Nicholas

@Scogg I’d appreciate if my personal information is taken down. And yes I did reach out to see if @tumbleweed5780 would be interested in selling the sword. The beginning of the conversation that is not shown is that I am willing to pay a fair price for it. I’m not looking to rip anyone off. I don’t buy swords to sell and turn a profit. Never needed to.

@Conway gotcha, that’s the website I got the Joko No Retsu reference for this smith. Interesting sword from a smith I’ve never encountered before. Not my cup of tea. I’ll most likely put it up for sale.

@Bruce Pennington

Looks right thanks @Conway. Medium grade Gendaito. Japanese swordsmith index has him as Joko No Retsu (Chu Saku). I’m not sure what Akihide is?

I just picked up this sword and I’m having trouble with the full translation. I see Kaneyoshi but can’t get the rest. Please help.

Thanks, I’m glad I bought it. I thought to myself when’s the next time I’ll see a Koto blade possibly from Nambokucho period with tameshigiri kinzogan mei at that price. Probably never again. If it was papered and had sayagaki I probably wouldn’t be able to afford it . It’s a change of pace from the Gendaito I normally collect.

I agree and definitely respect his opinion.

I’m not sure of the age or level of the lost paperwork. Mike guaranteed it to pass shinsa. The 2 body cutting test is what drew me to the sword. Whether it was Nambokucho or not was an afterthought. After looking at some Omiya attributed swords I can see why that is the suggestion. It just didn’t have the classic Nambokucho shape but with little to no taper that got me thinking.

I don’t think Mike is lying to me. I know his opinion is highly regarded and he was very kind to me and easy to deal with. Just wanted to see if others shared the same opinion of the sword. I believe the hamon is in Nioi with some utsuri. Jigane looks to me as itame/ mukome mix.

I understand that sugata is only one piece of the puzzle when judging a sword. The shape just makes me think Muramachi period when I look at it with my inexperienced eyes. The sword also came with a little tag on it that says Omiya Morikage. Maybe that’s what the attribution was previously. I’ve read that There is a huge difference in activity in the hamon from the kamakura period compared to Muramachi. It’s just hard for me to understand without seeing it in hand.

I purchased a 70.4cm sword w/ 2 body cutting test from Tetsugendo. While speaking to Mike Yamasaki about the sword he said the sword was previously papered to Omiya (origami had since been lost). He also gave his personal opinion of Soden Bizen/ Nambokucho. My question is does this sword have a Nambokucho sugata. What should I be looking for as clues to the age of the sword. Side note: I am happy with the purchase either way. And I probably will send it to get papered and sayagaki.

I also had the chance to buy this sword but decided against it due to how deep the pitting is and overall condition of the sword.

Sure did.

Sword is signed: Taira Sadashige and dated second month of showa 18

I’m going to have to look more into this. I never thought about that. Thanks

I took some pictures because I can’t tell.

I would love to hear what he thinks. I believe the sword is of good quality. It’s hard to capture in photos.

In my opinion it’s closer to Kajihei than to Kotetsu. I also wouldn’t be mad if it was a Kajihei forgery I find his story fascinating.

Yes, who ever chiseled the mei did a good job trying to copy Kotetsu but fell short on the small details. You can also see the difference between the shoshin and the Kajihei cut mei as well but it’s far closer than the sword I own.

Thank you for taking the time to find and post these pages @Ian B3HR2UH I find it very interesting that Kajihei also made forgeries of Tadayoshi blades. It makes me wonder where he was sourcing these mumei blades to sign. Or if he was forging blades in the Hizen style and adding the signature.

In Sesko’s Kajihei video he shows a slide of 2 swords. 1 signed Soshu Masamune and the other Soshu Sadamune both swords Gassan Sadakazu added the signature to. Not papered though. Just thought it was interesting.

I thought they might have papered due to the historical significance. How are these swords being recognized as Kajihei forgeries? Possibly through sayagaki attribution.

While researching Kajihei I stumbled across a thread from this forum that was of a member who purchased a Kajihei Naotane forgery. The sword was still impressive. I wonder if the NBTHK issues origami for these Kajihei forgeries.

While going down the Kotetsu rabbit hole I came across a video made by Markus Sesko at the New York Token Kai from November 16th 2016. The video was about the famous forger Kajihei and how he would forge Naotane and Kotetsu signatures. Kajihei was said to be so good at these forgeries that at the time hardly anyone would be able to discern the fake from the real signatures. Now in no way am I implying this sword I own is a real Kotetsu or a Kajihei forgery. I’m just curious if anyone has any reference material they are willing to share of a Kajihei Kotetsu forgery besides what I’ve already seen from Markus Sesko’s site because I find this subject very fascinating. I’d also be interested to see if any of these forgeries have ever came up for sale.