Mikaveli

No koshirae for this one (though, I'd have really liked to acquire one). I think shipping can be complicated if too long. 🙈 So far as collecting goes, I'd highly recommend adding one to your collection. From my experience, they're far cheaper than a long sword by the same smith.

Much the same as it would be inappropriate to correct an American English speaker for using American English spellings. Romanisation of Japanese is imprecise - and whilst we now largely have a defacto system (Heburn), it doesn't invalidate other transliterations. Nihontou, Toukyou etc. Until a Japanese word becomes popular enough to become a recognised loan word, featuring in prominent dictionaries (katana, karaoke, sushi), it's not really misspelled.

Not a voting system, just different available pronunciations. For example, 日本 can be transliterated as both Nihon and Nippon, and whilst one is more common than the other, neither is incorrect.

Namboko-cho, Soshu? I'd also agree o-suriage (having lost the original sori).

Whilst I'm ever the pendant, is it accurate to say "shirosaya" is an _incorrect_ transliteration? I don't dispute it's the most common pronunciation, but both shirazaya and shirosaya appear frequently in Japanese literature on the topic.

Shin is the usual reading of 信, and will usually be the pronunciation used by dictionaries etc. However, it is also read as "Nobu", and the most famous example of this is probably 信長 (Nobunaga, as in Oda). Which reading is used isn't revealed by the Kanji alone - so without other records/precedence it could be either. For example 照門 is sometimes read (in modern transliterations) as Terumon, but most sword books state "Terukado" (てるかど) where pronunciation is given.

As far as I know, Terukane is a different smith, who originally apprenticed with Terukado, but originally signing Kanesada (until later giving the name back to his teacher's biological son). To confuse you further, Terukado originally signed as Kanekado (兼門). He changed fairly early in his career (before the Tanba no Kami title, as he was signing with that name with earlier titles).

Thanks Jussi. It's quite fun trying to chase good examples that capture the length and breadth of a smiths career... ...and not finding such examples often makes it more affordable. 🙂

For the torokusho, I think we're only disagreeing on semantics - we've both set out our case, so all is well. 🙂 For the NBTHK certificates, these are rare - I can only recall ever seeing 2 or 3. As you say, the vast majority will be described as wakizashi on the kanteisho (even if the seller describes it as a tanto).

短刀 Greater than 1 shaku. Modern paper.

With a Japanese language email address, and with him replying with what seemed to be an obvious misunderstanding, when I said "apologies if English isn't your first language", that wasn't snark, and didn't merit the response ”Perhaps you struggle with comprehension". Setting aside his contribution being inaccurate, as an admin you've elected to only defend his contribution?

@Salvatori Moretto apologies for the derailment of your for sale post (hopefully it'll at least drive some views). I just wanted to make the point that your initial description of tanto wasn't necessarily inaccurate, and that the distinction between sunobi tanto and ko-wakizashi is somewhat arbitrary (and in many cases can accurately be described as either, when above 1 shaku).

Are you sure, because you've misconstrued my statement and said this: So, whilst you didn't use the word inaccurate, you stated that measurements have to be accurate, and you'll be in trouble if they are not. You're arguing a point I didn't make, because you didn't understand what I said. Getting back on topic, my point was that when issuing torukusho, no in depth research is carried out, they won't check whether a smith is known for making oversized tanto - or what the original usage of the blade would have been in context. I.e. only the superficial elements are recorded. Next, you neglected to acknowledge that there are indeed modern papers for tanto-designated blades above 1 shaku. Unless you're now going to contradict my usage of "modern" to an even more recent period?

Apologies if English isn't your first language, but superficial doesn't mean inaccurate, just that in this case it's a visual analysis, of the obvious features on the surface. Literally its outward appearance, as presented. The mei will be recorded as written, even if obviously gimei, and the physical measurements are taken too. These are superficial details. As for modern papers, after a casual search I found an example from Reiwa 4 (2022), that I'd consider modern. Admittedly, of the current generation papers I see, most do record the blade as wakizashi above 1 shaku, but there are exceptions.

Aren't there in excess of 100 Juyo tanto over 30.3 cm? Torokusho is only a superficial record of the as-presented blade - with no research or context. I'd accept it if we were talking about an NBTHK kanteisho...