my sword

[lioneyes]

Hi, Can any of you tell me about my sword?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

http://www.geocities.com/molto10/sword/sword.html

 

Ann-Marie

[Henry Wilson]

Hi Ann Marie

 

It is in WW2 officer mountings whose general conidtion is not very good. The blue tassel indicates the rank of the office which I think is a junior grade, but I am not sure. I imagine that the sword probably belonged to a family who passed it on to their son for service in WW2. It was then probably taken by the US forces during or after the war.

 

To me it looks like a real Japanese sword. The blade looks quite old and was probably made in the koto period, before the 1590s. I think this is so becasue of the shape of ther blade and also because it has been shortened. You can tell it has been shortened because the very end of the tang or butt (nakago is the correct term) is straight like a section of it has been cut off.

 

Apart from that I can not say much else other than the two holes in the nakago also suggests age. The condition of the sword is not so bad (no chips or holes in the blade surface that I can see) but I think that it needs a polish to be sure.

 

However the question is "Is the sword worth the money for a polish?" as a polish is very expensive.

 

Just my pennies worth

 

[lioneyes]

thank you for your comments.

[lioneyes]

Does anyone have more information about my sword, specifically about it being so old and unsigned? Was that common during the Koto period?

 

thanks.

[lioneyes]

Mino or Bizen school

 

Eisho period 1504 to 1520

 

Kirisaki (tip) Jinjo (proper)

 

habaki - copper

 

Ha-cho (blade length) 59cm so just barely too short to be Katana

instead he said is Big 00-Wakizashi (I don't know what the 00 or oo stands for , anyone know?)

 

only shallow rust he said is probably from blood (Asai)

 

Sori (curvature) SAki-zori (wrote something here looks like Musomachi Era 1390 - 1572)

 

Hamon is combination straight and wavy (Suguha and Notare)

 

Hada is wood (Mino or Bizen)

 

Kizu (flaws or blemishes ) no fatal flaws. says has kitae-ware (lamination crack)

 

Nakago (tang) iis Sho-Suriage (smallcut)

 

Yasuri-me (file marks) are Kiri (cut) (over 400 years old)

 

 

any thoughts?

[Brian]

Ann-Marie,

 

I deleted the other post to keep this in one thread.

O-wakizashi means long wakizashi, so I am assuming that o-o-wakizashi is just emphasizing long, long wakizashi (or very long wakizashi?) I may be incorrect, but this is my understanding.

 

It might help if you could let us know where you got this additional info on your sword before anyone comments about the info.

 

Regards,

Brian

[Nobody]

oo-wakizashi means long wakizashi.

 

oo-wakizashi is identical with o-wakizashi. The kanji for that are 大脇差. The reading of the kanji is usually written as o-wakizashi practically in English. But actually, correct reading/writing is oo-wakizashi based upon Japanese exact pronunciation.

[lioneyes]

I got the information from a Japanese man in San Francisco who runs the Northern California Japanese Sword Society. I took the sword down there so he could give me information.

 

This info is pretty much the same as I have gotten over the years from various sword collectors some who have seen it in person others who only saw photos and measurements. This is just a lot more detail than I've gotten before as this man is very knowledable.

 

The reason I had put up the other post was since I was adding info and it doesn't show up that way in the forum topic. Thanks.

[Brian]

Ann-Marie,

 

When you add the info, it bumps the topic to the top, so we know there is more info in the thread.

The source of the info helps in judging how accurate it would be, since there are a vast number of "experts" out there with varying rates of accuracy.

If your source is the NCJSC (not NCJSS?) then I would regard that as excellent info. They are a great society with a lot of knowledge, and there are many members here on the board. Unlike certain other clubs (such as the other one in San Francisco) they have a great reputation, and I think you have all the info that you can currently obtain on your sword without submitting it for shinsa. That should be your next step, and then perhaps a polish if you are going to keep it, or sell as is if that is your plan.

Sounds like you have all the relevant info besides a maker attribution which is extremely difficult to do without a proper shinsa.

As for value, that is difficult to determine. You mentioned you have heard it may be as high as $8000, but IMHO, that is high for an unsigned wakizashi. An unsigned, unpolished wakizashi can be had from $800 up to any amount, with a nice example going around $2000. But the shinsa will tell you more. Sounds like a decent sword though.

I must add that if you took it to the other society (I think called the San Francisco Japanese Sword Society) then you should post a new thread about them, and see what the comments regarding them are. They are more than a little..umm..err..controversial :? in Nihonto circles :-)

 

Regards,

Brian

[Ed]

AM,

I have not been able to view the photos. I get a "currently unavailable" message ??

 

If you took it to SF and one of the club memembers gave you this info, then you probably have as much as you will get without sending it to shinsa.

 

You will have to decide whether or not it is worth it.

 

Does anyone have more information about my sword, specifically about it being so old and unsigned? Was that common during the Koto period?

It was not uncommon for swords not to be signed at all, or to have lost their signatures due to being shortened.

Yours has been shortened (suriage).

 

Swords are today generally catagorized into three main groups according to their approx. length, Katana (>24") or, Wakizashi (12 - 24"), and Tanto (<12").

