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

I've got the printed book, but the link to the PDF is much appreciated. One of those exhibitions and publications that will become rarer and rarer, I'm afraid. Thanks!

As Markus wrote the text about the swordsmiths had been written on a sheet whose backside was later used to note household economics of the Ryuzoji-family. Obviously the text about the smiths was considered expendable shortly after. This explains the two different handwritings, of course. reinhard

Hello HB, There are a few mistakes in your interpretation of the text: In your upper pic you identified (shodai) Shintogo Kunimitsu correctly. The Kanji 行 just means "leading to" and is not related to a name here. (shodai) Shintogo Kunimitsu was followed by Masamune, (nidai) Kunimitsu, Kunihiro and Kunishige (not Kuniyasu). In the lower pic the name is Norimune not Norishige, but the name is outside of the Sagami section anyway. Please note the text is structured despite of its chaotic appearance. The section about Sagami begins with "Sagami no Kuni" followed by the names of Sadakuni and Kunihiro. Next column is about (Kamakura Ichimonji) Sukezane followed by (shodai) Kunimitsu and four followers. Since this spreading of the column left some space, the author used it to fill in "Mutsu no Kuni" and Gassan smiths. For better understanding I copied the left section of sheet 2 again. I'm afraid you will find no absolution for your Tanto with the Kunimitsu mei here. Even if the text is as old as it is said, there is no guarantee the author was profoundly informed. He may just noted hearsay like many others. Anyway, the text is some fun to research. reinhard

This "mei zukushi" manuscript is a bit of a mistery to me. The first sheet is dealing with household economics of temples in Hizen and Chikuzen. Kasei in Japanese and of little interest to us. It is clearly structured and written with a subtle and well controlled brush. The second sheet however is a rather chaotic collection of "knowledge" about swordsmithing and was definitely written by another hand. It starts on the right with "Munechika Sanjo Kokaji" and ends on the left with a lineage of Awataguchi smiths. Inbetween the exact turns of the Go-Ban Kaji and another Sagami-lineage. However: It's just another collection of hearsay, no matter how old. For those of you interested in translation of old manuscripts I give you a version of sheet 2 with a few hints. reinhard

Hello Richard, As far as the tanto is concerned: The jihada makes a rough and rustic appearance in hadadachi-style. With this lack of elegance I would not consider it an old Yamato-work. The jigane is open and flowing itame with some mokume interspersed. Masame is basically visible in the point-area. Without seeing the blade in hand and shooting from the hip I recommend to search further in the area of Etchu Uda. reinhard

Just a wild guess from a distance, but the surface steel seems to suffer from lenghtwise cracks appearing when a bent blade is straightened again. reinhard

No.

"Just for fun, here is a micro tanto. I havn't yet seen one so detailed and wonder about its origins." Don't believe anything you come across in the web. What is this "micro-tanto" made of and how was it made? reinhard

There is a difference between Japanese folk-art and Chinese junk. One is the blueprint for the other. Since Chinese fakers are still operating on a shitty level as far as imitating advanced Japanese objects are concerned, they are focussing on simpler objects. I might be wrong, but the prawn-koshirae has a different quality than the toad and lotus crap. reinhard

I like it. Workmanship and patina of the koshirae are pointing to Meiji or Taisho era. Although not of high level craftsmanship it is of Japanese origin, way too good to be Chinese. The blade and its particular shape is of no interest here. The package once made a nice gift on a special occasion. A bride's gift for her new husband at their wedding for example. reinhard BTW: Not all blades made in Japan were meant to be Nihon-to for samurai. Just for consideration before posting mischievous comments.

Just for information: Kin-pun mei (gold-lacquer attributions) were made no earlier than Meiji-period and are not very reliable, to say the least. Old Hon'ami attributions were always done in kin-zogan (gold-inlay). Unfortunately for fakers this is much more difficult to counterfeit than kin-pun. reinhard

A once promising thread slowly drifting into the arena of the unwell. reinhard

There are no pros and cons comparing Etchu Norishige and Jiro Taro Naokatsu. They lived 500 years apart and both of them did extremely well. Norishige has the bonus of being the inventor, being the original one. Naokatsu on the other hand mastered the task of reproducing Norishige's work in a most stunning way. He cleared the super-wild and most-exaggerated style of Norishige and brought it into a more dignified form. And he accomplished this task on a very high level. Whatever you like better personally; it's not an absolute competition. Both smiths deserve our highest respect and are worth a very close look at. reinhard

