Schneeds

That actually answers a question I was hesitant to ask for fear of looking the fool. Many of the Naoe Shizu blades that I could still find pictures of to compare it with were Juyo blades of nearly identical proportions. However I thought the Jigane in this was one was as good or even better in some cases, but the hamon was not as strong as the Juyo blades and I didn't know if that was reason enough for such a difference in papering. Is it the kissaki that leads you to believe earliest Muromachi years? Also interesting you bring up Sue-Sa. There is a second blade I have been studying that is judged Sue-Sa Ichimon. The Jigane to me looks to be a bit rougher, however the sugata is more grand and is several cm longer with more of a classic Nanbokucho o-kissaki. The exposure in the pictures has unfortunately blown out the details of the hamon.

I've found myself coming back to this blade a number of times recently; I'm curious what your thoughts would be. Judged Naoe Shizu, 70cm. When I compare it to other Naoe Shizu works I can find it looks like a fine example. Is this pretty typical work for the School, or an above average example? I came across a comment from Ray recently where he mentioned he likes to take the seller pictures from perspective purchase swords and work with them in photoshop to make sure nothing is being missed and I thought that was an excellent idea given the quality of photography varies so wildly. I worked with these a bit as the seller's images were a bit lacking. As always, thank you for your input.

I'm curious what the opinions would be on this particular blade. 76cm, TH papers signed Ryokai Katsuyoshi. The seller has stated that the blade is a Nanbokucho era work which would put it prior to the Tsukushi Ryoaki school, however it appears more likely that it is in fact a later Muromachi blade. I'm not sure what the miss-shaping/defects on the nakago are, or how much of a concern that is. They are asking 750,000 JPY which for a Nanbokucho blade such as this I thought would have been quite good. I'm having a difficult time attributing value for Muromachi pieces.

Does anyone have a recommendation as an alternative to something like the Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords: A Collector's Guide? Something with quality pictures as opposed to illustrations? Facts and Fundamentals is a bit hard to get right now.

That explains it, thank you.

I believe this is Ryokai Katsunou, if I have done it correctly? Any help is appreciated!

More to think about. Thank you, Kirill. Yeah, Chandler. It's both a tough and fun boat to be in. There's definitely a steep learning curve. It reminds me of BJJ; if you're at a serious gym you spend the first six months to a year getting absolutely destroyed, but eventually you get the hang of it Or at least I hope we will.

Ah ok. Attributed works to him seem to be rather rare, but you're of the opinion given the consistency of the ko Mihara school there isn't much appreciable difference between them? They are asking 950,000 JPY for that one, with koshirae. The mounts are nice, but appear to be a refit.

Kokubunji Sukekuni

Thanks, Kirill. In light of the reality you guys have pointed out, I'm looking at possibly taking a different tack towards a more historical and well crafted piece and sacrificing shape and size. This particular work is TH and specifically attributed to the late the Kamakura period ~1328. The blade length is only 64cm, however, but does look to my eyes to be healthy with a quality and consistent grain. How would you consider the health and appearance to be given its age? (relative to my budget range of course)

Thanks, Jussi. That gives an idea of what is reasonably attainable. I am certainly open to 'lesser' or lesser known names. The Uda School/names just seem to be very prevalent.

That is very informative, Kirill, thank you. I think I see what you mean about being optimistic. Using Connoisseur's there isn't a whole lot to go off of for Uda School, and unless I missed it, Tomotsugu isn't mentioned at all. Uda appears mid Nanbokucho where Kunifusa comes up as well as in late Nanbokucho but no specific smiths are referenced at that point. Mr. Sesko's index does, however, have Tomotsugu listed in 6 generations of the Uda school, beginning around 1381 and ending around 1592, with most of the known works going to the 5th generation. However, Tomotsugu 1st generation is just listed as Uda, not Ko-Uda, as other smiths are elsewhere such as Kunitsugu. Other than the specific hamon of the 1st generation using suguha-chō mixed with ko-gunome, ko-chōji, kinsuji and sunagashi there isn't much to go off of. Do you think it would be better then for me to try and search out a 2nd generation Kunitmitsu work? signed or at least attributed, given what I'm looking for? Per the Swordsmiths of Japan no first generation works remain.

Thank you John. I missed that post on Ko-Uda, that is good information. I was looking at past and current offerings from other dealers and even Aoi, and wondering why if it was what I thought it was, why it wouldn't have made TH. I'm glad I was at least smart enough to ask I still like it for what it is, but will continue saving and learning. Alex, what is it that gives the suriage away? I was trying to figure out if it was and came across the below so I wasn't sure. This has all been great information. Thank you everyone.

Hello All, I would appreciate any thoughts on what I'm hoping will be my first nihonto. I've spent most of the last year learning as much as I can here, but I am still a complete newb and determined not to make any stupid mistakes. Therefore I am going by the three rules I see mentioned over and over again here: 1. Buying papered 2. Buying from a reputable source 3. Buying the sword, not the paper (sentiment) Here is the piece in question: Katana: mumei attributed Uda Tomotsugu I've been looking at it for quite a while now, and with my relatively limited budget (~6,000 USD), I'm not sure I can do better for what my individual, but realistic, goals are: one from the late kamakura-late Nanbokucho period, with a long blade and deep sori reminiscent of a tachi, polished, and with a presentable mount. It has been listed for quite a period of time now, so that does have be wondering a little if I am missing something. It does not appear from my limited translating abilities to mention a date or era on the origami, but is attributed to Uda Tomotsugu. i did reach out and ask about defects and was told there are some cracks with close inspection that are common for blades of that age. The overwhelming majority of members seem to speak very highly of Aoi. Any thoughts? Erik

Greetings All, I have been a reader of the forum for the better part of a year now, and as I am finally getting ready to hopefully make my first nihonto purchase, thought it time I introduce myself. I am active law enforcement working in investigations, and have loved ancient weaponry for as long as I can remember. My Dad read me Shogun when I was six years old. A debatable decision, but what an awesome father to have. I began collecting around 5 years ago, but up until now I have only collected Roman blades (modern, authentically made pieces). Over the last year or so, I began gaining more and more interest in historical Japanese works. I am strictly an admirer for the craftsmanship and art; not a practitioner. I have to say getting into nihonto collection is an intimating prospect. The sheer amount of information on the subjects is absolutely mind blowing. Even after a year of researching here and other resources I feel like I might know a drop in the bucket. Fortunately this is a great community. I look forward to joining you all! Erik