Leaderboard

Having a particular fondness for brass-inlaid tsuba, I eventually added several pieces from the Washida school of fittings makers to my collection. This sparked my interest in learning more about the school and its production. Over time I gathered a fair amount of information and eventually decided to compile it into a single document, which you can find in the download section of the board: https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/files/file/210-the-shōnai-washida-school/ I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed putting it together. As I mentioned, given my particular weakness for brass inlay, the document is somewhat biased toward the work of Washida Mitsunaka! Just as an example of the Washida production here are the pieces from this school (or supposed to be from this school) in my collection: NBTHK Hozon to Washida. Dimensions 85.4 mm x 85.3 mm, thickness 3.9 at seppa dai, 4.2 at mimi. NBTHK Hozon to Washida. Dimensions 85.3mm x 79.2 mm, thickness 3.6 at seppa dai, 4.0 at mimi. Identical to tsuba attributed by NBTHK to Washida. Dimensions 87.2 mm x 82.2 mm, thickness 3.7 at seppa dai, 4.0 at mimi. Signed in kinzogan mei Kyozan Mitsunaka with Kao. Dimensions 87.2 mm x 77.6 mm, thickness 2.6 at seppa dai, 4.2 at mimi. Dimensions 83.5 mm x 78.6 mm, thickness 3.0 at seppa dai, 4.1 at mimi. Dimensions: 96.9 mm x 13.9 mm, thickness 4.7 mm. REgards Luca

To add a little bit to the Fujiwara-ju, I am researching this one that belonged to my family:

For your spring/summer collection: https://paypayfleamarket.yahoo.co.jp/item/z562035124 Damon

Dear members, I am researching a family heirloom currently held at the MUPA Museum in Brazil: a blade belonging to my ancestor, General Toru Kawase. The smith has been identified as Fujiwara-ju Nagayuki (Yamato School), active during the Tenbun era (1532-1555). While official measurements are pending, the total mounting length is 104 cm, and I estimate a nagasa of approximately 70-71 cm based on the photos and proportions. The museum has invited me for a physical inspection and professional photography in two months. In the meantime, I have prepared a composite image from archival photos to analyze the sugata. I would value your expertise on a few technical points: Does this specific sugata and curvature appear typical of late Muromachi Yamato-den blades? What else does it reveal (like intended use, etc)? Can you name a few characteristics of it (like the type os Sori)? The yokote is notably attenuated. Would you attribute this to centuries of polishing wear, or is it a known trait of this lineage or period? There are at least two significant nicks and the ha looks very deteriorated. Is a blade in this state generally considered a candidate for professional restoration, or is it better preserved as it is? Please note that I do not yet have clear photos of the hamon or hada, and it remains to be seen how visible they are in the blade's current state. I intend to capture these details during my inspection and will share them with the forum as soon as they are available. Best regards,

Dear Giorgy and pnsshogun, I am not certain if the signature is genuine, as the sword has not been analyzed by a specialist nor has been certified. What I know is a bit of its recent history and an hypothesis regarding its provenance. My great-grandfather, Hisashi Kawase, brought it to Brazil in 1927. It previously belonged to his father, Lieutenant General Toru Kawase, a shizoku from Wakayama, Kii. Toru's father, Narutada Kawase, was a retainer samurai of the Kishu Clan in Kii; he served the 14th shogun, Tokugawa Iemochi, in Edo and was the sword's former owner. The Kawase clan was close to the Tokugawa at least during the late Edo and Meiji eras (see the attached letter), though the Chronicles of Wakayama Prefecture list the Kawase as Tokugawa allies since the Tensho period. However, the historical presence of the Kawase clan in Kii dates back at least to the Muromachi period. After extensive research into the clan’s presence in Kii and surroundings, I discovered an interesting coincidence. While the Kawase clan is not listed in any Yamato genealogies or historical records I searched, the Chronicles of Hidaka, Kii, list a former retainer of the Hatakeyama clan — Kawase Hisatsugu — who became a ronin after the fall of the Hatakeyama and retired to Yamato. This occurred exactly during the same timeframe that Fujiwara-ju Nagayuki was active as a swordsmith in that province, according to Sesko's dating. His son later moved from Yamato to Kii, where he established himself as a Yukawa retainer, and where the Kawase clan remained until the Meiji Era. I know it is a leap to conclude that the original owner was Kawase Hisatsugu (assuming the signature is authentic and the dating is correct), but this information adds context to the sword's history. Regarding the more recent information, those details are more certain and contribute more to the analysis. As for fake signatures, do you know when they were most commonly made? Don't they usually replicate the signatures of famous swordsmiths? Fujiwara-ju Nagayuki is listed as a fairly obscure swordsmith (Hawley 15) in Hawley’s index, so why fake such a smith? Furthermore, I only know of one other sword with the same signature. It is listed in the magazine Swords and History, issue 531 (刀剣と歴史 [531]), but I cannot access it as I am not a resident of Japan. Source: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/7901225 Regarding the physical characteristics of the blade, I cannot provide precise dimensions at this moment as the sword is currently held in a museum collection. However, I will soon be visiting the institution to personally conduct a formal measurement (nagasa, sori, and motohaba) alongside the conservation staff. I am attaching more pictures of the sword, the mountings, and some references in Japanese.

