Leaderboard

We REQUIRE at least a first name. No-one wants to address you as either Mr Ninja, or just Forest. If you wish to ignore that rule, then my advice is run Forest, run.

My Tsuba looks very similar to yours, but mine is an alloy like copper or something like that and yours looks like iron. What book is your Tsuba pictured in? I thought I saw my Tsuba in a book, but maybe it was your Tsuba in a book? I showed my Tsuba to Robert Haynes and he said he thought it was Northern Shoami... It came to me via Goran Glucina, who told me it was once in the collection of his Shotokan Karate instructor, Abe Shien. The first image is the truest representation of the color of the Tsuba, as it was taken in sunlight. Dealers at the San Francisco Token Kai told me to take it in the sunlight and I could see the truest representation of the color, and they weren't wrong.

Guess it is “安親作” (Yasuchika saku)…

Date on the sword is Kansei 10, August. Bear in mind, in the shintō period the dates inscribed are almost always either August or February (well, strictly speaking its "Eighth Month" and "Second Month" - there is a discrepancy between the traditional Japanese months and those of the Gregorian calendar). These two months are used regardless (almost) of when the sword was actually forged. So best not to take that date too literally. I wouldn't place too much significance on the title, or the privileges it conferred, or the deference paid to the swordsmith upon receiving the title. It's not representative of admission into the nobility. "Lord" or "Governor", "Protector", etc. are just honorific titles, so the smith isn't in any kind of professional limbo until he receives the paperwork. The title just allows him to inscribe his swords with that title, and of course it is an honor for him to do so, but otherwise his life and status doesn't change. Maybe it allows him to increase the prices of his swords slightly. Also the granting of titles was, to some extent, a revenue-generating scheme for the bakufu. So the standards for granting of titles may fluctuate depending on the finances of the bakufu and/or those of the officers in charge of granting titles.

I came across a short article in the British Medical Journal by the late Dr. Lissenden. An opportunity to remember a respected member of the NMB ten years after his passing. from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2359109/pdf/bmj00573-0034.pdf

I think we have something in Europe that may be comparable: a Purveyor to the Royal Court, otherwise called Royal Warrant Holder. The titles don't tell much about the quality of the products.

Hey Dale! Thanks for your swift reply and information! Mauro's Tsuba looks like a copy of my Tsuba, but his looks like it's made of iron, and mine is some type of alloy. I was told what it was before, but I forgot, but maybe Yamagane or Copper Alloy. That would be an incredible coincidence if his Tsuba was the one I saw at the SF Token Kai about five years ago and some how at ended up with Mauro after it was for sale at the show I saw it at! I wish I had taken a photo of the book I saw the Tsuba that looks like Mauro's and mine, to see if either of them was the Tsuba in the book or not! Interesting that this Tsuba design was replicated, and I wonder which came first, mine or his, and if it was from the same maker or if one was a copy of the other from two different Tsuba makers at two different periods?

I think you are giving the whole title thing too much status. They weren't a real title, and came with no privileges. Often a smith was "lord" of an area he didn't even live in. There was no qualification required and I don't think he submitted any sword for evaluation. They are not seen as any real form of status or quality. Just look at home many were given out https://www.sho-shin.com/titles.htm I don't think a title is ever really considered by a collector when looking at the quality of a sword

Both Shioda and Shiota are common readings of this family name 塩田. I have a friend who says ‘Shiota’.

塩田 (Shioda) is a valid Japanese last name. https://myoji-yurai.net/searchResult.htm?myojiKanji=塩田

My next project in this field will be the restoration of woodworking tools (NOMI). It will probably take a short while....

