Leaderboard

Yanagawa Naomasa

I think some are now at the point where they are suffering from PTSD due to iron cast Tsuba. Edo period Tetsubin

Update on the Yamanaka Newsletters V4 NL 01-07 - now available. Albert Yamanaka's Nihonto Newsletters Volume 1 Yamanaka V1 NL01 Yamanaka V1 NL02 Yamanaka V1 NL03 Yamanaka V1 NL04 Yamanaka V1 NL05 Yamanaka V1 NL06 Yamanaka V1 NL07 Yamanaka V1 NL08 Yamanaka V1 NL09 Yamanaka V1 NL10 Yamanaka V1 NL11 Yamanaka V1 NL12 Yamanaka V1 NL12 Extras Volume 2 Yamanaka V2 NL01 Yamanaka V2 NL02 Yamanaka V2 NL03 Yamanaka V2 NL04 Yamanaka V2 NL05 Yamanaka V2 NL06 Yamanaka V2 NL07 Yamanaka V2 NL08 Yamanaka V2 NL09 Yamanaka V2 NL10 Yamanaka V2 NL11 Yamanaka V2 NL12 Volume 3 Yamanaka V3 NL01 Yamanaka V3 NL02 Yamanaka V3 NL03 Yamanaka V3 NL04 Yamanaka V3 NL05 Yamanaka V3 NL06 Yamanaka V3 NL07 Yamanaka V3 NL08 Yamanaka V3 NL09 Yamanaka V3 NL10 Yamanaka V3 NL11 & NL12 Volume 4 Yamanaka V4 NL01 Yamanaka V4 NL02 Yamanaka V4 NL03 Yamanaka V4 NL04 Yamanaka V4 NL05 Yamanaka V4 NL06 Yamanaka V4 NL07

One more thing...from his later years

Hi Mike, You can compare with other Omiya offerings on the market here: https://nihontowatch.com/artists/NS-Omiya Hope this helps, Hoshi

I am biased because its mine, but this is what I would be looking in good Omiya. Strong nie presence, sunagashi throughout (even if mostly in ko nie), bright and reasonably consistent nioi guchi, good jigane. Its really an under-appreciated school because a lot of work like this is not associated with a super-jo-jo-name-saku. It also benefits a lot from good sashikomi polish. By comparison I would suspect Aoi art is a notch lower. But it needs to be seen in hand.

@ScoggHI Sam, how the leather is formed is hard to tell. The leather has a very tight fit. Regards, Ed

Interesting find, Ed! Is the shaping of the leather on the saya formed over underlying metal fittings, or is the contour created solely by the leather itself? I imagine it may be difficult to tell. Thanks for sharing this with us. All the best, -Sam

Hi Jean, Only moderators or admin are able to relocate threads. Brian has already commented on the post and could have moved it if he felt it was necessary. Since the topic is about selling the item online, specifically on eBay, it doesn’t seem to be significantly out of place. Also, given the content of the posts, this new member may not be a frequent contributor, and we generally try to allow new members a bit of leeway as they get familiar with navigating the forum. All the best, -Sam

That is nice, Ed. Unusual to see the 'sculpting' around the top, around the haikan. Nicely done.

Recently added this sword to my collection. The leather combat cover is made of high quality leather.

Some pics

Tom, You don't think they did that deliberately to simulate the cast look of the original kettles? May be a clever finishing technique

