reinhard

Another derailed topic. For those interested in the difference of "sashikomi" and "hadori"-polish I recommend "The Craft of the Japanese sword". Read pages 119-121 and READ THEM CAREFULLY! The hadori-step of polishing was invented by polishers of the Hon'ami family in later 19th century and became widely popular. It is still now. Wether one likes it or not, it is still the choice of the owner how his blade is going to be polished. "Sashikomi"-polish is just using a different kind of nugui, turning the ji into darker patterns, but not the ha. No big deal and no "lost craft" involved. Just a matter of fashion and individual preferences. This brings me to another point: Both kinds of polishing-methods are revealing all important features of a blade. If you can't see them, it's your fault. Lighting, experience, your eyes.... basically depending on your individual background. reinhard PS.: Andrew Ickeringill's view on this topic would be of relevance here.

BTW, Kirill was so kind to give you an unmistakeable hint in the header. Opening the pic to sword #3 in a separate tab you could clearly see: dotanu.... not many ways to interprete; don't you think? reinhard

Okan, Telling from the bright color of the rust, the spots on the ha look pretty new. Removal should not be a problem. Try a tool like a spatula made of horn, soft enough to not scratch the steel. The cause for newly building rust eventually lies within the saya. Old shirasaya, depending on how they were used in the past, should eventually be cleaned. Now that would be a job for a professional. reinhard

The tsuba in question was offered in 2004 at DaiTokenIchi by a Japanese dealer as "Hikozo"-tsuba without papers. Many knowledgeable people must have seen it in the meantime. Being still without papers and offered for a price far less than can be expected for a genuine (shodai) Hikozo leaves me with only one conclusion: There's something wrong with it. reinhard

Don't think too much about this one. It's just a replica thing from anywhere and should be announced as such. It's neither a proper "Gendaito", "Samurai sword" or whatever makes your heartbeat go faster. As far as I'm understanding NMB (see entrance side) discussing obscure wall-ornaments and Japanese-looking bamboo choppers is not its task. But maybe I'm wrong. Finally it's Brian's baby. reinhard

Taking it to the extreme: Blades made as ken or in moroha-tsukuri shape have a shinogi, but kasane would be zero when measured at the base of a non-existing, separate mune. This would make no sense. Nevertheless the kasane of blades made in proper shinogi-tsukuri shape (not naginata-naoshi and the like) is measuring the length between the two corners at the base of the mune, not from one shinogi to the other, even if the distance from one shinogi to the opposite shinogi is a little bigger as it is in some examples. Like it or not: Japanese authorities made this clear. No reason to discuss definiton of kasane over and over again. reinhard

No Guiseppe, it has not. The 2mm broad area you are considering a separate structure, is just the ridgeline. The measurement of kasane is taken below. As was suspected before, your blade is most probably not a shinogi-tsukuri katana; more likely a naginata-naoshi blade or the like. Pictures of the munemachi-area whithout habaki would be helpful. reinhard

A little help to solve this riddle and some to come. reinhard

What exactly do you mean by "genuine"? reinhard

Listen to Moriyama-San's kind assistance here and forget your silly translation apps! Mei on swords are about artist's chosen names. This is far beyond Google's translation-abilities. They won't get you anywhere when it comes to mei on NihonTo. The mei is GISUKE, which can be read YOSHISUKE as well. Suruga Shimada ToKo signed like this during Muromachi-period. Verification of the signature is still pending though. reinhard

Agree with "Yoshioka (no) ju Sukeyoshi". The rest is highly speculativ; gimei anyway. Again: The mei with the name-part is on the wrong side of the nakago. Sukeyoshi of the Yoshioka-Ichimonji school signed his long swords exclusively with tachi-mei, i.e. location and name on the haki-omote. The vast majority of swordsmiths did so until the end of Kamakura-period and into Nambokucho-period. Exceptions are only some of the Ko-Aoe smiths in Bitchu Province and some of the Ko-Bungo smiths like Yukihira. It seems to me, that western enthusiasts, fascinated by their newly acquired ability of translating mei on NihonTo, easily forget basics. reinhard

Don't.

One poor blade and a poor koshirae, that's all; but two threads to discuss them. Fuchi and kashira are typical for cheap Showa-To work. Tsuka-Maki was done even later by a bloody amateur. Hectic activities all over the place though. Relax and try to focus on essentials. NMB is too good to be a simple platform for quick trades and free translation. reinhard

Thing is: Fakers need their products to be made fast and cheap. That's why their forgeries are always silly and ludicrous shades of the originals. "Adjusting" their forgeries would be a very time-consuming and expensive process. That's why they won't do it. It might be easier for them to fake papers like torokusho and others, but the shitty blades and koshirae will give them away, always. Therefore my advice: Have a close look at the blade and the koshirae and don't buy dubious swords on the basis of papers you can't read nor judge. reinhard

Prices for kiribako vary strongly, because their quality varies strongly. You get what you pay for.. It doesn't make sense to order a high-end, custom-made kiribako for a mediocre tsuba. Average workmanship will do. If you want to store a genuine Kano Natsuo tsuba you should go for the best there is, and you will find it only at high costs. reinhard

