mike yeon

The mei.

Thank you gentlemen. Your help and information is much appreciated. I'm researching because I own a katana signed sa yukihide dated 1853. As with most big name guys I take the mei with a grain of salt. I purchased the blade because well, I liked it a lot. Lately I feel that there are a lot of things going for it. It's never been submitted for papers, and I'm considering having it sent to Japan. Pros Mei and nakago are well done. I've compared the mei to about 5 oshigata and it looks good. Yasurimei, shape, etc. all match. Plus its signed tachi mei (which I read he was prone to doing.) Shape. Very thick and heavy. This blade is 3.5 CM at the hamachi and tapers to about 2.5 CM at the yokote. 66CM nagasa. Tori-sori. O'kissaki. Looks like a cut down nambochuko blade. Hamon, I can go either way. It's notareba based in nioi with ko-nie throughout. It was polished in Japan about 30 years ago and done in keisho, so the hada pops but the hamon is a bit obscured. Cons The hada starts as masame then mid way through, then goes into this crazy o'itame pattern through to the shinoji. Anyway, here are picts. Comments welcome.

Seriously, his item descriptions are second to none, they read like bedtime stories to nihonto enthusiasts.

Hello everyone, I'm doing some research on the shin-shinto master Sa Yukihide. I have a bit of information on the o'sa/chikuzen sa school from the koto period but not much on Sa Yukihide. What I'm specifically looking for are kantei points. Can anyone help or maybe recommend a good book on the shin-shinto sa school? Thank you! mike

I recall reading somewhere that during shinshinto/meiji period, certain smiths/schools added metal such as nickel to the blade during the forging process that created a very conspicuous/contrasting hada. Anyone else know/heard about this and have more information they can share? Thanks in advance. mike

I don't believe its an earlier blade. I've read that koto Bizen blades became very popular during late edo. Your blade might have been made to satisfy demand. All in all it looks to be a fine piece. AND you have papered koshirae that belongs to it. I'd just go for a polish and see what the togi says/recommends. Hard to make judgements over the net. mike

Sorry Jasper. I meant that it wouldn't get papered as is. It may get papered if you remove the mei. From your work sheet, where they might have put suspected attribution, it just gives a measurement and the jidai says "shin-shinto" and the locale "kuwana uchi" (not sure what that means, maybe made with skill?) You can submit it again, to see what another shinsa team has to say about attribution. Anyway, mei removal has been well discussed on this forum. It is a long expensive proccess that can't be reversed. Think about it, you pay $2K+ to remove the mei, and then it gets papered to an average level smith/school. In this case I'd recommend that you leave the sword alone as the "gimei" is part of its character and reason for being I think. Anyone else? mike

Nice blade. I'd agree with shin-shinto revival. This was prob an easy one for the shinsa team (stongest indicators would be placement of mei and the fact that it is the mei of Bizen Osafune Kanemitsu, who was a sai-jo saku koto smith.) As you might know, during the shin-shinto period, smiths were trying to bring back the glory of koto period works. Many attempted to copy old masterpieces, and when they did they were faithful to details including number of mekugiana, horimono, etc. Sometimes they would sign the mei of the smith they were copying, and sometimes they would sign their name as well (as deception was not among the reasons for making the copy). I'd leave the mei alone. You'll never get it papered but its a nice example of this period. If you're super lucky, you might one day come accross the actual kanemitsu blade yours was copied from (if it still exists.) Whoever made it was creating a nambochuko period blade (which fits kanemitsu and the profile of your blade). good luck. mike

From your picts it doesn't look right. The hamachi sticks out a bit too much and the mekugiana doesn't look like it's spaced properly. Is it just me or does the nakago look a little "awkward"? Might have been retanged as you suspected. mike

