YourBabyBjornBorg

First of all, yes. There are many records of Kotou signed "Noshu Seki Junin Kaneiwa". In fact, we can find the exact same 6 descriptions about Kotou period Kaneiwa at Nihonto Club (KAN1025-1030), in "Encyclopedia of Mino-tou” by Tokunou Kazuo Sensei (who also wrote “Encyclopedia of Swordsmiths”, although sadly I don't have). Kaneiwa is also mentioned in other books like “Corpus of Swordsmiths/刀工全集” by Dr. Shimizu Tooru, “Pandect of Swordsmiths/刀工総覧” by Kawakuchi Noboru Sensei and many more, all describing swordsmiths in Eisho (1504-1521) or Tensho (1573-1592), in the Kotou period. ......On the other hand, the only Oshigata of Kotou Kaneiwa is of a Tanto, with Higaki-Yasuri instead of Takanoha, a much thinner Tagane, and a different font. (It's like the Tanto on Asahi Touken, but the font is, again, different.) So, I took the liberty to glance at a webpage of Touken Tokugawa, where I think this sword was sold. (A random information, the same sword is also sold at Yahoo! auction for 333,000 Yens on the 25th of March this year.) It could just be the Sashikomi-Togi, but I am getting a little Azuchi-Momoyama to early Edo Minou Shinto impression. The Kitae is a little too tight and neat for Sue-Seki, although Sue-Seki Katanas do tend to have more refined Kitae than Tantos and Wakizashis from (my very limited) experience. So Kitae-wise, this could be a very well-made Sue-Seki, or a good Azuchi-Momoyama to early Edo Minou Shinto. Hamon is Nioi-Deki (some would say Ko-Niedeki) with Nioiguchi Shimari-gokoro, while being THE default description for Sue-Seki, could also apply to Minou Shinto from Azuchi-Momoyama to early Edo period. Nakago, both the Yasurime and font, like what Rivkin San shrewdly pointed out, looks Edo period. When searching for Kaneiwa, I did not find any source of the Shinto period Kaneiwa. ......Which I guess could be what they really meant by "not in the Meikan".

The apprentice to the first Awata Nagatsuna, smith colloquially known as 聾長綱(つんぼ長綱/Tsunbo Nagatsuna, or deaf Nagatsuna) has several different signatures, and what we can find most on the internet is 摂津住藤原長綱/Settsu-Ju Fujiwara Nagatsuna, which is very helpful for comparing signatures. (Also, "Encyclopedia of Shinto/新刀大鑑" by Iimura Yoshiaki Sensei says, "It is said that 紀伊国廣綱(Hirotsuna) is the same person as Nagatsuna", which is confirmed in "Pandect of swordsmiths/刀工総覧" by Kawakuchi Noboru Sensei.) As for the spesific way of signing as 粟田口長綱/Awatakuchi Nagatsuna, there is a text record for a Tokubetsu-Kiju at the Chokuan Branch of Fukuoka NBTHK in 1960 signed exactly that, and another is said to be part of Hounoutou/votive swords to the Ukishima shrine in Kumamoto, but the researchers did not get a chance to look at it (徳島県新野町民史, 新野町史編集委員会, 1960). There are also several mentions of a similar signature 粟田口聾長綱/Awatakuchi Tsunbo Nagatsuna in books. Num. 529 of 刀剣と歴史/Swords and History by NTHK in 1982 listed a sword passed Shinsa signed 粟田口聾長綱/Awatakuchi Tsunbo Nagatsuna lengthed at 51.8cm (一尺七寸一分), also "Encyclopedia of Shinto/新刀大鑑", "Pandect of swordsmiths/刀工総覧" and “Praising the Osaka Shinto/大阪新刀を讃える” all mentioned the specific signature of 粟田口聾長綱/Awatakuchi Tsunbo Nagatsuna, all, unfortunately, without actual Oshigata or photos. Although we can still try to compare the signature with swords signed with 摂津住藤原長綱/Settsu-Ju Fujiwara Nagatsuna, so even the mere confirmation of the signature 粟田口長綱/Awatakuchi Nagatsuna existing is still meaningful. I'm really bad at telling Gimei, so I hope at least this helps!

