reinhard

"Regardless, very few - if any - of these pieces will ever make it back to their original owners - and perhaps that's exactly the way it should be. The more the rich and powerful lose personally, the less they'll feel inclined to start another war." (Hector) You missed the main point. Stealing the cultural heritage of a community grown over a very long time won't change a thing for good in the future It's just theft. "...Emperor Hirohito (a man who should, by rights, have joined Tojo on the gallows." (Hector) What rights? To my senses president Truman was class-A war criminal. reinhard

Whatever you put on a blade. Some of it will stay in the saya. reinhard

It's quite simple. Officer's swords were of no importance as weapons during WW II and most of their blades were poorly made. Their value consists only in their emanation of a militarism gone mad. The war was fought with rifles, machine-guns, tanks, airplanes, battle-ships.....and so on. Therefore it was reasonable to confiscate these Gun-To, separating the so-called "ancestral blades" before and destroying the rest. The other side of the "winner takes it all"-attitude is: Important swords with no connection to the actions of the Japanese Imperial Army at all were stolen from temples by marauding GIs looking for souvenirs. Important swords handed over to allied forces by major Japanese families or even by the Tenno himself just disappeared after the war. This was just a primitive theft of cultural property and these spoils should be returned to their former owners. Some smart-asses in the Nihonto-market see these matters differently, of course. Time will judge. reinhard

Steve, "..had to be read from right to left" was too restrictive a formulation. You are right there was no law and both directions of writings were possible. It depended on the media and the purpose. In this particular case it just doesn't look right. reinhard

And a rare goodie for you all: A photograph of the great Kano Natsuo from an old Japanese newspaper. Text must be read from right to left. reinhard

Further information about writing direction of kanji: https://teamjapanese.com/Japanese-read-right-left/ reinhard

The "Machida" inscription on the kashira is irritating, politely said. Japanese Kanji written horizontally had to be read from right to left until the end of WW II. This is not the case here. So this gun-to koshirae was in all probability made after WW II. reinhard

Interesting in this context also: "The Sword and Samé" (ISBN 0 900 470 35 6) edited by Henri Joly and Inada Hogitaro. Pages 127 to 132. "Honcho Gunkiko" by Arai Hakuseki can be considered a quite solid source of information. So in all probability there was a "Mio Honami" at the times of Ashikaga Takauji. He was said to be "a very clever judge to discriminate the age of blades, and wether genuine or imitations; besides he was a very clever polisher." reinhard

Tricky to tell from a few pixels, but: The imozuru ("potatoe runners") in the ji are pointing towards later Satsuma work. reinhard

The mei on your sword is very close to Kajihei's, as far as I can tell, Nicholas. reinhard

Nice riddle. It is about tiny details. From left to right: shoshin (genuine) Kotetsu, Kajihei and the mei in question. Can you see the "catch me if you can"-attitude? reinhard

I can understand where this confusion is coming from. It is based on the character No.4903 in Nelson's dictionary. It is translated as CHIN or shizu(maru); also used as "shizu" in given names. Doesn't mean much when it comes to given/artist names hundreds of years ago. reinhard

Sorry Ray, but it is "Shigetomo" not "Shizutomo". A line of smiths with this name and title was working in Iga province during 17th and early 18th century. upper picture: The paper was handed out by the NTHK and is stating the blade is "shoshin" (genuine) and is "o-suriage mumei" (fully shortened without a signature). They attribute the blade to the school (den) of Hizen-no-Kami Shigetomo. The paper was handed out in year 14 of Heisei era (2002 in Christian calendar). lower picture: The blade is described as o-suriage mumei. Followed by specifications of hada, hamon, boshi etc. It is said to be made in Iga province during Kan-ei era (1624-1643). For whatever this "expertise" is worth. reinhard

We are talking about a blade atttributed to a "Omi-no-Kami Tsuguhira....." with a nagasa (according to a dubious torokusho) of 65.1 cm and very little sori of 1.1cm. There were smiths with this name and title working during later 17th/early 18th century. No others. Kin-zogan (gold inlay) or Kin-pun (gold lacquer)-mei were never attached to o-suriage Shin-To and Shin-Shin-To blades. Partly shortened blades show clear distictions between the remaining original nakago and the shortened blade section. They are missing here. The disintegrated look of the nakago looks artificial and covers almost all of the nakago. Anyway: Within a strange and dubious setting like this, further research doesn't make much sense. reinhard

The whole package is a fake. Why? Study basics! reinhard