Nihonto student

A widely discussed and controversial topic where scientific truth will likely be difficult to come by, just to make a reflection: Regarding the topic, much emphasis is always given to the changes in raw materials between the various periods and to the hamon based on the studies conducted by Masahide, but much less is said about the actual construction characteristics, perhaps also due to a real lack of reliable information. The simple question I think many of us ask is how, a blade forged in 1300 can be considered technically superior to a blade made today... a few weeks ago my father made a classic statement: "Today, cars aren't made like they were in the '70s, it's all plastic." Regardless of whether you agree with this statement or not, it got me thinking about the concept of evolution. What rewards evolution in the field of production in general? Basically, time and money. If I can produce the same object at a lower cost and in a shorter time with better/same or similar performance, this will be taken as the new reference model. Today it would be impossible to think of reproducing a car body like in the 70s, the costs would be insane... I wonder, then, how much time was required to produce a blade in the Kamakura period compared to the Shinto period? What about the combination of hard and soft steel as at the beginning the awareness of the percentage of carbon was zero? What techniques were in vogue compared to the kobuse of the Shinto period? Without reliable sources on these answers it is difficult to reach a conclusion...

Undoubtedly a beautiful blade Okan, thanks for sharing, I would like to ask what characteristics lead one to think that it is a Kunitoshi utsushi? Thank you Giordy

Kansei = from 1789 to 1801 --- Kansei 10 should be 1798 so for Mr. Yamasaki 19th October 1798 I can't confirm the signature in question, but even if it were the same year I don't think it would substantially change the cards on the table from an evaluation point of view, of course you would surely know that it is a blade made at the peak of his career so qualitatively would expect more compared to previous works.

Dear John, I'll try to simplify Jean's post. The blade was previously covered in rust, but now it's not...who cleaned the rust from the blade? You or a professional togishi? This is because when it comes to Japanese blades, the problem isn't just removing the rust, but maintaining the geometry. If you don't maintain the geometry, it's a big problem. This is why becoming a togishi requires years of training...in the photos you posted, the shinogi seems barely visible, which suggests that whoever removed the rust had no idea how to maintain the geometry. @Lindley Suketaka received honorary title “nagato no Kami” in 1789 (Reference Sesko Compendium). All the best Giordy

Also on the ura side futasuji-hi appear in a strange place...I think there was something else at the base before otherwise it doesn't add up.

This blade is attributed to Nidai, not the only one to make suguha, although I'm struggling to find another example right now and I don't have any books to hand. In any case, as you can see long kaeri is found from Tenbun onwards. https://sword-auction.com/en/product/27176/as25215-脇差相州住綱広特別保存刀剣/ https://www.aoijapan.net/wakizashi-soshu-ju-tsunahiro-2/ Many elements here point towards Sagami... mitsumune and style of carving for example. I think the discussion is mainly about period (Which generation Tsunahiro). Giordy

Dear Julien, very nice piece! As little as my opinion matters... hada here seems like a mirror of yours https://togishi.com/store/p519/Soshu_Ju_Tsunahiro_3rd_Generation_.html also typical horimono and regarding kaeri I see several examples with pronounced one http://sanmei.com/contents/media/o_H113827_S3041.html Check also https://nihonto.com/tsunahiro/ where the long kaeri is indicated as a feature. In any case good luck for shinsa!. All the best Giordy

Great Jussi and perfect timing for the post! I was also searching around and found this one: http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/0810_1116syousai.htm Nakago and Mei's style are a great match.

Dear G.K., I haven't found any matches with this mei yet. I'll continue searching. I still believe that sugata and nakago are not typical of the Tenbun period. Now, considering only Fujiwara Nagayuki, the first thing I'd associate it with is the Takada school,. As you can see Mr. Sesko lists another Nagayuki from the Takada school, I can't confirm that he is actually the author of this blade but I would definitely take the Takada school as the direction and from the sugata I would say from Momoyama to the middle of the Shinto period. Is the signature genuine or not? Without a certified signature for comparison, it's difficult to express an opinion...as a general thinking, I'd say Takada doesn't seem a target for gimei, but you never know. If you get the chance, post some better photos and, above all, the measurements of the blade, nagasa, kasane, sori, etc. measurements are essential to give it context. All the best Giordy

Dear Jeff, from this photo the nakago looks suspicious...can you post a photo of the complete nakago? Thank you Giordy

The fact that the seller suggests in the description to have it certified I see as a good sign that in their opinion it passes, otherwise they would be very unprofessional, I think that there are the requirements for Hozon (if a hagire does not come out during the polishing) but I do not know if the orikaeshi mei which appears at least questionable even if illegible can have any weight in the judgment, perhaps some other member can express his consideration on the matter. Giordy

Hello Max, If you intend to buy it I agree with others that it is certainly worth certifying, but as Lewis said it would be better to arrange with the seller first if the blade does not pass. Giordy

Dear Max, the first question that comes to my mind is why they didn't polish and certify it directly with the possibility of having a greater profit? The simplest answer is that it's not worth it and I'll try to explain why: Sugata and hada seem Shinshinto to me. If you combine Shinshinto/suriage/mumei from a collecting point of view you will get a blade that has no appeal, they would have no profit in polishing and certifying it, they prefer that the buyer requests it and bears the costs and risks. Remind that the costs of polishing and certification do not add up directly as a value... polishing makes the blade more attractive and sellable, certification increases attractiveness as it gives more certainty to the buyer and in some cases can increase value of the blade even considerably, therefore these evaluations are made individually on a case-by-case basis. Regarding the conditions, I seem to see little machi considering the reference period, it makes me think that the blade has already seen several polishes. The fundamental point however remains why you have to buy a blade... if you looking for a display blade it could be fine if you like it, if you intend to study nihonto more in depth I would honestly suggest to look at something else, in any case the asking price + polishing + certification seems high to me...for that price you can find some very nice wakizashi. All the best Giordy

Dear GKFalk, drawing conclusions with this little information is difficult, and the condition of the blade also prevents from reading the work. To try to answer a bit your questions: - The lack of yokote is certainly due to polishing. - From the picture blade appears not to be really bad condition, but needs to seen.. keeping in mind that any defects may be hidden under the patina. I can't tell if a naginata-hi is present or if what I see toward the base is a reflection. - I can't read the signature from the photo. Perhaps another member can confirm... the sugata with that nakago taper personally suggests something later than the Tenbun period. All the best Giordy

If I remember correctly, this swordsmith used to place the place of residence "Bishu Osafune" on the Ura side together with the date and that only for blades intended for temples he used to indicate the residence on the Omote side but it should still be on a single column and not in two as in this case...