Leaderboard

No Jacques, we can speak when the hell we like. Given your obvious disdain for everyone else on this incredibly helpful forum I do wonder why you bother to stay on here let alone waste your valuable time with us. You talk of needing to see hada, hataraki etc…..so, could we see hada in your Kantei? Would you kantei a blade without knowing/seeing hada? Could we see nie, nioi etc? Could we see the size and structure of the nie, could we see the colour of the steel. Could we see the patina on the nakago? No, I didn’t think so. Pointless.

Hi Glen, Many excellent thoughts and points in your posts above. Really appreciate your taking the time to detail these so well. I wanted to offer a few thoughts on all of this myself, some of which are more generally pertinent to this thread broadly, and a few of which are more specific to certain points. First, many of our concerns are really impacted by epistemological questions which are philosophically not only difficult, but whose answers are largely if not entirely subjective, and (therefore) indeterminate. So there is that. How do we know what we (think we) know? On what basis? I don't want to digress before I really get started, though... So, I'll just say that, with regard to tosogu studies, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to know very much with 100% certainty. This would be true even without all of the fabrications, distortions, obfuscations, deflections, and other knowledge-defeating practices we run into in our efforts at scholarship in this field. I think it is reasonably safe to say that, pre-Meiji, there is very little in the way of fully-reliable knowledge on tsubako and/or tsuba-making groups. And once we get further back into history -- say, early-Edo and before -- the amount of knowledge we can be certain of the veracity of becomes scant indeed. This is due to many factors, of course, one of which is that artisans often did not merit inclusion in official accounts, records, etc... by anyone outside of the families themselves. Even when artisans were included in official records, it may well have been for reasons unrelated to their workmanship, production, and so on, and instead for more ordinary reasons such a census-taking, tax-collection, the recording of marriages, births, deaths, and the like. So, we should expect to be frustrated in our efforts to turn up documentation of early smiths that we can receive as 100% reliable and thus capable of proving a specific point of knowledge about them. On top of this, though, Japan is a land of many natural calamities ranging from earthquake and fires to typhoons and floods. Buildings in early Edo and prior times were not constructed to withstand such forces, and were often lost, only to have to be rebuilt. How many records and documents have been lost to such events? Who can know? So, we can and, I think, must temper our expectations regarding the turning up of early records accordingly. How then to proceed? Do we adhere to a relatively rigid standard of epistemological confidence (i.e. something must be objectively factual) before we can accept the information in question? Or, would a "sliding scale" of probability be sufficient? For me, personally, I have comfortably settled on this latter. The specific degree of probability is then subject to constant adjustment as new information, new considerations, and new insights come into play. If one's epistemological position is that, if something cannot be known 100% factually, then we cannot really say we know anything at all about it, I think it will be difficult to get very far in this field, owing to the relative paucity of objectively factual information we really have (and are likely to ever have) about early tosogu and their makers. So, if the essentially necessary alternative is to embrace that sliding scale of probability, progress can be made, I believe. Next, we have to be very careful not to allow our own awareness and recognition of the dubiousness of many source materials and knowledge processes (i.e Shinsa and the resulting papers) to have us flinging the babies out with all of their bathwater. There is a tendency in some circles to reject ALL claims regarding certain tsubako, tsuba-making groups, working periods, working locations, production methods, etc, etc, etc.... simply because it has been shown that SOME "information" about these things is faulty, incomplete, distorted, or otherwise problematic. To reject all recorded genealogies simply because we know that that of the Myochin is unreliable and likely to be largely fiction is itself untenable. And while iemotoism (i.e. "Sensei-ism") is certainly generally problematic as a dependable source or conduit of knowledge, this does not mean, of course, that this sort of source is always wrong. Just because some NBTHK Shinsa results/papers are demonstrably incorrect does not mean that ALL Shinsa and ALL papers are useless and should be rejected out of hand. We should have a healthy (but NOT contrarian) skepticism, but must also be open to knowledge that may come from such sources, I think. This leads me to another observation, one related to the above-mentioned notion of a sliding scale of probability: when we phrase things in certain ways, such phrasing can carry certain connotations, whether intended or unintended. For example, above, Glen, in reference to the section of my earlier post on the possible significance of Yamasaka Kichibei living and working in Owari during Genki, as well as about the name Shigenori being part of Yamasaka Kichibei's full name, you say that "It may or may not be true, but needs to be verified first..." Such phrasing connotes more doubt about the likelihood of the idea in question than is perhaps warranted, especially with the added words, "...but needs to be verified first...," suggesting that, without that verification, this idea should be rejected or dismissed entirely. Perhaps you did not mean for such a conclusion to be drawn from those words, but I think, again due to connotative effects, many might take it that way. In this particular example, given the difficulties of verification due to the factors touched on above, it would essentially reinforce the take-away that the claim that this smith worked in that place at that time is wholly empty and should be taken as a fiction. I think