 

O-Wakizashi (long wakizashi) is a sword which is from 1 shaku, 7 sun to 1 shaku, 9 sun, 9.999 bu or just under 2 shaku.

That's 50.51cm or 20.28" to 60.60cm or 23.86".

 

This should make things clear as mud.

[Nobody]

Mino or Bizen school

 

Eisho period 1504 to 1520

 

any thoughts?

I cannot understand on one point. How can he specify the era as such a narrow span without identifing the specific smith?

 

This is a mere question of a beginner. :?

[nagamaki - Franco]

Mino or Bizen school

 

Eisho period 1504 to 1520

 

any thoughts?

I cannot understand on one point. How can he specify the era as such a narrow span without identifing the specific smith?

 

This is a mere question of a beginner. :?

 

Some shapes clearly point to a specific era based on the appraisers experience. The remainder of kantei then moves on to other factors such as jigane, jitetsu, hamon, and finally boshi. So, its quite possible to pinpoint the era without reaching a conclusion. In the end it's an educated opinion.

 

fd

[Nobody]

Mino or Bizen school

 

Eisho period 1504 to 1520

 

any thoughts?

I cannot understand on one point. How can he specify the era as such a narrow span without identifing the specific smith?

 

This is a mere question of a beginner. :?

 

Some shapes clearly point to a specific era based on the appraisers experience. The remainder of kantei then moves on to other factors such as jigane, jitetsu, hamon, and finally boshi. So, its quite possible to pinpoint the era without reaching a conclusion. In the end it's an educated opinion.

 

fd

Thank you fd.

I generally understand the Kantei procedures. But I still wonder if it is possible to specify only 17 years span of 500 years before only from physical appearances. :?

[Darcy]

The appraiser is not locking it down to those specific dates, such an appraisal is meant to be read as "Probably somewhere around Eisho period, and Eisho period refers to these dates."

[Nobody]

Thanks Darcy. That interpretation cleans the fuzz out of my head. :D

[Jean]

Just a bit of sleuthing from a Frenchie for my friend Nobody (whose culture is impressive if not amazing)

 

Why Muromachi? : From the Kantei, it is said that the nakago is slightly suriage (suriage for sure, slightly I don't know) it means that the lowest mekugi ana is probably the original one, it means the shortening may be around 1,5 inch (3,8 to 4 cm). We are just in the current size of an Uchigatana.

Statistically, the booming of Uchigatana was around (1480/1532) I have seen quite a lot of blades of longer size starting from 1532 (Tenmon) far before Tensho (1573).

If you take the middle of this period you are right in the Eisho period.It can fits the saki sori..

 

Now, why Bizen or Muromachi. It is not possible to detect from the shots the deki, but it must be nioi deki to fit the 2 schools.

 

This type of hamon suguba+notare can be either bizen or Mino as well as other schools (I have no statistic available but I guess that about 25/30% of swords in Koto times were based on suguha hamon (Bizen Tadamitsu, Kiyomitsu and well before, Nagamitsu).

 

But,what puzzles me is the jitetsu (hada/forge pattern). There are exceptions, of course (please just for the fun refer to late Jim Kurrash article "kantei is easy" or to Nihontocraft website where there is for sale a Katana with 3 different attributions and I am not talking of smiths but of schools...), but in the shinogi Ji we should find masame if it was Mino.

The mokume in Mino (always be carefull) has a tendancy to be rougher than the Bizen'one.

 

In fact the hada should (if readable) indicate Mino or Bizen.

 

As for the smith identification, it is almost impossible to kantei from a shot (and frankly speaking, even with a sword at hand ... for me).

[nagamaki - Franco]

But I still wonder if it is possible to specify only 17 years span of 500 years before only from physical appearances. :?

 

In short, yes, very possible. There are certain shapes that were very unique. For example kambun shinto is one of the more easily recognized shapes in kantei, which presents a specific window. There is also as DB indicated, 'replies' that are used to infer early, mid, or late.

One Japanese polisher I met had an interesting little book that he referenced to narrow down his initial time period kantei (eg. muromachi, nambokucho, etc), to a specific era based on the specific shape and dimensions of kissaki.

 

fd

[Nobody]

Thanks, fd.

Yes, even I can recognize it, if it was Kanbun Shinto. :D

[Nobody]

Many thanks, Jean.

Very logical and convincing!

[lioneyes]

Thank you all for the information.

 

Indeed it was the Japanese Sword Society, not the Club that you are all so fond of. I am aware that the Society is contraversial and also as to why as he told me this himself during our visit. To me, that does not seem to invalidate the information that he told me about the sword. Also, it is in line with what I've been told by others over the years, just in greater detail. If someone has a reason why I should not believe the information given to me than I'd like to hear it.

 

To the guy who mentioned he could not access the webite: The link to the photos wasn't working well becuase yahoo was limiting the amount of transfer per day and I had some real big photos on there. I've taken off the big ones so hopefully it works better now.

[lioneyes]

well I sent my sword over to Bob Benson. He said it was probably muromachi period which is inclusive of the Eisho period that Hoshino mentioned right? Bob said he was not able to determine anything more specific than that due to the condition of the blade. He also mentioned a hamon called Hajime which is a mixed type of hamon I think.