WillFalstaff

When needlessly staring into the dark abyss of buyer's remorse, remember the wise words of Nakahara-san: "To begin with, when purchasing a sword, it should be judged on its own merits, not on the kantei-sho it holds . . . However, if both dealers and enthusiasts come to really understand swords and their actual quality, I believe the current deplorable kantei-sho-selling economy will eventually cease to exist. When this happens it will be a satisfactory state of affairs, and collectors and dealers will no longer need to use certificates. The next time you buy a sword with kantei-sho, remember this story. A man was buying a sword from a dealer. The dealer said, 'As this sword has kantei-show, I cannot reduce the price at all.' So the customer joked, 'Actually, I don't need the kantei-sho, only the sword. So just take off the price of the kantei-sho and I'll be on my way.' The sword dealer was not amused." I personally think your decision making is spot-on! When I manage to scrounge together enough for a fine quality blade (prob. around Stardate 47457.1) my first consideration will be the quality of the blade, second the history the blade saw from forging to now, third the story of the smith, and a far, far, distant fourth consideration will be the resale value.

I wonder why the hamachi and munemachi were moved up? For a longer tsuba? If so, that could have been a complicated and expensive move on the part of the previous owner.

I'm at the level of: I-know-how-to-read-words-in-books-about-pointy-things-from-half-way-around-the-world. At least it's gotten me on the hamster wheel.

Here's a comparison of nakago sizes. The top two are the blades in question. All of these are either tanto or wakizashi. Of the lower two; one is ubu wakizashi as far as I can tell (though I have thought it could have been a very well executed suriage with a gimei - this might be a flight of fancy). The lowest one is a nagamaki-naoshi. I've been using these lower two wak's to compare the top two.

An obvious point I completely glossed over, David. What still strikes me is how iddy-biddy the kissaki (as well as the sakihaba) is, and also the width of the blade(s) all the way to the nakago. Both of these must have been very slender katana (or tachi) originally. From reading Connoisseur's, Nagayama-san states: "Late Nanbokucho period (1368-1391): The sugata is the same as that of the mid-Nanbokucho. The ha-watari is long, the torii-zori is shallow, the sakihaba in particular is narrower, and chu-kissaki are common . . . In addition, from the late Heian or early Kamakura period through the late Nanbokucho period, there were some exceptional swordsmiths who created sugata similar to those of early-Kamakura swords. "Early Muromachi period (1392-1428): Shinogi-zukuri tachi or katana, ha-watari of less than 75cm, chu-kissaki, a deep torii-zori with a tendency toward saki-zori, and a narrow sakihaba. In this period, the shape of the katana is similar to that of the tachi." If anything these cheap junk (at least considered as worthless in Japan) blades are valuable study guides. I would never have gone down the rabbit holes I have if I didn't set out on this detective story. One thought I just had: could these have been cut-down boy's swords? Any input from those lucky dogs that have held Nanbokucho period katana/tachi is very welcome. More pics

“Japanese Spears: Polearms and Their Use in Old Japan” by Patricia Knutsen and Ronald Knutsen might be a book that can help you. It’s pretty expensive, but from what I’ve seen it’s the definitive book about polearms. https://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Spears-Polearms-Their-Japan/dp/1901903567

Nice dream come true! I like the tight hada. Had trouble breathing looking at it.

Throwing in with 3 month’s experience in all of this — Sadamune, Nanbokucho, Sagami province.

And the ‘meh’ sword blade length: 50.3 cm (19 13/16 in) kissaki width: 1.7 cm (11/16 in)

(bad sword continued)

Hi all, I’ve been combing through my books, but having a toddler makes one have very little spare time to do in-depth research (ex: I had to stop mid-way through this post to go play cars). I’ve been trying to figure out what the trends were for tachi sugata, from Kamakura to Late Edo. Specifially, I wanted to know the changes in the width of the blade from about the middle, all the way up to the kissaki. I have a couple of cheap wakizashi length blades that are clearly suriage in bad to ‘meh’ condition (and yet, razor sharp!). On the ‘meh’ blade, I can make out some of the hamon, no hada, and it has a partial mei. The other one is in fairly poor condition so no details on the blade and it’s mumei. Both have quite small kissaki. These are just study pieces, but I’m trying to figure out what their original lengths may have been - katana or tachi. I’m leaning towards tachi, but I could be talking out of my demon hole. First, the ‘bad’ sword blade length: 52.6 cm (20 7/8 in) kissaki width: 1.5 cm (5/8 in)