this approach is a mistake, though. That is, it seems that an underlying assumption here is that, absent verifiable material, the default should be to reject, deny, or dismiss such a claim, rather than to default to the claim as being likely true, and then seeking out evidence -- probably circumstantial evidence in particular -- to sustain or weaken that likelihood, not in a deductive way (which is dangerous, of course), but in an inductive manner. This way of proceeding does require some willingness to accept that, just because some sources (Japanese or otherwise) are dubious, it does not mean that all are, or that even most are. Such an approach is, I think, more closely aligned with probable reality than the more extreme reverse (i.e. none of it is true or real unless 100% objective verification is achieved). This brings me back to that sliding scale of probability, then: Saying that it is probable that Yamasaka Kichibei lived and worked in Owari in the Genki Period is preferable (to me) to saying that "it may or may not be true, but needs to be verified first." It is preferable because I think it unlikely that a fiction about this smith that is that specific to time and place would have been conjured. Is it impossible that it is a lie? No, it is not impossible. But is it LIKELY to be a lie? No, it is not, since there is ZERO evidence that it is untrue. Again, why default to such a conclusion, whether implied or not? And the more circumstantial evidence about this smith that we acquire (and, as an aside, there is A LOT that I have not brought into these discussions, as they are kind of off-topic), the more we can plug into that probability scale. Using the point concerning Yamasaka Kichibei's full name to continue, you mention that "Any Japanese speaking person would have been able to pick a theoretical name to tack on to the name to lend it an air of legitimate..." Perhaps this is so. But think about it: is the name "Yamasaka Kichibei" not already sufficient to effect legitimacy? Does this name require an addition to achieve that? Why should it? What evidence is there that the name "Yamasaka Kichibei" would be in some way inadequate in its legitimacy? Isn't it (far) more likely that this really was his name, and that, for us to know this now, some record of his full name must exist or have existed until recently? Moreover, (trivia time) did you know that there are at least 17 ways of writing the name "Shigenori"? Of course, this fact doesn't prove that this name couldn't have been conjured well after the fact for some pernicious purpose, such as making (an already illustrious) name (more) illustrious, but is this LIKELY? If so, what is the likelihood? 99%? 95%? 60%? 0.1%? Again, based on what evidence? Or assumption? And I'll stay with my statement that the fact that the name is recorded with specific kanji (this point regarding specific kanji used in names matters a lot to the Japanese) suggests strongly (albeit doesn't prove) that a record of this full name exists somewhere, perhaps in some obscure and relatively pedestrian locale. Finally, you asked Glen, about the references to the handed-down transmissions currently residing in Nagoya's Tokugawa Museum, and which pertain to the move of the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei from Kiyosu to Nagoya between 1610 and 1613 (Note: Nagoya effectively absorbed Kiyosu over time, such that Kiyosu is effectively "in" Nagoya now. This is, perhaps, not insignificant, as the Japanese are very fond of retaining local history in the form of documents, letters, and the like in regional museums, repositories, libraries, etc). To address your questions on this, I will quote part of Markus Sesko's translation of Okamoto's Owari To Mikawa no Tanko, page 70, regaring the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei. Okamoto states as follows: "The late Mr. Yamada Shogoro from Nagoya said that it is commonly accepted that the counting with the Shodai starts with the move from Kiyosu to Nagoya in the course of the so-called 'Kiyosu-goshi,' running parallel with the building of Nagoya Castle from Keicho 15 [1610] onwards. This assumption by Yamada is supported by the handed-down transmissions regarding the Shodai and the Nidai, now in the Tokugawa Museum, although it has to be mentioned that these transmissions do not contain any information on a Yamasaka-mei." Again, what is the probability that Okamoto is lying about or otherwise outright fabricating the existence of these transmissions? I would say that it is more reasonable to accept and far more probable that these transmissions do exist and that they likely do reside in the Tokugawa Museum. To decide otherwise would be based on what, exactly? Where would that determination fall on the sliding scale of probability? Oh, and a quick note on that last part of Okamoto's quote: Since the transmissions in question very likely would have been created during or shortly after the Kiyosu-goshi between 1610 and 1613, we should not necessarily expect any mention of Yamasaka Kichibei IF his working period actually was some thirty or forty years earlier during Genki, especially if he'd already passed away by the Kiyosu-goshi, and even more IF the transmissions in question involved something such as a census (of artisans) who'd made the move from Kiyosu to Nagoya. In fact, the very fact of his name being omitted in these transmissions implies to a degree that he lived some time before the (Meijin-) Shodai and Nidai, though of course such an understanding cannot be taken as fact. Anyway, let me just finish up by stating again that I'm really liking these threads you've begun, Glen, and couldn't agree more that they are LONG overdue, and absolutely need to get TRACTION. I agree with the VAST majority of your approach, methods, and conclusions, as I think you know, so any reservations I may be expressing in this or my previous post are truly to be taken as the rare exception. I also certainly don't mean to come off as acerbic or otherwise confrontational in tone, if in fact it seems that way. Sometimes, trying to be emphatic about a point can come across as aggressive and adversarial, which is certainly NOT intended. It's one of those things where, if we were having this conversation in a study group somewhere, all would be said with smiles and winks.

