John C

Jacques: In an effort to learn, I'll bite. Firstly, I had to google "utsushi", which I assume means "copy." Secondly, I looked for a connection between Tadayoshi and the Naoe-Shizu school. I could not find a connection, though admittedly my resources are quite limited. I did find out there were 9 generations of Tadayoshi, with the 8th gen not receiving a title (from Nagayama). Next, I looked up the qualities of the Naoe-Shizu school. I found an article that referenced the following description about a Naoe-Shizu blade: "This blade demonstrates many of the qualities that make Naoe-Shizu stand out above the norms of the time. The sugata is grand without being excessive, the hada tight and clear with a lot of activity and the hamon is gently cultivated and complex. It skilfully [sic] avoids the excesses of the period while at the same time it resisted falling in to the contrived patterns so familiar in Mino work." As a novice, I am sure I am missing a connection here. But to give a specific answer about sugata, hamon, etc.,, I first need to know whether or not Tadayoshi is somehow connected to the Naoe-Shizu school. Any hints? John C.

You can find more of this theme from Fred Lohman, if you decide to get it and deck it out. https://www.Japanese-swords.com/pages/skull.htm John C.

Jay: Bruce is definitely the man to give you more info on the sword, but I also think you should buy it for 300. They are late models but solid pieces. And BTW, if you get it, don't do anything to it until you read the care and cleaning instructions on this forum. No need to take off the handle. There was usually nothing written on the tang on these models. John C.

Hal: I believe most were done in the 80's and 90's but are still being done today in China, India, and Poland(I think). They use a combination of real parts, if they can get them, and fake parts and the parts are artificially aged. In terms of signatures, those have been faked for hundreds of years. Best advice is to look here at real swords (or threads that talk about fake ones) and study the differences. You will eventually train your eye to pick up on those differences. John C.

Brian: As Chris said above. My initial thoughts as well. Specifically, the lack of detail in the hand guard of the type 32 and the fake tsuba (see your other post). Also the serial numbers seem off from the pictures. Marks on the type 95 are also not correctly done. John C.

Hal: You will also want to brush up on Japanese sword terminology. You may hear that the blade is O suriage mumei with two mekugi ana (shortened blade, usually at the tang that has no signature and has two holes for bamboo handle pins). Many of the folks here use that terminology regularly to describe what they are seeing. Check out the Nihonto info tab and the FAQ tab for more info on terminology and blade care. John C.

Jussi: Thanks! (But you didn't talk about any of the ones I am interested in!!) John C.

This could be the explanation when looking at David D.'s breakdown above. But it is important to remember that there were more blades made before 1868 than after. So much of what is being submitted should come from roughly the same time period. It is true, however, that there may be blades of less quality submitted over time as the "good" blades pass shinsa and "bad" ones continue to get re-submitted. I suspect, however, that would not account for much of the discrepancy. I think the answer lies elsewhere. John C.

Subegh: There is another Baba Tsugukiyo up for auction on the Sofe Design auction site. You might be able to compare the mei and other blade details with that one. John C.

Matt: Is the Mantetsu (item #215) yours? John C.

It could be. I know in terms of college class grading, there is always a certain percentage of students who get A's, B's, F's etc. If a particular teacher (let's say the shinsa judge in this case), has a higher percentage of either A's or F's than other teachers, the class is sometimes audited to find out why because these percentages are fairly consistent over time, irrespective of class size (number of swords submitted in this case). Since I know absolutely nothing about how a shinsa works, I am speaking purely hypothetically. Just speaking about how a certain percentage of passed swords may be derived. John C.

Kevin: To determine age, the folks here will need to look at the sugata, or overall shape. Another picture looking down onto the edge of the entire blade would help. Also the full nakago (tang) (make sure the end can be seen clearly). The kissaki (tip), the hamachi (where the blade edge meets the tang), and any good pictures of the hamon (to determine style). It's quite an art determining the age (period or era) of a blade, however there are some folks here that are pretty good at it (I an NOT among them!) John C.

The numbers not matching the blade assembly number is not a big deal. Koshirae were frequently changed due to damage or wear. The nice thing is the saya and fittings all match each other, which means they have been together for a while. I would not be concerned by the yellow thread. I suspect most here would tell you to just remove it if it were not an original attachment. John C.

You are most likely correct. It's hard for me to tell sometimes. John C.

Karl: FYI The yellow painted numbers (2477 I think) are assembly numbers. Do the other parts have this number stamped on them? John C.

Could this be due to military standards? I'm sure you have considered that. What is your theory as to why he changed? John C.

FYI I posted this on page 4 with the link a couple of weeks ago. John C.

Bruce: I was looking for any connection with the number of petals on the various pieces. Notice the beautiful tsuba posted by Peter has 6 petals. Must have to do with space limitations. Have you noticed any connection with the designs? John C.

Noah: Not sure if you have seen these, however there are some good detailed shots of handle and guard removed from the sword for future reference. I have included two shots below. Not sure if they come from the stuff you collect. https://www.ebay.com/itm/165777930195?hash=item26992277d3:g:E5MAAOSw6DdjclS9 https://www.ebay.com/itm/134327729661?hash=item1f468e7dfd:g:Gr4AAOSwSe5jclTq John C.

Dan: The answer to those questions may be D: All of the above! From an historical perspective, remember the Japanese did get much of their information and insight from the Chinese. And indeed, there was a lot of experimentation with different methods of production for probably several centuries. Remember too that most smiths at the time were guided by shintoism and everything, including the water, fire, river sand, and oxygen used to make the sword had a kami, or spirit. It is conceivable therefore, scientific production methods were blended with spiritual methods. John C.

Dan: I don't think it's a problem with your math, but simply a problem with interpreting the way the data was written. They are talking about percentages and you are trying to convert to decimal. Don't convert. .5% is less than 2%; indeed, 4 times less. If converted to decimal, 2% is .02 and 1/2 percent is .005. So 2 is still larger than .5. Hope that helps. John C.

I have seen similar pictures in an article about slag being left in the steel during the forging process. Maybe just under the "skin" and brought out by the polishing? John C.

Neil: I have found you need to do a double translation with Google translate; first the google literal translation then the Japanese equivalent. There was a tanto posted here recently with writing on the handle that google translate showed as "pine island." One of our amazing translators translated it as Matsushima, which does indeed mean pine tree island. John C.

So is there an "unwritten" pass ratio or is this a reflection of what is typically sent to the panel? John C.

There are probably some forged-in-fire type folks who would try to make a tanto out of it. John C.