especially if re-submitting a blade to the same organization? I guess I can understand always wanting an unbiased assessment, and not 'pitting' organizations against each other, but if (for example) a good condition, out of polish blade is submitted to a specific organization, and the blade is later polished and resubmitted to the same group, is there any specific reason they WOULDN'T want to know about the prior attribution, and work from there? Is the idea of changing an attribution (even with the new information that could be learned from a fresh polish) REALLY that strongly frowned upon? Also, shinsa results are given 'identification numbers' and I would assume are 'cataloged' in some way. Wouldn't it be more useful to 'update' existing blades as opposed to always getting a new catalog number? Or am I misinterpreting the use/reason behind the identification number. Is it simply a 'house-keeping' item, or is it used for any other type of research, record, etc? Sorry for the beginner view of such things... Mark S.

Not sure if anyone would find this interesting, but there seems to be some Nihonto, fittings and armor mixed in with the other goodies. Mark S. http://www.rikyucha.com/item/list2/136311/

Trent, I'll get you started. The date of kanteisho you can figure out with a little work and assistance from the KANJI PAGES located at the top of this page just above the NIHONTO MESSAGE BOARD heading. Mark S.

Trent, Having just purchased my first nihonto with papers (NTHK-NPO), I understand your eagerness. I just went through the process of trying to translate the papers and had to ask for the kindness of this board to put many of the finishing touches and translate fine points of the paper. I also asked a lot of questions that probably got a few :? But I would highly encourage you (and you will get more responses) if you try to translate as much as possible on your own and then ask for clarifications. He who helps himself... Below, find a list of many resources that will help you start (it's how I started). You should be able to get pretty far in the translations and you might surprise yourself a bit in what you can figure out. Best of luck Mark S. http://www.nihontocraft.com/japanese_sword_papers.html http://www.shibuiswords.com/papers1.htm http://japaneseswordindex.com/origami.htm http://www.jssus.org/nkp/tosogu_kanteisho.html http://new.uniquejapan.com/nbthk-nihon- ... r-ranking/ http://www.nihonto.ca/ratings.html

Gentlemen All, Thank you for your kind patience and replies... and thank you Mariuszk for the links. I'll keep digging and studying on my own a bit more... but I reserve the right to bother you on occasion again... Mark S.

John, Thank you so much for responding. And honestly, you highlight the point of my post. I am not questioning the "multiple judges on the origami indicating agreement", but I seem to keep coming across that way. What I want to understand is the "telltale points". I guess I am dreaming for the impossible... my own chance to ask the judges "Why Masamori"? As a beginner, maybe I am too eager to just say "Yep... Masamori" without the question "Why?" And add to that too little knowledge to know "why" on my own, or where to look. Maybe the judges have seen 100 Masamori blades and are like "Duh, of course Masamori". I have seen... 1. Maybe Nihonto are more in the "You have a kanteisho paper, now shut up and color until you know more" category...? Hard when you want to learn... Mark S.

Mr Bowen Thank you for responding... I posted pics of the papers in my earlier posts and I try to be careful not to continually post the same info as not to appear to be 'fishing' for simply what I want to hear or to keep re-posting the same info over and over. Sometimes I never know where 'trying too hard' starts or ends here. What I find frustrating is that it seems when a question is asked, it sometimes comes across as "questioning the experts" which is most assuredly not my intent. I'm not here to stump anyone, nor question conventional wisdom. I truly TRUST the judges... I just don't understand the WHY, which I desperately WANT to. As a beginner, when I research the Kai-Mihara smiths, there are several listed including Masaoku, Masazane and Masanao, Masamori, and others. I find explanations of the school as a 'whole', but nothing distinctive about each. Suguha hamon, Itame grain, etc... and none of that is different than is what is on the kanteisho papers I have. Is there something I am not looking at that would lead me to understand WHY they would have chosen Masamori over any of the others? Once again, this is not a challenge to you or the judges. I WANT to understand... not question out of hand. I feel my genuine 'want' to learn is not coming across and the more I ask, the more I might be seen as 'difficult'? Am I doing something wrong here or are there references I am not looking at that I should be so as not to waste anyone's time? I will re-post the kanteisho papers with my translations (with the generous help I have received so far). Is there anything specific I missed that would say "Yes, of course it is Masamori?" I would assume that the sword would need to be seen in hand to really make the determination... and that to me is the difficult part. Wouldn't it be a HUGE learning experience (for future research) to record WHY the judges made a determination they do on a mumei blade? And really... this was the point of my original post. Can you imagine the volumes of knowledge that would be obtained if someone recorded the conversations of the judges during a Shinsa when they come to their conclusions? Just to 'make something up' to highlight my point, I would like to be able to say, "It is a combination of the usual Kai-Mihara school attributes, but the addition of the Gomabashi-hi and Koshi-hi on this sword are what make it scream Masamori". Problem is, I don't know that for a fact... but what if the judges mentioned this fact (based on their experience) during the Shinsa? How much valuable knowledge is being 'lost' or never transferred? Please... if my question is inappropriate... what am I missing?