Forest NINJA (please sign all posts with at least a first name plus an initial. It is a rule here so we can address each other in a polite manner. You can add your name to your profile), I have explained this several times here on NMB, but again: TAMAHAGANE is a very basic form of metallic iron. It can have differnt amounts of impurities (= NOT ALLOY METALS !). The low temperature of its production process (around 1250 - 1300°C) is not high enough to reduce other alloying element oxides that may be present in the iron ore (there are always other elements like manganese, chromium, silica, copper, titanium, a.s.o.). You cannot "mix in" other metals into the process unless you throw modern alloyed steel in the TATARA. Another method would be the OROSHIGANE process where iron can be carbonized but also modern alloyed steel could be introduced. Traditionally, this is of course not done. Steel alloys can only be made in hot liquified state - roughly 1.600°C or more. The TATARA process does not produce melted (= cast) iron, at least not in considerable amounts but more as an unwanted by-product. Nevertheless, even these small amounts of cast iron are sold and used by some swordsmiths to increase the carbon content of their steel. The TATARA method (comparable to the early European bloomery furnace) produces a very pure iron as far as alloy metals are concerned, but it is not "clean" in hindsight to impurities like silica and metals that are attached to it like titanium. So even in the 'best' TAMAHAGANE, you will find very small amounts of impurities. The traditional swordsmith does not care for them; he is solely interested in the carbon content. Carbon is introduced into the iron by the charcoal used in the process, but is is not automatically distributed homogeneously. There are spots with higher heat in the TATARA furnace where the iron takes on more carbon than in "cooler" places. This is why repeated forging (= stretching out, folding and fire-welding) is required later for refining. From a metallurgical view of the subject, differences in the appearance of sword-steel and its properties are mainly due to the work of the swordsmith. How he treated the metal in the long process has probably much more influence than tiny amounts of a few impurities. However, it is known that some elements like titanium can have an effect even in very small amounts in an alloy. Since there are no actual comparative scientific tests on authentic Japanese sword blades, we will probably not know much about this subject. However, ASANO TARO, a swordsmith in GIFU, has executed final fracture tests on a blade (on YouTube under asanokajiya).

This is in my collection. Papered Umetada (埋忠) by NBTHK. Dimensions 77.3 mm x 72.5 mm, thickness 2.8 mm at the seppa-dai, 7.5 mm at the mimi. All the best. Luca

Not sure of book but this is an utsushi from Mauro's post https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/42631-tsuba-identification-help/#comment-437050

Sadly you are correct. Unlikely to be Japanese, more likely Chinese. Not a true netsuke.

The seller appears to have a vast amount of spare fittings and bare blades listed, wouldn't hold high hopes of anything being correct.

I thought this was an exceptionally rare early koshirae and fittings that the NMB might like to see. Posted by Keisuke san of the katana_case_shi shop. The blade is a Heian period Ko-Naminohira tachi. https://www.instagram.com/p/DWfMwIpGO3G/?img_index=1

Hi All! I got this Tsuba in a trade with Goran Glucina about 10 years ago at the San Francisco Token Kai, and I was thinking about selling it then. I've since decided to keep it. A year or two after getting this Tsuba I was looking through books on Tsuba at another San Francisco Token Kai, and found what I believe was the same Tsuba pictured in a book, but because I was thinking about selling the Tsuba I decided not to buy the book. I think the book was over $100.00 USD. At the same show I saw a copy of my Tsuba, but it wasn't as well carved as mine. I should have taken photos of both the book and copy of my Tsuba! Anyway, I've bought almost a dozen Tsuba books in the hopes of find my Tsuba pictured in one of them to no avail, so it was suggested I post a picture of the Tsuba, and ask members if they could please check their books to see if my Tsuba is pictured in it? As a guide my Tsuba is NOT in the following books, TSUBA-TAIKAN Japanese Sword Guards Sword 1935, Tsuba Kanshoki by Torigoe Ichitaro 1975, Japanese Sword Guard Cultural History of Tsuba Book 1969 Jiichiro Hattori, Early Japanese Sword Guards Sukashi Tsuba by Sasano, Japanese Sword Guards Masterpieces from the Sasano Collection, Tsuba Kanshoki by Torigoye, 1975, Tsubas in Southern California Hardcover, Hawley, 1973, Nihon to Koza Vol. VI Kodogu Part 1 by Harry Afu and Tsuba by Kokubo Kenichi and Monichiro Kamiya 1963. Your help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!!! PS. I showed my Tsuba to Robert Haynes, and he told me he thinks it's from the Northern Shoami school.

Hi Tim - I went through my books - - all 98 - - and found another utsushi in Greville Cookes book - "The Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery - Tsuba collection V2" You might like to ask Kissaki for a better image. I don't suppose it was in that book where you first saw it? You might notice the bird has lost some of its tail in this example.

Just for a moment there Jean, I thought I saw a spot of rust…

Dear All, I just found out this morning an article about the reopening of the Tokyo Edo museum after 4 years of renovation. Big surprise as a unknown Myochin Munechika armor was on the press article. https://artexhibition.jp/topics/news/20260325-AEJ2867109/ I have been collecting and doing research on Munechika for almost 30 years, and that's the first time I see this one.... Is anyone aware or seen this armor made in Ansei 3 nen (the one on the right)? The museum is schedule to open on March 25th. Can't wait for the reopening and learn more about this armor....! Let me know your thoughts. Many thanks in advance Marc