備州長舩住祐包 - Bishu Osafune ju Sukekane

Sorry, I can't refrain Posting a drawing to prove you can't judge on photos ... Posting a photo as anwser... to prove you can't judge on photos... Posting an exception to enact a rule... Not quoting any reference... We are on the pinnacle of scientific approach there! Not very serious...

Thanks to your post, I found the following page. Lot 582 - A RARE HAMANO SCHOOL SHIBUICHI KOZUKA WITH A To be presice, the last character should be 齊 (or 斉).

I get a feeling that the habaki was added as we're the rest of the parts. One wouldn't expect the habaki to stick out above the mune.

I appreciate these nice comments. Indeed, this list is a fine community that helps a wide range of folks interested in Japanese swords. "Sword collecting" certainly is not the activity it once was and there is a great generation shift going on. Isn't it interesting how "international" sword appreciation has become. The hobby I discovered depended on a disorganized mass of war souvenirs and a trivially small literature. Now, thanks largely to communities like this one and the labor of folks like our dear Brian (thank you thank you!), information is readily available. There was a time when we had to teach ourselves how to read signatures. And it was a slow process. B. W. Robinson taught us how to count strokes and read the kanji so that we could dig thru Hawley and find what mattered. Golly it was fun, but now all that information can be provided expertly - and really rather politely and positively - in a matter of hours. Thanks to this fine list!

Hi Bruce, I'd say yes for Musashi: 武蔵 Can't help with which smith though.

Ok, it is quite likely Ikkansai Yoshihiro or his school. They wanted to replicate Norishige.

NBTHK released the Jūyō 70 results today on their website: https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/pdf/shinsa/第70回重要刀剣等指定品発表.pdf I had fun time after work going through it like always. I did the yearly translation to western alphabets like I do every year. This features all the 91 items passed, doing the fittings is getting easier as I do have all the previous Jūyō results to tackle the fitting makers I do not know. There might be a fitting guy or 2 in there that I still have incorrectly. It is always good to go over the old results too and fix the errors I have made. For example I found out I had 戸張富久 Tobari Tomihisa incorrectly in previous session, to be honest I had no clue at all about this maker but finding a tsuba by him from Iidakoendo I must admit the work is spectacular to my eye. After going through the results I can say I am just very puzzled... I know my own personal valuation criteria are most likely different than NBTHK has for their Jūyō shinsa. I am stunned by the lack of Bizen items in total - 5. In comparison to me it seems crazy that 5 items from Rai school passed. Also what was noticeable to me was the lack of signed tachi in general (2 tachi & 1 kodachi, 3 in total). Also to be noted koshirae and fittings are very high in number compared to their usual amount vs. swords. Juyo 70.pdf

Hi James, This is a backhanded way of giving you good news, but it looks like your dad ruined a Chinese copy rather than a genuine Japanese sword. As Maurice says, the kanji on the tang are 神田 or perhaps 神由 neither of which chime with signatures of Japanese swordsmiths from the era of manufacture you stated or any other.