Thank you for joining me during this casual intermezzo. Basic inspiration is, of course, Etchu Norishige. Next in line is Ono Hankei. But the maker here is Jiro Taro Naokatsu, master-student of Taikei Naotane. reinhard

This is not a proper kantei, for I won't give you the exact measurements of the blade. Just an exercise to sharpen your view. The blade is a rather short wakizashi made in hira-zukuri shape. Any idea when and where it was made or even who the maker was? reinhard

"I often wonder, how much control the smiths had - and, how much is happy accident." When it comes to swords, mastery is defined by control. It is different with tea-cups, for example. Accidental results beyond control during the burning process can enhance the value of a tea-cup. This is not the case with swords. reinhard

In order to give you a visual idea what separates a masterpiece from the better-than-average work, I'd like to show you a comparison. One blade is a masterpiece by Osafune Mitsutada made around middle of Kamakura-period. It airs a supreme yet relaxed mastery of forging and tempering in all aspects; dignity as well, if you want. The other blade is a work of Edo Ishido Tsunemitsu from Kambun-era. It is a very well made blade with brightly shining nioi-guchi, utsuri and all traits of a good choji-midare hamon. (The images were made by master-polisher Fujishiro Okisato and show the real nioi-guchi without hadori-finish) One blade I call a masterpiece; the other a very well made blade. Hope this is is helpful. reinhard

"Japanese aesthetics though are more tricky to understand and are not just "in the eye of the beholder", which is a silly Western concept" I'm curious about this. Could you elaborate? (Jeff) A question to write a book about, but I will try: Japanese swords were not made in a vacuum. The sense for their appreciation and beauty is embedded in a culture long gone and hard to understand even for (modern) Japanese people. Even more so for us Westerners. Usually we tend to enjoy and acclaim features we can easily recognize and understand within the perimeters of our cultural background. An example for this attitude on a very high level: Etchu NORISHIGE is considered a top-swordsmith within Soshu-style of sword-making for good reasons. Western collectors are crazy about his works, for their contrast in jihada and their obvious hataraki are so spectacular. But old Japanese connaisseurs considered his work clearly inferior to MASAMUNE's and SADAMUNE's. Why? Because of its lack of dignity! "What does that suppose to mean: dignity? In 2025 we are living in a world stripped of pride and dignity! Let's make ourselves shine by all means possible." Well, samurai's aesthetics didn't work that way. My advice: Learn the difference between "aki ni sae" and just brightly shining nioi on a hamon. Furthermore study Japan's history and craftsmanship, especially paintings, sculpture, calligraphy and even everyday objects. It is a long way to go, but it is very helpful to understand appreciation of Nihon-To. reinhard

"To my mind, it's a sword that exemplifies the best aesthetics, forging and metal for its place and period. Sometimes its also a sword that was part of breaking new ground in practice or aesthetics." (Robert S.) Well spoken and fully agreed with. But just for consideration: The criteria for excellence in metal quality and forging can be easily learned on an objective scale. Japanese aesthetics though are more tricky to understand and are not just "in the eye of the beholder", which is a silly Western concept. reinhard

For those interested: The mei reads "Moritsugu" for sure. You find the sword in an ongoeing auction at www.rockislandauction.com in Texas. Problem is: The sugata on the pics looks like very old (Ko-) Aoe work. This could explain the mei on the sashi-ura, for some of the Aoe-smiths signed their tachi contrary to common practice. But: The nakago looks quite "fresh", unaltered and with one mekugi-ana. The kengyo-butt could point to Chikuzen-Kongobyoe school as Ray Singer already pointed out. Maybe a Southerner finds the time to check it out in hand. reinhard

"The Craft of the Japanese Sword" is an excellent book helping to understand the technical aspects of forging a proper Nihon-To. It helps understanding the difference between a mere tool and an object of beauty within objective parameters not easy to comprehend for an outsider. A most common misunderstanding still; especially here on this board, where the fruitless discussions about art and the qualities of Nihon-To never end. reinhard