Hello Uwe, Thank you for your feedback. Yes, very nice armor. Probably belong to a high ranking bakufu official or a super super wealthy Samurai. From the picture, I cannot see any family crest. The nice color variation reminds me of the Munechika armor in the Leiden museum. Will try to ask the Edo museum if they have more informations about the history of this armor. (Provenance, etc.) There is probably also a more precise date mentioned inside the Kabuto. Comment of the picture only mention the year. Interesting search. Will see where it will lead. Many thanks

Very rare original scroll painting from Yasukunishrine in its original wooden box,complletely untouched, original condition aged very nice This rare painting is nestled inside the wooden box within a Japanese newspaper dated 1938 overall I never saw a second one. signature traslation is: Yasukunishrine respectfully paint's Made at the department of Yasukuni shrine support department Price 395,00 Euro 35,00 shipping worldwide Germany shipping free

This is scratched in a commemorative paperweight. I'm pretty confident of the second kanji as 田 "ta", which is clearer in person, however the first kanji is only a guess 塩 (salt; sodium cloride). Seems odd for a name. Any guesses would be much appreciated. John C.

My guess is 安秋作　（Made by Yasuaki). But I can find no such metalworker in the Wakayama index.

Thank you, Jan. I forgot the alternate pronunciation of ta as da. Much appreciated Chandler and Jan - and Sam for moving the thread. John C.

嶋田 - Shimada? Its an alternate spelling of Shimada but IDK if that's it.

Oops. Just realized I put this in the wrong forum. Could this be moved please? John C. @Scogg

Jean, some interesting research has been done... Note, if any of these break copyright, let me know and I'll delete them Kuji Iron Sands.pdf Characteristic_Feature_Found_in_Typical_TATARA-Product-Japanese-Sword.pdf Control_of_slag_and_inclusions_in_traditional_Japanese_iron_and-steelmaking.pdf

Hi Marc, haven’t seen this armor before. Seems to be an opulently made haramaki…

This a great topic As Lewis stated above, Tamahagane production/distribution became more and more centralized as time went on. This was also a gradual process throughout the koto periods but really became mainstream in shinto ( edo ) periods. While it could be argued that steel quality became more consistant , it inevitably lost all the regional characteristics of steel that once appeared in the old works. There is ( and will always be ) much great debates trying to pin down the cause for the great artistic ( not functional ) decline in swords over time and the loss of regional characteristics of steel likely has a big part in it

Gentlemen. While Marcin declares in his originalpost that this is legit until proven otherwise I would start the other way around. So far we have crude cast fittings with odd menuki, I would add that the leather cover is not showing signs of age but has strange markings. The habaki while closer than some is not right in its proportions and although the blade looks quite good overall there are features that cast doubt, not the least the odd mei. None of the blade photographs are in focus so that we can't see details. I would call this a fake/reproduction. I certainly would not be risking this at auction without in hand checks. As always I stand to be corrected, All the best.

Mr. Ninja (given name?): I think the tamahagane coming from smelters is graded (5 I think) so it can be mixed in various amounts by the smith. Note in the pic below there are two grades coming from the Yasukuni smelter being sent to various arsenals. This adds to the variability. In addition, the smith has a lot of control over how the metal is heated, folded, pounded, etc. So I don't personally think blades are in danger of being too generic. I think about the example of two RJT smiths with vastly different values both using the same tamahagane from Yasukuni. Just my two cents (Oh wait, the US doesn't make pennies any more.) John C.