Kantei is puzzle. And nothing more. It should teach you something even if the teacher is not very likeable. The lower half reminded me of Ko Osafune the upper half of Yamashiro. And then you start to search. Luckily I have a digital library. Token Bijutsu 493.

That's very informative Kirill, thank you very much, I would add a fourth problem : improvement of photographic material : of course, having it in hand will always add somethings, but you can't say it's impossible to assess a sword on photos, some people here do it frequently. That makes me think that Japanese way of appreciating things and developing constantly disappoint me (in a good manner), we should not confound occidental scientific approach with Japanese cultural and artisanal approach. Not saying one is better than the other of course. Sorry to not waiting your authorization to speak. For the photos : buy eyes and you'll find it by yourself! and buy ears also, you could listen to people asking you to act in a less disrespectful manner.

Worth is in the eye off the owner

Yes, bell cricket.

Naginata-naoshi blades are highly underrated in present day sword-business. It used to be different in the "old days". Rich and powerful daimyo and even the shogun himself were aware of the supreme quality of some of the old naginata and had them shortened to wear them as katana. If you can't afford buying a tachi by one of the top-rated smiths of the Kamakura-period, you might be able to afford a naginata-naoshi blade by one of those masters. You will be greatly rewarded owning and studiying the craftsmanship of a great master for a price much lower than that of a "regular" tachi. Off the battlefield Japanese women were trained to defend themselves, their homes and their children, during the absence of their husbands. Naginata was their weapon of choice. Being only an amateur historian, I imagine naginata's size and proportions were chosen to fit the lady's strenght and her personal preferences. reinhard

Got my NTHK sword papers from the 2024 Orlando Japanese Sword Show today. Excited all over again. Thank you to all those that put this together and again thank you Mark for another Great Show. MikeR

I agree on all of the above. This to me seems enhanced with an etchant. What do we think?

I wonder what six inome amid waves means?

Isn't that a "TOKI" KANETOKI,

Dear Friends, I have not had my ears on for a while, but it looks like am am back in the system. This is a wonderful community and I am especially interested in "collecting" so this thread is a wonderful time for me. In my opinion, there are three - count'em 3 - approaches to collecting, that is three strategies for assembling things. These approaches are 1) hoarding, 2) systematic collecting, and 3) quality collecting. 1. The hoarder just likes MORE. 2. The systematic collector understands the range and variation present in the items they collect and seeks to get "examples" of that range. Obviously this kind of collector needs to do continual research on the stuff they collect. They also emphasize distinctive characteristics and the differences and range between things. 3. Collectors who go for quality need to understand both the stuff they collect AND the standards that they and/or others have developed for their stuff. In my opinion each of these approaches is okay, but hoarders have the most freedom and personal control over their activities. Peter

大津絵にも囗囗ハ いかに囗囗囗 Ōtsue ni mo ~ Ikani ~ Even in Ōtsue --- I can't pick out the other bits. The reference is to a kind of folk art called "Ōtsue”, which you are probably already aware of.

Yesterday, I was at a militaria show. I had an appointment with a dealer to look at a Gunto sword he had for sale. The seller also had this beautiful kogai. I found it very attractive so I made the deal and bought both. Although the kogai is not signed the craftsmanship is above average. To share my excitement just a few pictures. Feel free to comment. Regards, Ed

Bruce, He seems to be a somewhat obscure smith. Sesko's and Hawley's only list Kurihara. No Akiyuki listed in the Gendai Toko Meikan, Gendaito Meisaku Zuikan, or any of the other references I checked. No examples of his mei found other than the one you posted. Did you ask Alf?