#72Buzen-Gō Sword, Unsigned, Gō Yoshihiro (Meibutsu: Buzen-Gō) Length: 2 shaku 2 sun 5 bu (68.2 cm) Curvature: 5 bu (1.5 cm) Mekugi: 1 Important Art Object, Designated May 27, 1937. Owner at the time of designation: Count Ogasawara Tadaharu, Tokyo. Important Cultural Property, Designated June 28, 1956. Buzen-Gō is said to be the work of Gō Yoshihiro, who resided in Matsukura-go, Etchu Province, and is the most flamboyant of Gō Yoshihiro's works. Ownership of the blade: The origin of the name "Buzen-Gō" is unclear, but the sword was handed down to the Ogasawara family of the Ogura Domain in Buzen Province (different from the Ogasawara family of the Echizen Katsuyama domain where Uguisumaru was kept). The Ogasawara family also owned the Hakata Toshiro, Fudou Yukimitsu, and Akita Toshiro but it is unclear if they owned them all at the same time. Designated as an Important Art Object on May 27, 1937. It was owned by Count Ogasawara Tadaharu at that time. Akita Toushirou, which was designated as an Important Art Object in the same year, was also in the same collection. In the 1949 publication "Commentary of National Important Art Objects of Yamaguchi Prefecture" is recorded that the sword is owned by Yamada Shinmatsu. Designated as an Important Cultural Property on June 28, 1956. Exhibited in the "Masamune and His Clan" exhibit held in 1961 and owned by Nakazawa Akira. Exhibited also at the "Famous Japanese Sword Exhibition" held in 1968, but the owner is not recorded. According to a 2018 survey conducted by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, its whereabouts are currently unknown. Description of the blade: Buzen-Gō differs somewhat in style from other Gō swords; while the blade width and cutting edge are of normal form, the forging shows a fine wood grain mixed with mokume, with ji-nie (small crystals in the surface), and the hamon (temper line) is a mix of gunome (irregular wave pattern), notare (undulating pattern), and choji (clove pattern), with deep indentations and extending into the shinogi (ridge line) in places. The boshi (tip) is broken down and sweeping. Although it exhibits an unusual style, it is generally consistent with other works by the same artist and is a superior example among them. It is a long tachi (long sword) that was shortened to a katana (short sword). Shape: Shinogi-zukuri, Iori-mune, slightly thin cross-section, medium-sized point. Forging: Fine wood grain pattern, mixed with mottled surface, fine ji-nie (small crystals). Hamon (temper line): Wavy with gunome (irregular wave pattern), frequent ashi (legs) and ha (leaves), with occasional kinsuji (golden lines), making the striking surface particularly brilliant on both sides. Overall, the nioi (misty effect) is very deep, with fine nie (small crystals). Boshi (tip): Irregular and sweeping pattern with kinsuji. Tang: Greatly shortened, chestnut-shaped tip, cut file marks, one mekugi-ana (peg hole). The name "Buzen-go" is written in red on the reverse side. Honma Talks: Regarding Gō Yoshihiro, Dr Junji Honma describes him in detail in his book, "Masamune and His School" (1961) The following in parentheses is an translated excerpt from the same book: "To understand the style of Yoshihiro, or Go, one should first examine Inaba-Gō (or Tomita-Gō), Murakumo-Gō, and Matsui-Gō. After fully understanding the Gō style, one should finally examine Buzen-Gō. All existing works by this artist are greatly shortened swords; no reliable short swords have been found. Swords can be broad-bladed with extended tips (e.g., Tomita-Gō), of normal width and tip (e.g., Kuwana Go), slightly extended tip (e.g., Samidare Go), or somewhat slender e.g., (Collection of the Tokyo National Museum), these are all Iori-mune. The forging is of the same type as: tightly grained ko-itame (e.g., Inaba-Gō), mostly straight grained (e.g., Murakumo-Gō), and a mixture of itame and straight grain. There is ji-kei (pattern in the steel), but it is not as prominent as in Masamune or Norishige. All have good ji-nie (small crystals in the steel), and the coarse nie is not as noticeable as in Masamune or Norishige. The hamon (temper line) is mostly shallow and irregular, mainly small notare (e.g., Inaba-Gō), in which case the nioi (cloudy effect) is particularly deep and there is ko-nie, and sunagashi (sand-like patterns) are relatively few. Also, straight, undulating, and small irregular patterns (e.g., Murakumo-Gō) have particularly prominent nie (crystals), and some have frequent sunagashi (sand-like patterns), fraying, and uchinoke (striking patterns). Some have tight straight patterns with small nie, and some have ashi (legs) and ha (leaves) (e.g., Matsui-Gō). However, ashi and ha are present in all of the above types of hamon. Moreover, all types of hamon are deeply tempered, especially from the monouchi (striking point) to the boshi (tip), and some have a single boshi. The boshi is generally less elaborate than the activity below, and sōme are shallowly irregular. Many have a rounded shape, some with a pointed shape (Matsui-Gō), some with a flame-like shape, and some with a slight sweeping effect. The hamon (temper pattern) of Buzen-Gō swords is unusual, with a deep in-and-out pattern of gunome, notare, and choji (clove-shaped) patterns, and in places extending onto the shinogi-ji (ridge line). There are no carvings other than grooves, and while Inaba-Gō sword has grooves that slope downwards and deep, skillfully crafted bo-hi (straight grooves), generally, most do not have grooves." (Reference: Reprinted, quoted, and excerpted from the Encyclopedia of Japanese Swords) #72Buzen-Gō

Dreadful fake:

Apologies, I started a new thread and should have posted here. Bought a tsuka on the loose just for the gosan-no-kiri mon and the very nice condition naval tassel. Can't get any closer with my lousy phone camera but it is a 3-5-3 paulownia.

Very interesting development! Not much known about this Seki swordsmith. Did not see him listed on the guild list. Translation help & Polishing, Post #27

Perhaps 植田兼忠 - Ueda Kanetada. Best regards, Ray