In the forum, it has often been asked which books are truly suitable as introductory reading. One of the books that is surprisingly rarely mentioned is the masterpiece by Dmitry Pechalov: Japanese Swords: Sōshū‑den Masterpieces. Brett and others have already written very good reviews about it, and I have now worked through the book from cover to cover. It is so good that it inspired me to write about it myself. Many of us know the saying, “It is better to buy one great sword than a thousand junk swords.” I would like to add that the same maxim certainly applies to books. For that very reason, I want to praise Japanese Swords: Sōshū‑den Masterpieces — a book I now wish had been my introductory reading. When this work is mentioned, it is usually because of its extraordinary photography. These images are without doubt impressive – but the real substance of the book lies in its content. In terms of content, it differs significantly from classic reference works, which are indispensable when it comes to terminology and the classification of the various schools of Nihontō, but ultimately answer a different kind of question. D. Pechalov, by contrast, brings insight in a light, accessible way — showing not just what you need to know, but especially how that knowledge was generated and how to develop your own opinions and understanding. Individual observations that would otherwise be collected slowly and fragmentarily are brought together here generously and almost playfully into a comprehensive picture. This is precisely what is missing in many other works that remain confined to dry lists or rigid structures. The book makes no secret of the fact that even intensive source work does not guarantee absolute clarity. Attributions change, assessments evolve – and this is not presented as a weakness, but as an integral part of deeper understanding. You are guided to place expert opinions in context, rather than adopt them uncritically. You begin to understand why perspectives shift – for instance, when a blade’s attribution has changed over time. It conveys how swordsmithing traditions developed, how knowledge was passed down, which signatures carry meaning, and why contextual understanding remains crucial. New documents continue to surface, capable of unsettling supposed certainties. Earlier sources are not always reliable – they use different standards, hold to outdated attributions, or simply contain errors. Thus, we learn why there can be unusual attributions – for example, when a blade was originally given one name because kanji in old sources were difficult to interpret and were confused with one another. Not infrequently, oshigata of forgeries or blades with incorrect signatures have been published. This may initially seem sobering, but ultimately it proves liberating. What arises from this is not a dogmatic collection of answers, but a stance — a way of working. Against this backdrop, Pechalov’s approach gains additional weight. It gives the impression of watching over the shoulder of an archaeologist with extraordinary knowledge and keen intuition: knee‑deep in the exposed debris of past libraries, he lifts up fragments here and there and draws his audience’s attention to their significance and function. The only slight drawback remains the absence of photographs of genuine Masamune blades. But even this is understandable and explained by the author, so in the end one is not disappointed. A possible objection might be that the book deals exclusively with the Sōshū‑den school. Yet precisely therein lies a strength: it evokes those few years in which everything that could happen did happen — only more brilliantly than before and after. Conclusion This book does not replace practical experience, but it brings structure to a field that otherwise easily becomes fragmentary and dogmatic. Anyone who wants to learn to recognize connections and develop well‑founded assessments will find an unusually clear approach here. Controversial topics are not left out; instead, the author gives the reader space to form their own opinion and develop their own perspective. This is rare — and of invaluable worth, especially for beginners. Not the easiest introduction — but an honest one. And perhaps exactly the right one for those who are just beginning their search, and for the eternally curious among us. I hope that we all benefit from sharing this information. Thank you, Dmitry, and I hope that others in our community of enthusiasts will be just as kind and generous with their knowledge and follow your example, so that the rest of us can continue to learn and study.

This one is also odd - found in the Ashmolean museum - 75 mm x 72 mm Notice the "niku" [raised trimmings] around the whole of the opening - the hole was made that way

I think 2 for me. Size katana and wakizashi.

Last year in Japan I had the opportunity to see this Ko Mino Daisho Akikusa. They are papered NBTHK Hozon. As one can see they are fairly thin with carvings continued from one side to the other on the edges.

Well I made a simple brass band and put a simple patina on it. I did this to stabilize the scabbard. The scabbard no longer comes apart. See pics. I also realized that the blade is a nihonto mumei! Too bad it has sections of rust.

Hello all, I would like to share with you my most recent purchase from Andy Quirt over at Nihonto.us . It’s a hirazukuri O wakizashi is shirasaya in good polish and from what I was told by Andy he sent it over to Tanobe sensei for a verbal attribution and based on what Tanobe saw he gave him a verbal attribution of Uda. Andy did tell me that he was hoping for an earlier attribution so he must of thought it shared characteristics of a Ko-Uda blade but nevertheless Tanobe sensei dated it to Muromachi period. It’s undergone Osuriage and also has a bohi. It has a 46.3cm nagasa, 3.3mm motohaba, and 6mm kasane. The hamon is chu suguba in konie deki and has itame hada. Given then lenght of it now after it has undergone suriage I think it possibly coulda been a katateuchi. Best Regards, Chance

One of mines with a Kogai ana cut in a shakudo plug of an original ana.....

after sale a donation will be made to this Forum.

Surprisingly, any Bizen and Soshu name was seen worthy of gimei.

Prince Yasuhito, note the parade knot on his Type 94:

I am not an expert but I believe the notion that: a long signature with a date being ‘typical’, is not accurate. ETA: Referring to the date.

Bronze was definitely used to make Tsuba, they were cast using molds, like the examples found in the Nara site mentioned by Steve above. Every Kagami-shi Tsuba I have had tested is Bronze in composition. Yamagane/copper was not used to cast Tsuba, the properties mean that it would not flow sufficiently into a mold, however Yamagane/copper was used to cast blanks for making Tsuba, by dropping molten Yamagane/copper into water, as demonstrated by Ford and documented on Youtube.

Hard to say if the Mei has been stamped or cast. Just a reminder that Yamagane as far as my research has shown was not used for casting, when it looks like Yamagane it is always bronze.

Noooooo, impossible!

oil went 50% up in a month. Whatever you have to ship do it now.

Don't feel bad for it.