I guess you saw this one Musashi on JS Index The other has different kanji "yuki" AKIYUKI (昭行), Shōwa (昭和, 1926-1989), Gunma – “Akiyuki” (昭行), real name Kurihara Washio (栗原鷲雄), he worked as a rikugun-jumei-tōshō http://www.japaneses...oshigata/akiyuki.jpg

0-suriage, probably lost 10-15cm. All the pieces of the puzzle point to a shortened katana rather than an uchigatana from moment of manufacture.

And you, mi amigo, have clearly completely missed the point of the entire paragraph from which the quote you use was drawn. What is the subject of that paragraph? CONNOTATION IN PHRASING. As distinct from DENOTATION. It is abundantly clear what your statement DENOTES. And frankly, I'm surprised that you think I could "erroneously interpret" such obviously clear DENOTATION. Sheesh. Reread that paragraph. Carefully. The focus is on the connotative impact (the reception) of how something is PHRASED. This MATTERS, whether you INTEND such an effect or not. And the words you add at the end illustrate that you're just not seeing this. You say, "It needs some kind of validation before it can be accepted as a fact." Okay, and lacking such validation, which is exceptionally rarely occurring in tosogu studies, which I'm sure you know, what is the take away? That something "may or may not be true"? Such wishy-washy language is effectively meaningless. Empty. It goes nowhere. May + may not = ZERO. Total non-starter. And this is WHY the connotative impact of your phrasing plausibly can lead to the conclusion for many (not for ALL) that the claim in question is false, or at the very least, dubious, for no actual REASON.

Greetings James, Welcome to the forum,and thanks for posting pictures of your piece As for the spots, I've seen similar effects in other amateur polishing attempts, on top of damaging the blade, these polishing pastes tend to react badly to low-oxygen environments (I.e a tight sheath) As for the maker, did you confuse Kyowa (享和) as in the historical era? Otherwise, I read the mei as 神田 (Kanda District), possibly the famous Kanda District of Edo.

Rust color on the tang and no hamachi - sure doesn't look Showa to me.🤔

According to Nakayama, uchigatana started to appear from around 1429. This blade is Yamato Senjuin (possibly Senjuin Yoshihiro) from late Kamakura, early Nanbokucho. The nakago is over exposed and is much darker in hand. I'll post a pic later this evening.

Hi, I like kozuka with poems or any other description on their back. I found this one recently and was wondering the text meaning. Can someone help me ? Thank you

Kanetoki was the early mei of Kojima Kanemichi, these can be good quality Gendai.

Interesting to see so many Shin Shinto swords achieve Juyo.

Ferric chloride does something similar too. It's often used on Damascus knives to highlight the different steel components. Did it come with papers?

Thanks for all the responses. Here's a high res shot of the kissaki.

Thanks, Spartancrest for that picture of the 6 inome tsuba! So, what does 6 inome on a tsuba mean (instead of the usual 4 inome)? Well, the craftsman needed glasses? Or he had a lot of love to give and added 2 extra hearts? Ha, ha, ha, ha, etc! Just having some fun here! Well, I searched through my 7000 kamon book and found the kamons pictured below. Maybe some of the motifs on tsuba that I thought were inome, may actually be some sort of leaves that symbolize a family kamon? The leaves look heart shaped and are 4 and 6 leaves kamon. Or perhaps the heart shapes that face inward, towards the nakago-ana are inome symbols. And the heart shapes that face toward the mimi are leaves and are a family kamon. I don't know! Just giving it my best guess!

A bit older than Edo (early 15th C.), but this one from the Tokyo National Museum blew me away. One of the most revered examples known and it was a privilege to see.

From a friend (and also disclosed in Japanese for those of us who actually bother to go to the Japanese source - I advise more people to try and do it rather than rely on 1-2 forum posters for that): Pass vs Submitted Swords 52/649 (8%) Tosogu 33/199 (16.5%) Koshirae 6/32 (18.8%) Very low pass rate, similar to last year. Probably a composite outcome of shinsa panel line-up, (lack of) degree of confidence (hence some items need “further study” and another attempt), good quality blades drying up etc etc

