Jump to content

John F

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    UK

Profile Fields

  • Name
    John F

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

John F's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

10

Reputation

  1. Many thanks for the advice. I think most of the small kizu I would accept due to the age of the blade. The one below the Hamon line was the biggest concern. I had to make a decision today on this blade and I have decided to pass on it. It wasn't just the kizu but also the attribution and a few of the things that have come out in the course of this thread. I have told them that if they decide to send it to the NBTHK, I would be interested in the result and may change my mind in the future. At where I am in this hobby, I want to have more certainty of what I am buying and there were just too many question marks with this one. Thanks and much appreciation to everyone who offered their advice to me. I may not have gone through with this but I have learned a lot in the process. All the best, John
  2. Hi Matthew, I am also new to this so you will probably get much better advice from others. My only comments would be, if that is your budget try to get Tokubetsu Hozon rather than just Hozon. Jyumyo looks to be the school rather than an attribution to a particular smith. They have one on sale slightly cheaper than yours which has Tokubetsu Hozon, and another slightly more expensive. Also, for that period personally I would want it to have a signature. As I say, I am new to this too so this is just my personal opinion. All the best with your purchase, John
  3. @Jussi Ekholm Thank you for that very interesting information. I'm guessing that means it was originally made to be worn blade facing up? I'm also guessing this means there is a very high chance of the NBTHK coming back with a different attribution. I would be very interested to see what the NBTHK attribute it to, although it may just be a bit risky for me to take a punt on at this stage. I will see if I can convince them to send it to them before making a purchase.
  4. Thanks for all the comments and advice so far. My only real concern with the sword is this little kizu (I believe it is called Uchikomi?) circled in red. I'm sure it looks a lot worse than it is since the photo is blown up. There is also some pitting towards the mune which is maybe kitae-ware? How badly do these detract from the sword? I only noticed them in the additional pics they sent though, they are not really visible in the marketing ones. From what I have read I believe these are not fatal flaws. I hadn't fully understood the difference between the different mei's we were discussing but this makes sense and explains why it is on the wrong side of the sword to what I would expect. Kind regards, John
  5. @Jussi Ekholm @Geraint Here are some additional pics they have sent of the bottom of the Nakago-Jiri. And their comments are: When I saw the signature, it looks like Orikaeshi mei, you can see the turning part in bottom of Nakago. However, registration paper (Tourokusyo) says Tanzakumei. Kind regards, John
  6. Hi Geraint, and apologies for my inexperience with this. I have tried to look up those terms and from looking at images I would struggle to tell which one is which. Below is probably the best picture I have showing the nakago jiro from each side, let me know if this gives a bit more insight: To me it doesn't look like the mei has been folded around, which is what it sounds like would refer to orikaeshi mei? The term tanzaku mei was one that the seller used to describe this and I will ask them the question in my next mail to them. If you could show an example of the angle of photo that would be most useful I can pass this on and get them to provide a similar picture.
  7. Hi Jussi, and thanks for the welcome. I have this information on the measurements: Cutting Edge Length(Nagasa): 73.7 cm( 29.0 inches) Curvature(Sori): 2.7 cm (1.06 inches) Unfortunately I only have the pictures of the tang I have posted (or others taken from the same perspective). If you are referring to more of a cross section picture I can ask them to take one.
  8. And these are some which highlight some areas I am wondering if I should be concerned about? Any advice on this would be appreciated:
  9. Here are some additional photos they have sent through (they sent loads but I have tried to choose some of the best ones):
  10. Thanks Michael. I have asked for some more photos and included a request for a close up of the mei so will post those when they send them through. I should have posted this photo earlier of the other side, I think it shows the blade in a slightly better light and you can see more detail in it:
  11. I think it may just be the photos but I will ask for more in a different light. The comment I had from them was: "we find this blade aesthetically beautiful and in excellent condition". That is beautiful. Mark, thanks for posting that site. I hadn't come across it before, or the criteria set out quite so well.
  12. This is quite important because I'm sure I read on this forum in another post, that it is acceptable for a Nanbokucho or earlier sword to be mumei and/or suriage but not nearly as desirable if it is a later Koto period?
  13. Here are some more, I can always ask for additional pictures if there is anything else you would like to see:
  14. Hi Ray, I believe you are correct. They have not received the certificate back yet (appraised in December) - Attributed to Bizen Osafune Tomomitsu (備前長船倫光). They have given the dates as 1362-1368 and mentioned him as apprentice to Kanemitsu, but have also mentioned the reference to Rintomo. I have made a mistake when looking it up by concentrating on the dates and reference to Kanemitsu, and not the kanji. Thanks for posting the correct reference. There is a Tomomitsu (備州長船倫光) credited with an Odachi listed as a national treasure, which looks to be the one in your reference?
  15. Thanks to everyone for the advice, it has been very useful. Out of interest the current NTHK papers have attributed the sword to the following smith:
×
×
  • Create New...