(Back from lunch, edited.) Hmm... This Mumei Ryumon comes with a somewhat decent Han-Dachi Koshirae, too, so the real price of the sword alone may be lower than 900k Yen, even. I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I will try to answer this question quickly. This is just not a very desirable sword. Mumei swords attributed to Ryumon are supposed to have relatively fine Kitae (with some swords being a little Hada-Tachi), while this sword is in the most unfortunate state of Kitae, exposing Shingane ("core-steel", see those areas with little to no expression of Kitae-Hada). We can also have a glimpse of what kind of Kitae this sword used to have with the attached close-up photo, which also showed that the sword is probably not the O-Hada kind (swords made with rough Kitae to begin with), but originally finely smithed. We can back up this presumption with the data, too. 590g of weight is very much on the light side of a 70cm sword, Kasane at 0.59cm is also a little too thin, but what stands out most is the width of 2.43cm to 1.69cm, that's really not what you would want in a 70cm sword, even a late-Kamakura to early-Nanbokucho one (which we can tell from the shape of the Kissaki and overall Sugata). (For comparison, a relatively acceptable late-Kamakura 70cm long sword would have at least 2.65~2.7cm of width at base, preferably 2.8cm and above. ) We can make an educated guess that this sword used to be a lot wider, which explains the narrow Yakiba part and the awkwardly narrow Hamachi, even for an O-Suriage'd sword with a completely new tang. What we have here is a sword with quite heavy Togi-Heri(研ぎ減り, losses to the polishing) in the past 700 years...and I'm already late to have lunch with my parents. More comes up later!

Yes! I'm sorry about that, I have not been reading many of these Mei/signatures out loud for quite some time now, and I made a mistake on how you say OO国住. The correct way is, like what Singer San said, Bizen no Kuni Ju (備前国住), with an invisible の/no between 備前 and 国, and we say the word 国 as Koku in On'yomi/音読み instead of Kuni in Kun'yomi/訓読み. Sorry about the detour in Japanese Language that no one asked about, I'm just a little too passionate about linguistics in general, and I would also like to apologize again for the incorrect information about how one should say 備前国住.

Wow, the second-to-last Chinese character is really hard to make out! I think this is 備前国住助?光(Bizen Koku Jyu Suke? Mitsu), with a tiny possibility the 助? actually being a really worn out 勝/Katsu. But I am not quite seeing it to be true in this case, rather just to make sure we cover all the scenarios. Anyway, hope this helps!

Oof! That's almost too bad to watch. I'm saddened for the person about to purchase that.

Hi, sorry to add on this already perfectly discussed and finished topic. Hope what I say can help a little bit. First, I think this Mei is a very badly made Gimei, almost the work of an amateur. (It says Awataguchi Ominokami Tadatsuna/粟田口近江守忠綱, and the 1st gen of this name is an early to mid edo smith, so definitely not Momoyama.) Better pictures will be needed for a more in-depth look at this sword, but it's not necessary, for this is just not a very good sword. The Horimono also doesn't look very promising. And Osuriage is only when there is no Mei left on the sword, while Suriage is Machiokuri with the Nakago cut and shortened also. Yes, the Habaki is damaged and should be replaced to prevent making scratches on the blade.

This is 昭和卅壱年(Showa 31 years). 壱 is a deliberately complicated way of writing the number one (一), so it's harder to be tampered with on paper, say a check or something. 卅 is three 十 put together, there for 30. Also just FYI, 弍 or 貳 is two, 弎 is three, and 廿 is 20. There is also the classic way of writing four like a crosshair turned 45°, because 四 and 死 (die/death) have the same pronunciation.

Not that I can see, no. There are only the three characters "正阿弥" going from up to down between the Kozuka-Ana and the Nakago-Ana.

The right one also says Shoami (正阿弥).

Yes, Nijuba are very common features in Nihonto, and kind of easy to be confused with Tsuchiochi's result. From my very poor understanding of it, one way to tell is to look for signs of lack of control of the Hamon, for example, Mura (ムラ/叢) or Kuzure(崩れ), Also, the rim of Hamon with Tsuchiochi tends to be jagged and irregular in an unappealing fashion, from my limited experience, indicating an unintentional mistake. Still, many great Nie-Deki Nihonto have very irregular Hataraki (I prefer to call them Syosa/所作, though), so I would lean heavily on the separated, jagged, and unappealing part, not the irregular part, to tell a Tsuchiochi from Nijuba. In this particular case, I still get a strong feeling that this is a traditionally forged sword, retempered and oil-quenched, probably in China, resulting in very poor control of Hamon with a thin, uncannily stiff and consistent Nioguchi, like many other poorly made Chinese Japanese-style swords I have seen.