First off … is this OK to be discussed here? I did see another similar post recently … but I want the Mods to confirm or … I have 2 of these, one ‘square’ like this and the other is a fully round body. Info seems to be dearth on these, but I foind this online -see below - from the IMA (International Military Arms) site. Bit keep these questions in mind, thanks! -Do you concur? -Anything to add or debate/question? -What do YOU think the value is? Now this is an incredible piece of early Ming Dynasty history, circa middle 14th Century. This is the first one of these 8-Shot Hand Cannons we have received and we couldn’t have gotten a better example! The hand cannon, also known as the gonne or handgonne, is the first true firearm and the successor of the fire lance. It is the oldest type of small arms as well as the most mechanically simple form of metal barrel firearms. Unlike matchlock firearms it requires direct manual external ignition through a touch hole without any form of firing mechanism. It may also be considered a forerunner of the handgun. The hand cannon was widely used in China from the 13th century onward and later throughout Eurasia in the 14th century. In 15th century Europe, the hand cannon evolved to become the matchlock arquebus, which became the first firearm to have a trigger. This example was meant to be mounted on a pole, much like the earlier fire lance. This hand cannon has a 4 ½” inch socket which would fit a 1” wide wooden shaft. The center hole on the muzzle area of the cannon is much smaller than the other 8 and is not meant to be fired from. This center hole was meant as a means to keep the spear length shaft secured. All 8 “chambers” have their own individual touch hole just like a regular cannon, making this an early semi-automatic of sorts! Each barrel is mostly clear with a clear touch hole, all inspected with a borescope, though there is buildup from corrosion on the insides. Each of the barrels measures approximately 3 ½” in length. An incredible example of an extremely rare hand cannon dating back to the early days of the Ming Dynasty! Comes more than ready for further research and display. Specifications: Year of Manufacture:14th Century Caliber:about 0.34 inches Ammunition Type:Lead Ball and Powder Ignition: Touch Hole BarrelLength:3 1/2 inches Overall Length:9 5/8 inches Feed System: Muzzle Loading – 8 Barrels The earliest artistic depiction of what might be a hand cannon — a rock sculpture found among the Dazu Rock Carvings — is dated to 1128, much earlier than any recorded or precisely dated archaeological samples, so it is possible that the concept of a cannon-like firearm has existed since the 12th century. This has been challenged by others such as Liu Xu, Cheng Dong, and Benjamin Avichai Katz Sinvany. According to Liu, the weight of the cannon would have been too much for one person to hold, especially with just one arm, and points out that fire lances were being used a decade later at the Siege of De’an. Cheng Dong believes that the figure depicted is actually a wind spirit letting air out of a bag rather than a cannon emitting a blast. Stephen Haw also considered the possibility that the item in question was a bag of air but concludes that it is a cannon because it was grouped with other weapon-wielding sculptures. Sinvany concurred with the wind bag interpretation and that the cannonball indentation was added later on. The first cannons were likely an evolution of the fire lance. In 1259 a type of “fire-emitting lance” (tūhuǒqiãng 突火槍) made an appearance. According to the History of Song: “It is made from a large bamboo tube, and inside is stuffed a pellet wad (zǐkē 子窠). Once the fire goes off it completely spews the rear pellet wad forth, and the sound is like a bomb that can be heard for five hundred or more paces.” The pellet wad mentioned is possibly the first true bullet in recorded history depending on how bullet is defined, as it did occlude the barrel, unlike previous co-viatives (non-occluding shrapnel) used in the fire lance. Fire lances transformed from the “bamboo- (or wood- or paper-) barreled firearm to the metal-barreled firearm” to better withstand the explosive pressure of gunpowder. From there it branched off into several different gunpowder weapons known as “eruptors” in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, with different functions such as the “filling-the-sky erupting tube” which spewed out poisonous gas and porcelain shards, the “hole-boring flying sand magic mist tube” (zuànxuéfēishāshénwùtǒng 鑽穴飛砂神霧筒) which spewed forth sand and poisonous chemicals into orifices, and the more conventional “phalanx-charging fire gourd” which shot out lead pellets. Hand cannons first saw widespread usage in China sometime during the 13th century and spread from there to the