Almost always, the act of carving a mei displaces, (not removes) steel. Think of it as writing your name in the sand with your finger. Also, if you look at well preserved mei, you'll notice the raised edges along each stroke. Especially on newer pieces. When done correctly, the mei is "filled in" using the steel around the strokes. If done correctly it looks none worse for the wear. Repatination usually follows to blend the patina. All in all, its a long, expensive, laborious process that should only be attempted by trained professionals. As Rich S mentioned, it is a permenant proccess and even shinsa teams (albeit very rare) can make mistakes in judgement. Sometimes, if your blade is pinked because of gimei, the shinsa team will confirm who the true maker of the blade is. At that point, you can live with it, or if the blade is worth the removal of the gimei, go through with it (more often than not it isn't.) Anything that screws around with the nakago should be avoided unless there's strong reason. mike

Do you have pictures?

Ed, that's great info (and a very handsome blade). The date 1649 (kei-an period) would match with the 1st echizen kunitsuna (the mei is a dead ringer of the oshigata in kanzan's). My wakizashi's mei matchs as well. The only difference is my blade and the one in the oshigata has a very fine ko-itame hada. Thank you Ed, excellent info/leads. mike

Seriously, very confusing. Don't have my books with me but checked sho-shin.com The Kunitsuna on page 234 (FS) is the first Kunitsuna and it states Kei-an period (1648), echizen province, shimosaka school, chu-jo saku. (Just one in FS) But Toko Taikan lists 3 shinto kunitsuna. 2 shimosaka school smiths (1st & 2nd) from echizen, and then one from awa. The 3 time periods these smiths worked in spans from 1648-1684. Kanbun is in the middle (the awa smith, rated chu-saku). I do have my copy of kanzan's shinto oshigata in the office though. 2 kunitsuna in there. One wakizashi with the "Echizen Ju" on the ura and "Sagami no kami Fujiwara kunitsuna" on the other side (I believe this is the guy we both have?). I believe that's how he signed wakizashi as I have seen a papered Kunitsuna katana with the echizen ju on the katana mei side. Kanzan does not give a date though. Other kunitsuna is from Echigo. Signed "Echigo no suke kunitsuna kore wo tsukuru" but he states Tempo era (1830) Time to hit the books for me. mike

Thanks Paul for the added info. The Kunitsuna I have is either the nidai or shodai that worked in Kei-an or Tei-kyo periods (both Echizen smiths.) I think the Kunitsuna that worked during the Kanbun period is from Awa province. He's rated chu-saku. The Echizen Kunitsuna are both rated chu-jo saku. Confusing isn't it? mike

agreed. which is a variation of sanbonsugi. classic mino-den. mike

I'd go with "Ei" too. Maybe Ei-kyo. Mid 1400s. Which would point to the nidai Kaneyoshi. Or if Ei-sho, there was a mino Kaneyoshi that worked around 1500. Hamon is sanbonsugi. It certainly looks mino-den muromachi (wide shinogi ji. less pronounced sugata. coarse hada.) Also, Darren, this guy is definitely mino-den, no need to look at yamato or bizen kaneyoshi. There are few togi outside Japan than can handle a repatination (cleaning effectively altered the mei. they might also suggest removing the mei entirely.) You have enough of the blade left to make a close call on the smith. The mei is not the most important thing in kantei. Then figure out: How much do you like the blade? Restoration is very expensive. You might even end up spending more than the blade is worth. In the U.S. I know Moses (nihontoantiques.com) handles repatination. One of the best guys you can deal with. Good luck. mike

KM, retempering is looked at as a flaw. We don't retemper blades today because we don't use them (in very few cases retempering is done to try and save an old masterpiece). In the past people retempered blades because it was expensive to buy new swords. Retempering effectively returns a hard edge to the blade so it can still be useable. In the proccess, it loses the original characteristics including many activities in the hamon. Retempered blades I've seen had wide/cloudy suguha hamons. The shape also changes dramatically and there will be un-natural curves in even the best retemper jobs. mike

