tbonesullivan

Thanks so much for the info! Sadly the polish isn't in the best shape anymore, but there isn't any real rust or other damage to the blade. It came as part of a collection owned by a high ranking U.S. navy officer, though unfortunately there's no information on where it came from. Probably just off a pile of captured Katanas. Guess he got lucky.

Just got a look at this, and it definitely looks like an older blade in a newer scabbard, unless it's Gimei. I have however been having trouble with the nengo, as the second character doesn't match any era name I can find records of. The mei looks like it reads 三 原 正 守 作 - MIHARA MASAMORI SAKU The characters I can get from the nengo are 永 ? 八 年 十 月 吉 日. There are several eras beginning with 永, but the second character doesn't match, though I am aware that there are alternate kanji sometimes used. Is it a simplified version of 禄, which would make this from the Ei-Roku period? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks so much! That is definitely an interesting way of writing the 定 SADA character. The NAGASA on this one is almost exactly 2 SHAKU at 61cm. SORI is 1.7cm. Done! Also got a bad picture of the hamon. The habaki on this one is NOT coming off. It moves about 1cm and then won't go any further. Polish on the blade is "ok", but it's definitely a sword that saw some real use. At least it hasn't been buffed or uchiko powdered to death like so many other bring back swords I've seen.

Been having some trouble with this one, as the style on the second kanji of the name, and the two characters before 義 YOSHI are ones I do not recognize. I thought maybe the second character of the name is 宗 MUNE, or 尚 NAO, but neither are quite correct. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I am definitely a novice regarding sori. Like, how does one find the "deepest part" of the curve. Do you find it with the swords as a whole (tang and edge) on a flat surface, or just the nagasa.

Finally got around to this. Nagasa- 63.2cm Motohaba- 2.87cm Motokasane - 0.61cm Sakihaba- 1.72cm Sakikasane - 0.31cm Nakago Length - 17.8cm Sori/curvature - 2.8cm - tori sori Kissaki Length - 3.4 cm

Sorry for the lack of activity. I was out at a convention for the past week. I was looking at the SORI of the blade, and at least to my eyes, it looks like TORII SORI. I'm working on compiling measurements now that I am back with the blade.

This is possible too, and if it was signed on the other side of the blade, that side is missing even more material. If there was anything there it is gone. Then there's the fittings it came in, which are definitely tachi.

Well, that WAS the plan, but the current state of things makes it almost impossible to get it in for a SHINSA. I'm in the United States, which means that getting stuff in and out is very difficult, and many simply won't deal with it. I also doubt that the NTHK will be doing any on site SHINSA examinations either in San Francisco or Orlando.

If there was more, it is gone. The tang is missing large chunks of material, and below the KUNI there is pretty much a big indentation that would have removed any traces of the next character. I've got some pictures that should show this a bit better.

Ooops, sorry I was away for a bit. nagasa is 25 inches / 63.5cm right now, but looking at the tang it does look like originally it was longer. It's got IHORI mune. Blade shape is pretty standard. Not that I know of. I don't know anything about the history of the blade prior to handling it unfortunately. I have no idea how the tang got the way it is.

I've been told that the blade is very old, and it is definitely relatively thin, assume from having been polished several times. The tang is definitely missing a lot of material, and the KUNI character is quite faint. The curve of the blade is also a bit different than I see on the usual WWII era swords I deal with. Is there any way to tell what general era of swordmaking it is from from these pictures? Thanks in advance!

Yes, I see now, it was not made from Tamagahane folded steel. I cannot see any HADA at all. Is there any way to tell whether it was water or oil tempered?

This is the blade from a Type 98 Shin-Gunt, which looks to be gendaito. This is a maker that I definitely haven't seen before, but I'm pretty sure the signature is 天 地 正 恒 作 - AMACHI MASATSUNE SAKU. The writing is quite stylized, and there are additional kanji on the other side of the tang, which I thought was a date, but it's not in a format I'm used to seeing. I thought maybe it was a Zodiac date, but I don't recognize the first and last kanji on the back. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I also got some (bad) pictures of the hamon, which is somewhere between HAKO and and YAHAZU.

True! They are definitely great for that. The problem is that many of these are floating around military shows with people thinking they are the real thing due to having aged from being decades old. The cross section however is completely wrong.

Well, just found this. It's almost identical, down to the little bumps" on the interior. I've also attached some more pictures. https://www.ebay.com/itm/305700110811

This came from an estate sale as kind of a freebie, as it was damaged and glued back together. Looking at it, I'm not sure it's even a genuine article. I've dealt with a lot of different Jingasa helmets, and while I don't really get that deep into them, this has lots of red flags, and I've seen helmets like this before at shows, but they looked brand new and I stayed away. I can see some of the cross section, and it's uniform, looking like it's made from melamine or some other type of molded plastic. I'm used to seeing layers of paper, maybe with metal, and then layers of urushi lacquer. It doesn't look new at all, but it definitely doesn't look real. It also has molding artifacts around the outside rim, and these little bumps on the inside, just like the "brand new" looking ones I see. Does anyone know the story on these? This one looks like it was aged, or maybe it is decades old, but I doubt it is any type of "real" jingasa.

Oh wow thanks! I guess they chose to use a different kanji for the second character. I see them in the Hikosaburo rankings as 貞次 but in the 1939 Seki Tanrensho Booklet they are 貞継. Which book is that information from? I really need to purchase a copy, hopefully digitally so I can easily copy and past the information.

Thanks so much! I should have seen that, but I couldn't find that name anywhere. I wonder if there's any information out there on them.

It's been a while since I haven't been able to find really anything on a blade. I'm having trouble with the second to last character before SAKU, but I'm also questioning the one before that. Basically the name of the smith. The other kanji I think I have gotten correct. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Signature: 関 住 髙 井 貞 ? 作 - SEKI JU TAKAI SADA ???? SAKU I noticed that this uses the 髙 variant of 高 (TAKA), which is supposed to usually be used in names. Dated on tang: 昭 和 十 八 年 八 月 吉 日 - Showa 18 (1943) 8th Month (August) Lucky Day

Finally got back to some swords that have been around for a bit, now that the Christmas rush at work is over. Have a VERY nice Kai-Gunto by TSUKAHARA KANETSUGU. It's a SEKI marked blade, signed 濃 州 住 塚 原 兼 次 謹 作 - NOSHU JU TSUKAHARA KANETSUGU KIN SAKU Haven't gotten any chance to take full pictures, but we found a very interesting marking on one of the seppa, which I have not seen before. It looks like TFC and a cherry blossom with an anchor. Does anyone know what these stand for?

Definitely looks like it was once much longer, broke, and then was used quite a bit, or just got rusty and was cleaned a bunch of times. It has led a hard life, and probably best left as is, as that is part of its history.

Definitely Yoshiaki.

I have seen plenty of very old patinated blades, and plenty of WWII blades that barely have any oxidation. This just didn't look right. I can't see any traces of Yasurime, and the edges are not really straight. The Nakago-Jiri in particular just doesn't look shaped right.

This looks to be an old Naginata blade that was turned into a wakizashi, and the blade does look old and used, and like a lot of out of polish blades I have seen before. The characters on the tang are not ones I recognize at all. The fittings for the blade are also made from laminated wood, definitely not what I am used to seeing. The "duck" ornaments on the handle are definitely interesting.