The blade is signed with name and place on the sashi-omote and the nengo (date) on the sashi-ura. Famous Kagemitsu working in Osafune, Bizen province, during late Kamakura-period never did that. His Daito were always signed with a tachi-mei (i.e. the other way round). Going into details of the mei is therefore obsolete. This brings me to the question wether there is an app helping with kanji on swords. Even if there is one: If you don't know basics it won't be of much help. reinhard

On and on again. "I have studied this particular blade/mei very well. Why does NBTHK not share my point of view? " Condition of a blade is what matters most in making a judgement. That's what makes NBTHK's papers much more valuable than NTHK's or others. reinhard

Sorry to disappoint you, but this tsuba is far from the craftsmanship that can be expected of Umetada kinko. Another famous name abused for commercial purposes. reinhard

First of all: Mentioning Basil Hall Chamberlain was a silly mistake from my side (although his book about his life in Japan during Meiji-period is still highly informative and much recommended). I meant Mr. Basil Robinson's book about the swords in the Victoria and Albert museum written in the 1960's (if I remember correctly. Dont send me to the attic, please). Many of the "big name swords" there can't be taken seriously for what they were meant to be at the time. Mr.Robinson relied on old Japanese sources more or less valid at the time without having deeper knowledge of Nihon-To himself. Famous example: The Daisho given to Field Marshall Sir Francis Festing is definitely not was it is claiming to be. That was half a century ago and a lot of research had been done since then. The same goes for John Yumoto's book from 1958 (if remember correctly. Don't want to search it in the attic to make sure). Mr. Yumoto noticed that many servicemen brought back home souvenirs from the WWII-East-Asia campaign to the US and didn't know anything about. Giving them a guide to understand what they have was a respectable task. Nevertheless John Yumoto is repeating the then accepted kanon of informations outdated by now. It is common sense by now that transformation from simple Choku-To to Nihon-To was completed during later Heian-period. There was no Lamborghini Miura before Ford-T. Nevertheless Mr. Yumoto is repeating old tabulates confirming the idea that there were smiths like Amakuni and Amafuji propelling swords into Nihon-To masterpieces 800 AD. The main reason why I reject Mr.Yumoto's work is: At the end of his book he is offering a rating system, which cannot be taken seriously. reinhard

John Yumoto's book is filled with unproven assertions. B.H.Chamberlain's book is full of fake blades. Not their fault. They didn't know better at their time. We do, now.

Not posting this for experienced members familiar with the crooks out there. It is meant to be an advice for the newbies and beginners. LOOK CLOSE AND LOOK CAREFULLY! Japanese craftsmanship is about precision and control. It has never substantially declined. 1) Tsuka-Ito should be wrapped in a symmetrical manner, i.e. left over right, right over left, left over right, and so on.. 2) The outline of Tsuka-Ito must be smooth, no bumps allowed. 3) Diamond-shape openings must be uniform and precise. Real rayskin or just a plastic substitute? 1) Real rayskin always has a symmetrical structure and is carefully placed on the tsuka. 2) Real rayskin has a natural appearce. Plastic substitutes have not. Menuki underneath Ito. Unfortunately sometimes it is dificult to check menuki underneath ito. There are are some hints you can go for though. Does it look like a thin foil of metal stamped out, as in this case, or like a proper menuki. Do the menuki appear to be three-dimensional? Are details carefully worked-out, f.e. dragon scales, or not.

I don't know wether it is easy to obtain by now, but after many years of studying Nihon-To I strongly recommend: "The connaisseur's book of Japanese swords" by Nagayama Kokan (ISBN 4-7700-2071-6) One of Japan's foremost experts and polishers gives you not only an precise description of schools and workmanships but also a short historical and geographical overview of their development. A very good point to start from. reinhard

My dear forumites, You are going nerdy on this one (once more). You hear "Tadahiro" (Oh, that must be a Hizen smith!) You hear "Musashi" (There was something with Hizen and Musashi as well!) The first Hizen master Tadayoshi acquired the title "Musashi Daijo". The mei in question only states that this Tadahiro was a resident of Musashi. Apart from the fact that the state of the blade is beyond serious judgement, you actually see a rather random assembly of objects. Especially the tsuka looks like a very clumsy attempt of repairing something that is not worth the pain and shows no signs of Japanese craftsmanship. What probably caught your particular attention is the surrender tag. What makes you think, this surrender tag has any connection to this blade? I'd expect a surrender tag together with a GunTo-mounted sword. During WWII Japanese officers weren't allowed to bring just any wild assembly of koshirae to service. reinhard

At least not to the blade described on the sayagaki reinhard

Well, "everyone around" does not necessarily include knowledge. Especially not when confusing "Ichimonji" with "Bungo". BTW "Bungo" what? Ko-Bungo Yukihira, Sadahide, or Bungo Takada school? None of them can be seriously confused with Ichimonji. reinhard