Hi David, In Nakahara's Facts and Fund. of Japanese Swords, he states that more often than not, horimono are added after (sometimes well after) the blade is forged. Often they are requested by the owner, or done after polishing when kizu like hada-ware are revealed and the owner wants to hide it. As to the state of the carving, I think it's been re-polished, more than once and the details of the dragon are getting slowly worn away with each polish. Then again, i could be talking out of my demon hole, so don't quote me on this. I have seen many horimono as well as hi worn away by polishing, (finer lines slowly getting erased/incomplete hi, three dimensional carvings that look like sliced cheese, etc.).

First time I've seen this, in my limited experience. It makes sense, though, artistically. Each side of the ken is a reflection of the other.

I think gimei have been often removed from blades in order for them to be submitted to shinsa.

Welcome to the fold, Colin! I joined early this year, but coming from a non-Japanese interest background. This place is a treasure trove of info on all things nihonto, tosogu, and everything else in between. I guess you need to catch up, so read, read, read, then read more. The nihonto info tab at the top is great place to start, but I tend to browse around and get lost for a few hours (and days). The rabbit hole goes deep!

Thanks, guys. Wow. It was upside down. Great. Any suggestions on how to get started on studying tsuba (never mind mei)? I feel thoroughly ignorant.

Hi all, Can you guys tell me if this mei is legit, and if it is, who’s signature it is? Thanks a bunch. I know 0 about tsbas, never mind the schools and smiths.

I tinkled a little after seeing the rest of the blade.

370 watchers. Still for sale for a lucky customer!

To my inexperienced eyes, I find it strange that the yokote is missing. Could be a “wartime” polish on an old blade? The hamon shows, but see no distinct hada.

George - That's what I'm learning slowly about kentai. It's more subjective and rules are often broken, in favor heavier weighing identifiers. Nakahara specifically says to not consider these as heavily as other, more prominent features. Oy!

Hi Dick, That’s a nice blade with some history behind it. In my opinion, it should no longer be polished. If you look at the hamachi (where the cutting edge ends at the bottom left) there’s not much left between the ha (cutting edge) and where the nakago (tang) begins. This can be an indication that this blade has been re-polished numerous times (or badly once). Compare the hamachi to the mune machi (opposite top). Notice how much more there is of the height of the mune. Second characteristic that struck me immediately is how close the hamon is to the cutting edge. There are examples of swords with thin hamon close to the cutting edge, but it can be argued that even these swords had gone through numerous polishes. Remember, each time you polish you remove material. Also, the closer the hamon to the cutting edge, the less strength the cutting edge has (same is true if the hamon is very wide; it would reduce the bendability of the blade, making it brittle). I also have concerns about the condition of the hada (flat of the blade) in the middle, just under the horimono (carving). I’m no expert, but that may be exposing the soft material or the core steel, though it is thought by many that horimono are added to the blade much later than the actual forging date to hide kizu (flaws), mostly hada ware. There are also ways a polisher can hide core steel, if it is exposed. Whoever gave this tanto the last polish either didn’t care about the carving or they planned on restoring that too, but never got to it or that the polish job revealed the blade to be tired and past a fresh polish. In either way, this is a nice blade. In my opinion, keep as is and enjoy what is left of it.

I knew that looked familiar!

Hi George, I’m new to all this, but I do think a majority of experienced guys would say that sunagashi needs to be clear multiple lines. Below is from Nagayama’s Connoisseir’s Book of Japanese Swords. The other pic is from Nakahara’s Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords.

Hey Paz, In Nakahara's "Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords", on pages 99-107, he goes into great detail on suriage and how to spot real v. fake suriage, based on proportions and other qualities of the nakago, from mune-machi and down (I put pics of the pages in another thread, forgot which one). I don't think the number of mekugi-ana by itself is an indicator of ubu or suriage. It is possible that a second mekugi ana was lost in the suriage process, but that's a guesstimation.