Oh, the two Hamon lines are because the clay applied on the blade before tempering fell off during quenching (Tsuchiochi/土落ち). They are defects somewhat common on poorly made Nihonto and Nihonto-style swords. [Irrelevant rumbling] The method of applying clay is called Tsuchioki(土置き), it is to create a controlled Hamon. [Even more irrelevant rumbling] One can create glorious Hamon without Tsuchioki, for example, the Japanese Designated National Treasure sold for close to 4 million dollars, Sanchomo. The modern Nihonto smith Sugita Yoshiaki San is also famous for his rediscovering this ancient technique called Hadaka-Yaki(naked tempering).

Sorry for the confusion, in short, I believe this is to be a genuine traditionally made Japanese sword (Nihonto), but re-hardened (Saiba-ed). Re-hardened Nihonto generally have little value, so is this poorly re-hardened one. some parts of the mounting are fine, but the handle wrapping is especially bad. It's likely because it was burned once so the "Hamon" (not really, though) was annealed and gone, and the sword became a burnt blade (Yakimi/焼身). (It could also be the tip of the sword was broken so a re-hardening is required.) burnt blades are surprisingly more common than people would expect in the low-end Nihonto market. A side note is that the Hamon is quite clearly off to any trained eyes, and it's not just because of the poor and acid-enhanced polishing. So it leaves questions about whether the collector who sold you this blade is a trusting-worthing person or not, when it comes to Nihonto trading.

Unfortunately, this kind of registration document (銃砲刀剣登録証 or even NBTHK papers)can be easily forged where I come from. It's important to see the handwriting on it for Japanese Kanji have distinct differences from Chinese characters when handwritten. If it's not shown, there is something to speculate about it. Also IMHO, the blade itself IS genuine, from the Kitaeware on Shinogiji. That's a definite sign of traditional Nihonto smithing there. But the Yakiba is really bad, way too stiff(as too consistent in a bad way), and has way too much Mura（ムラ or 叢） and Kuzure（崩れ）. Combined with the very weird and uncalled-for Yakiotoshi(焼き落とし) and vaguely visible Yakidashi Uturi (焼出移, some would say Mizukage, 水影, but Nakahara Nobuo Sensei would argue they are not the same thing), this a Saiba（再刃）-ed Nihonto no doubt, probably done in China by a not traditionally trained person (there's none anyway, one person comes very close, though). Most Saiba-ed Nihonto are considered with little artistic and market value, except for those historically significant museum collections. I am terribly sorry for my long-winded and Japanese-word-dropping reply, Saiba is just an incredibly difficult topic and takes tremendous effort to explain even most slightly. I hope someone more knowledgeable would kindly correct me on this one.

Oh my, that was a big oopsie. I meant 天明七年八月日(August 1 "7" 87). This is so embarrassing, I am very sorry.

This could also be hriiH, the character for Amitābha (who has a pure land in the west called Sukhāvatī, heavily worshiped in Greater China and Japan) and Sahasrabhuja(one of the Manifestations of the most compassionate Avalokiteśvara).

突然のコメント失礼致します。そうですね、わたくしも五か七か大変悩んでいましたが、確かに五のほうに見えてきました。ご訂正ありがとうございます。 To Nguyen San: Yes, a second look at this and it's more of a 5 to me now, sorry for the confusion.

Oh, there's a date on the back! That will be 天明七年八月日(August 1987).

The Mei says 水心子正秀(Suishinshi Masahide) with a Kao, and the Sayagaki says 出羽山形住水心子藤原正秀(Dewa Yamagata-Jyu Suishinshi Fujiwara Masahide), 長貳尺三寸(69.69cm).

This is 兼光（Kanemitsu） and 皇紀二千六百年（1940）. My rice cooker just went off, I will have to check on that before I provide more information.

One bowl of braised beef after and I still have no clue on this. This really is a toughie. Maybe someone else with more understanding of Gunto could shed their light on this. I hope you can find the answer very soon.

Thank you for trying, rubbing is indeed very hard and takes much practice to get results. The first character is 兼(Kane), not very sure about the second one, but it somewhat resembles a 次(Tsugu). I am completely ignorant about Gunto for lack of interest, but I will try to see what I can find about this particular one after I finish my soy sauce braised beef.

Wow, this is hard. Accurate translation will need a charcoal or pencil rubbing of the Nakago, but if I were a gambling person, I would say this is 昭和十（八年？）something, so an early Showa one. The maker's signature might be at the back.

Yes, and thank you kindly! This is such a nice place to learn about Nihonto, I wish I had joined here sooner.

A Ken in late Edo and in this length! This is such a rare and intriguing piece, thank you for sharing its pictures. It definitely looks like Shinshinto IMHO. The current polishing is already good enough albeit a little old, but I'm very excited to see how Mr. Benson would work his magic to awaken this Ken with a new polishing. Thank you again for letting me see this marvelous Ken!