All, I have tried to do searches here to find an answer, and several threads have discussed issues ‘close’ to my question, but nothing definitive. So if this has been asked and answered before, I apologize. I’ll ask my question straight out… and then do a bit of ‘back-pedaling’ afterward. My recently purchased blade is mumei, but has NTHK-NPO papers attributing it to a specific smith. My question is: “Why is there no area on the papers for a notation as to WHY the judges believed it was a specific smith?” I understand not wanting to have a judgment questioned later plus the amount of extra work involved, and IN NO WAY am I questioning the attribution I was given, nor questioning the judges vast experience to make such a judgment… that is NOT the point of my post at all. But it does leave one with a bit of a ‘shoulder shrug’ as to why they wouldn’t at least give a couple notes as to what attributes they saw in the mumei blade that made them confident it was a specific smith? In my case, the attribution was “Masamori” from a long list of “Masa’s” who were active Kai-Mihara smiths. So they must have seen ‘something’ that led them to pick him out from ‘amongst the herd’… and I use that term with all due respect to ‘the herd’. All I have been able to find on line are some general attributes of the Kai-Mihara MasaXXXX smiths, but nothing really specific separating them from each other. I suppose the judges are not obligated to ‘teach us’, but only to make judgments about what they see. But when you can’t ask them ‘on the side’ after the Shinsa (I wasn't there, I only have papers), it is just a bit frustrating. It would just be nice to know why they said, “Ahhhh… that’s HIM!”, especially when the smith isn’t a ‘big name’ with clear distinguishing features, yet they were still able to pick him out. Now, to argue AGAINST myself, I suppose if they were asked to do as I request, they would be much more likely to just attribute age, location, school, etc. and simply forget judging a smith for mumei blades… but they really COULD do that now without question. They saw SOMETHING… why not say what it is? Any insight is appreciated, Mark S.

WW2 Gunto Mount

A while back, I asked for assistance in translating a NTHK-NPO Kanteisho Paper for a sword I purchased at the Chicago Show two weeks ago. With much gracious assistance, I have the paper all figured out. However, I was asked for some additional pictures. After trying many, many, times, in many different kinds of light, almost all of my attempts have been a pretty poor representation of the blade. Either the picture is washed out, or the blade looks like it was cleaned with steel wool. In the hand, this is most certainly not the case. HOWEVER, a couple pictures of the hamon and grain of the sword DID come through, so I figured I would share! The more I stare, try different lighting, use a magnifying glass, etc., the more I see, and it seems to come at times when I least expect it... just a small change of angle and I see a completely different picture. Excuse a beginners 'awe'. The blade is out of polish, but I am looking forward to saving my pennies (O.K.... dollars) and hopefully, this time next year, I will start the hunt for a polish and shirasaya. Here are the particulars of the Katana (if you didn't want to go to the other post): General information: Katana: Nagasa 70.9cm (27.91”) / Sori 1.8cm (11/16”) / Nakago (2 mekugiana) 18.5cm (7-1/4”) Ubu Mumei. Was submitted for Shinsa at the Minneapolis Show, October 8, 2011 and received Kanteisho paper with the following attribution: Bingo / Kai-Mihara / Masamori / Tensho era. Not in full polish, but in pretty good condition as it is. Chu-suguha (medium straight) hamon and Tsumu Itame (tight wood grain). Most of the hamon is very straight and the misty area is separated from the rest of the blade by a very distinct 'white line', althought the grain flows in and out of the hamon (sorry, not sure how else to explain), but certain areas open up a bit and the edge of the hamon becomes more 'interesting' as well. Score: 75/100 according to the original worksheet. Thanks for looking, Mark S.

Jean, I am still working on those pictures. Unfortunately, my attempts last night turned out poorly. There are two pics of the Hi at the beginning of this thread, but my attempts at the 'whole blade' and the last 10cm of the blade were all flash and didn't show much. Mark S.

To keep things all in one thread... this was a much appreciated response from member 'Kunitaro' regarding the description of the hi on both sides of the blade: It is written 表、腰樋　中心内に掻き流し、　 裏、護摩箸　中心内に掻き流し Omote, Koshi-hi Nakago-nai ni kakinagashi Ura, Gomabashi Nakago-nai ni Kakinagashi into Nakago Kosh-hii on omote and Gomabashi on ura side Koshi-hi, Gomabashi are same as Bo-hi, Futasuji-ji, but shorter.

Thank you Brian, and I know it seems like I am asking for A LOT of information from the members... I hope they will be patient with me. Just as in many things in life, I hope everyone can understand the excitement of that 'first one'... :D And there may be other members who can use this as a reference in the future for some of the 'basic translations' of a Kanteisho paper.

Mr Bowen, Thank you for your help. So, based on the Kanteisho and the worksheet, there is no indication that the blade was shortened? I may have misunderstood the person who led me to believe the blade had been shortened and I also thought that 2 mekugiana and the hi running into the nakago were at least an indicator that it was shortened. I know dealing with a novice is probably very frustrating for the more experienced members, but I do appreciate your help. Mark S.

I am so sorry... this is not a 'gotcha' question. It is my fault for not providing the worksheet initially. Strange, "Ubu" is not circled... but there is kanji off to the right and I believe that means 'shortened'. Honestly Mr Bowen, I am not playing games or 'stump the experts'... I just wasn't sure how much info to dump here and overload everyone. I guess I should have included it so it would have helped from the beginning. Thank you so much for your help! Mark S.