There were some great posts there above relating history and terminology. Naginata are one of my greatest interests and I have gathered a lot of data on them. As said above Nagato-Sa is very rare attribution, and to this date I have not found a naginata or naoshi that would be made or attributed to Nagato-Sa smiths or school. I believe I only have 1 surviving mumei naginata from entire Sa school, and it is mumei with smith attribution. For naoshi blades there are some with attribution towards specifics smiths but most common attribution for naoshi of Sa school is just Sue-Sa 末左 (Late Sa) (however the use of Sue-Sa can differ). Naginata-naoshi attributions tend to often bit bit grouped up, some schools get naoshi attributed towards them much easier. There are wonderful historical naginata surviving at various shrines in Japan as well as some other museums etc. I have been focusing my travels to be able to see several of them. There is actually a lot of variance in naginata throughout the historical periods, as well even within the period. For example during the same time period you can find smaller petite naginata as well as massive monster sized naginata. The size of blade also affected on the shaft length however unfortunately I am not a martial artist so I cannot say anything deep in that field. There is also a lot of variance in the blade shape, I believe this is what is often seen when discussing nagamaki-naoshi vs. naginata-naoshi. I currently always use the term naginata-naoshi for the blade. Still I understand the the wide swordlike naginata blades with very small curvature are referred as nagamaki-naoshi by some. Here is an example of various long naoshi with very swordlike blades from a presentation I held some time ago. I am not good with gender politics but I would assume for old pre-Edo naginata I wouldn't think stuff like that, just that they were battlefield weapons. I don't see genders being an issue at all. I would believe women who used and practiced naginata would have had strength to wield one without any issues. I think only some of the most massive Kamakura,Nanbokuchō and Muromachi period monster naginata would have been too massive for average strength person (even men included). I am aware of few naginata that have provenance to various Princesses in Japan. I actually saw one of them in 2023, the blade is actually decent sized naginata 51,5 cm blade and 57,0 cm nakago and it is attributed to Middle Kamakura smith Bizen Saburō Kunimune. Naginata in general were quite useless during Edo period as they were in my eyes battlefield weapons. Similar to ōdachi they had no place in peaceful Edo period. We are lucky some of them have survived in shrines and other places to this day.

Well, the oshigata does look more Osafune Bizen than the sword actually is - hence the need to know nie vs nioi, utsuri or not, indeed the finesse of the jigane or the slightly more outstanding typical Bizen hada (even though some have very fine hada)….

I refrain answering due to knowing that exact sword. However I must say that just looking at the hamon I would have been in totally incorrect location but pretty much correct time.

Its the Lanes, where every item has a special story. an item cannot just be an item.

This is the final product. I hope you like it

A expert here tells us we can’t tell anything without blade in hand. This is a useless endeavor.

As John says above, it’s the Jinshin registration number from the great roundup in early Meiji. 2,979 It says 入間県 Iruma Ken, a prefecture set up in 1871 and dissolved in 1873, corresponding to the west of Saitama today. https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/入間県 PS The gun is therefore older than that, certainly early to mid 1800s. It is hard to give precise dates for Tanegashima, but little things give us indications.

Japanese source.. https://www.touken.o..._NBTHK_July_2017.pdf

Got another - Oct '42 Akiyoshi, stamped with "153". Didn't save the link but it was a Worthpoint post of an old ebay sale:

Actually quite a lot of Bi-metal construction - https://www.metmuseu...lection/search/34359 https://www.metmuseu...lection/search/34366 https://www.metmuseu...lection/search/34373 https://wwwhttps://www.metmuseu...lection/search/34460.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/34392 https://www.metmuseu...lection/search/34423 https://www.metmuseu...lection/search/34452 https://www.metmuseu...lection/search/34459 https://www.metmuseu...ection/search/642492 These are just in the Metropolitan Museum of Art alone. [handy that I did a catalogue of that museum's collection ] The image below is perhaps the closest - iron on one side sentoku on the other. Regrettably the museum has no images of the side view of the mimi. I hope this helps Two different metals fixed side by side https://www.the-sale...23-b4f2-ae8201239793 You can check out the Walters for more https://thewalters.o...erience/collections/ see these - 51.96 51.97 51.218 51.26 51.303 51.369 accession numbers - some are triple metal. [handy that I did a catalogue of that museum's collection as well! ]

Just to be correct right up front, the so called 'falling rain' pattern on the habaki is actually called Neko Gaki. It means 'cat scratches'. It actually has nothing to do with a pattern as such. It is intended to increase the frictional grip of the saya on the habaki at the mouth of the scabbard.