Tsuku

I’m not personally the greatest fan of Kagemitsu. Awataguchi smiths, especially Yoshimitsu, the core Sōshū group (Yukimitsu, Norishige especially), and Samonji should all be mentioned here as well.

Against my better judgement — I posted this example earlier. Perhaps it was overlooked or an appropriately in-depth study was not made. This blade was Jūyō-tōken in the 44th shinsa. The NBTHK paperwork clearly attributes it as a 薙刀直し刀 naginata-naoshi katana, right there on the front of the certificate. A copy of the setsumei is attached. I will draw your attention to a few points. 形状 薙刀直し造 keijō naginata-naoshi zō 帽子 乱れ込み先小丸 bōshi midare-komi-saki kō-maru [kaeri] 茎 大磨上 nakago ō-suriage 説明 ... 本作は薙刀を磨上げて刀としたもので... honsaku wa naginata o suriagete katana to shita mo node... "Here we have a naginata which was shortened and made into a katana..." Thus: NBTHK calls this a naginata-naoshi and and describes the form as such. An intact boshi with kaeri remains. NBTHK specifically says in the setsumei that it originated as a naginata that was shortened.

Using a shintō Tadatsuna is inappropriate. Shintō naginata were not generally cut down and the shape of the naginata changed dramatically from kotō examples. In good faith, here is a side-by-side example that illustrates how this is possible. The left is a Shikkake naginata that went Tokuju in the 26th shinsa. The right is the oshigata for the Juyo Kunimune I linked earlier. Obviously the Kunimune started from a different blade, so it is not a dead-nuts match, but I think from this it is very clear how the boshi can be preserved in the course of naginata-naoshi.

Here is another example, this time a Saburo Kunimune. This very clearly shows the preserved kaeri and the NBTHK describes the boshi as simply "midare-komi with ko-maru-kaeri." There is no yokote and this is unquestionably a naginata-naoshi.

Be careful with getting gunk out of horimono. Old uchiko often accumulates there and it can be a source of scratches.

In a bit of a contemplative mood, and I had my first sword out earlier tonight. It still moves me just as much as it did the first time I studied it — Osafune Kanemitsu daitō with a Hon'ami Kōjō kinzogan-mei. As a student, I owe much to many, as I think we all do — but here a tremendous amount of credit goes to Darcy. Without his help, I would have simply kept reading by the water's edge instead of jumping into the ocean. One can get far with books, but the objects make the lessons real.

I do not mean to disparage anything shown here in the slightest — there has indeed been an exceptional blade that was recently, and very generously, shared here. But, in all honesty, I think you are selling some of the collections of your fellow NMB members rather short.

I just want to clarify this because I think the discussion has conflated things a bit. A tantō has a blade less than 1 shaku in length, 30.3 cm. A wakizashi has a blade length of between 1 and 2 shaku, and anything over 2 shaku is a katana or tachi. You said your blade has a length of 28 cm, so it is a tantō. An aikuchi koshirae is one that lacks a tsuba (example). A hamidashi koshirae in comparison has a small tsuba (example).

Kinpun-mei, like shu-mei, are lacquer signatures. This appears inset, so would be properly a ginzōgan-mei. The letter of the old Hon'ami regulations said that these should be applied to shortened blades made between Ōei (1394-1428) and Bunmei (1469-1487). There are a handful of blades at Jūyō with ginzōgan-mei, though, and some of them are substantially earlier or later than this time period. So... who knows?

Just as a FYI, the NBTHK Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon certificates have an embossed stamp that passes over both the cardstock and the photograph. If you look closely at the altered certificate, you will see that there is no stamp on the photograph. This is a giant red flag. One should always inspect thoroughly and with a critical eye. I have even found modified Tanobe-sensei sayagaki in the wild.

This sword has nothing to do with Yamato Tegai. It is zaimei, "Jitsu'a saku." Jitsu'a was the father of Sairen who was the father of Samonji (O-Sa), one of the students of Masamune. If I may offer two small pieces of advice — Tokubetsu Jūyō means "especially important" and not "especially nice sword." You have to be able to figure out why something is "especially important" to put it into context. That Jitsu'a is actually a good example of why context matters, Jitsu'a is a bit of a provincial smith. Also, one cannot say that just because blade A is Tokubetsu Jūyō now and blade B is "merely" Jūyō, blade A is "better" than blade B. That is not really how it works. You cannot even say that blade A is better than blade C where is "merely" Hozon. The reason why is simple: the paper is establishing a floor, not a ceiling. If you handed me a healthy signed Awataguchi Hisakuni (or Osafune Mitsutada, or... whatever, pick your top grandmaster of all time) and it only had Hozon papers, well, that blade would be easily worth more than several more mundane Tokuju put together. That zaimei absolute grandmaster blade is Tokuju already, the paperwork just hasn't caught up yet — and maybe never will, because why bother?

Here you are.

Here is an example of an itomaki-no-tachi koshirae which was formerly a possession of the Mōri clan.

The opposite is true. The first Jūyō session was in 1958. By the time 1971 rolls around and Tokubetsu Jūyō is introduced, we are up to Jūyō session 21 and almost 4,000 blades are Jūyō-tōken. To illustrate the difference, let's use this point as a dividing line and look at the blades that passed Jūyō before session 21 ("early") and after ("late") There are about 3,700 early blades and 8,600 late blades, but 14.7% of the early blades subsequently passed Tokubetsu Jūyō, and only 7.5% of the late blades did so. There are obviously stand-out great swords in every session, and due diligence should always be exercised, but the early sessions were very strong. None of this rationale should be applied to the old Kichō papers. That is a topic which has been beaten to death around here but I would be remiss if I did not mention it.