A simple way to look at it is asking "is the sword functional?" We should remember that Japanese smiths for the most part made their blades with the full intention of creating a weapon, not a piece of art. What we as collectors find artistic today (hamon/hada/shape) were seen as utilitarian or adhering to tradition by the old smiths. If the hamon falls off the edge in any way, it is considered flatally flawed because it cannot hold an edge in these spots. The integrity of the yakiba is diminished (creating stress points). Like John mentioned there's a lot of ways to look at it. But if you want to be strict, none of the Japanese organizations will paper a blade with a broken yakiba. (unless as John also pointed out, it's a rare case of a very important blade). mike

Thank you everyone. This helps a lot. The problem I ran into seems to be stating the pre-determined category the clerk needed to put into his system (not what I was writing on the the customs form.) The closest category according to him was "Antiques" and that brought up the red flag. Anyway, I'll have to try another post office. Much thanks to everyone. mike

Thank you gentlemen. I also read the "RESTRICTED LIST" as far as sending things to germany and weapons, arms, etc. were on it. I'll try at another post office. Maybe the clerk I spoke with was cowboying. Thanks mike

I'm hoping that someone here can help me with a shipping problem I'm having. I sold one of my wakizashi to a collector in Germany. (I'm in the U.S. BTW). This is the first time I've sold anything internationally. I went to the post office, filled out the customs declaration, but they won't accept (or they say German customs won't accept) "ANTIQUE Japanese SWORD" as a description (or any sword/knife for that matter!) The buyer assured me he's had sellers ship nihonto to him from the U.S. in the past. He's not sure how they did it. So I'm asking if anyone here knows anything or can help. Thank you in advance. mike

Thank you everyone for all the information. This really helps a lot. As John mentioned, lines start getting blurry at the onset of the shinto period (not as "clear" as the 5 gokaden). Ricky, thanks for the offer, I think I've seen you at the MNYJSC meetings. (I've attended the last couple of meetings). I'll bring in this wakizashi to the Dec 2nd meeting. (and try and post pictures here in the meantime). Thanks again all. mike

Wow, that was fast. Much appreciated John. If I'm not mistaken, yamashiro den worked mainly in suguba? Thanks again. mike (P.S. does anyone have a Hawleys they can look this guy up on?)

Hizen Tadayoshi is a big name. If real it would date the blade at around early shinto (keicho). Mantis, you bring up a good point about Tadayoshi line smiths typically signing tachi-mei. But I've seen both wakizashi and katana with katana mei. Either way Tadayoshi is a VERY strong gimei candidate. Most gimei are done in his goji mei (5 character. like yours). The one real Tadayoshi wakizashi I've seen was signed "Hizen no kuni junin Tadayoshi saku." Anyway, its best to get it properly appraised if you really like the blade and get advice on what to do if it is gimei. mike

Hello Everyone, Just picked up a very nice shinto wakizashi (one of those wide beefy blades (width at hamachi is over 1.5" and tapers very little.) Anyway, the wakizashi is signed "Sagami (no) Kami Fujiwara Kunitsuna" on the other side, it's signed "Echizen Ju". Ubu. (1st kunitsuna from around 1650) I'm 99% positive the signature is genuine, it matches up perfectly with an oshigata from Kanzan Sato's shinto book. It also matched up nicely with a papered Kunitsuna katana I found on the web. Everything else matches including shape of the nakago, yasurime, boshi, hada, etc. EXCEPT for the hamon. The blade I have has a nioi based suguha that starts as slightly wavy notare (about 2.5 inches) and then goes into a very straight suguha. Both examples I saw were gunome/midare. (nagasa is about 17") Anyway, my questions to everyone are: Does anyone have any more info on this smith? What I know is he worked in Echizen, was part of the shimosaka school (wonder what his relation to Yasutsugu was if any). Second question is does anyone have oshigata or examples of his work that have a suguha hamon? He's listed in Fujishiro's as a chu jo saku smith (250 points). Any help/insight would be much appreciated. Thank you mike