rest of the world. In 1287 Yuan Jurchen troops deployed hand cannons in putting down a rebellion by the Mongol prince Nayan. The History of Yuan reports that the cannons of Li Ting’s soldiers “caused great damage” and created “such confusion that the enemy soldiers attacked and killed each other.” The hand cannons were used again in the beginning of 1288. Li Ting’s “gun-soldiers” or chòngzú (銃卒) were able to carry the hand cannons “on their backs”. The passage on the 1288 battle is also the first to coin the name chòng (銃) with the metal radical jīn (金) for metal-barrel firearms. Chòng was used instead of the earlier and more ambiguous term huǒtǒng (fire tube; 火筒), which may refer to the tubes of fire lances, proto-cannons, or signal flares. Hand cannons may have also been used in the Mongol invasions of Japan. Japanese s of the invasions talk of iron and bamboo pào causing “light and fire” and emitting 2–3,000 iron bullets. The Nihon Kokujokushi, written around 1300, mentions huǒtǒng (fire tubes) at the Battle of Tsushima in 1274 and the second coastal assault led by Holdon in 1281. The Hachiman Gudoukun of 1360 mentions iron pào “which caused a flash of light and a loud noise when fired.” The Taiheki of 1370 mentions “iron pào shaped like a bell.” Mongol troops of Yuan dynasty carried Chinese cannons to Java during their 1293 invasion. The oldest extant hand cannon bearing a date of production is the Xanadu Gun, which contains an era date corresponding to 1298. The Heilongjiang hand cannon is dated a decade earlier to 1288, corresponding to the military conflict involving Li Ting, but the dating method is based on contextual evidence; the gun bears no inscription or era date. Another cannon bears an era date that could correspond with the year 1271 in the Gregorian Calendar, but contains an irregular character in the reign name. Other specimens also likely predate the Xanadu and Heilongjiang guns and have been traced as far back as the late Western Xia period (1214–1227), but these too lack inscriptions and era dates (see Wuwei bronze cannon). Li Ting chose gun-soldiers (chòngzú), concealing those who bore the huǒpào on their backs; then by night he crossed the river, moved upstream, and fired off (the weapons). This threw all the enemy’s horses and men into great confusion … and he gained a great victory. — History of Yuan Spread The earliest reliable evidence of cannons in Europe appeared in 1326 in a register of the municipality of Florence and evidence of their production can be dated as early as 1327. The first recorded use of gunpowder weapons in Europe was in 1331 when two mounted German knights attacked Cividale del Friuli with gunpowder weapons of some sort. By 1338 hand cannons were in widespread use in France. One of the oldest surviving weapons of this type is the “Loshult gun”, a 10 kg Swedish example from the mid-14th century. In 1999 a group of British and Danish researchers made a replica of the gun and tested it using four period-accurate mixes of gunpowder, firing both 1.8 kg arrows and 184-gram lead balls with 50-gram charges of gunpowder. The velocities of the arrows varied from 63 m/s to 87 m/s with max ranges of 205 to 360 meters, while the balls achieve velocities of between 110 m/s to 142 m/s with an average range of 630 meters. The first English source about handheld firearm (hand cannon) was written in 1473. Although evidence of cannons appears later in the Middle East than Europe, fire lances were described earlier by Hasan al-Rammah between 1240 and 1280, and appeared in battles between Muslims and Mongols in 1299 and 1303. Hand cannons may have been used in the early 14th century. An Arabic text dating to 1320–1350 describes a type of gunpowder weapon called a midfa which uses gunpowder to shoot projectiles out of a tube at the end of a stock. Some scholars consider this a hand cannon while others dispute this claim. The Nasrid army besieging Elche in 1331 made use of “iron pellets shot with fire.” According to Paul E. J. Hammer, the Mamluks certainly used cannons by 1342. According to J. Lavin, cannons were used by Moors at the siege of Algeciras in 1343. Shihab al-Din Abu al-Abbas al-Qalqashandi described a metal cannon firing an iron ball between 1365 and 1376. of the drug (mixture) to be introduced in the madfa’a (cannon) with its proportions: barud, ten; charcoal two drachmes, sulphur one and a half drachmes. Reduce the whole into a thin powder and fill with it one third of the madfa’a. Do not put more because it might explode. This is why you should go to the turner and ask him to make a wooden madfa’a whose size must be in proportion with its muzzle. Introduce the mixture (drug) strongly; add the bunduk (balls) or the arrow and put fire to the priming. The madfa’a length must be in proportion with the hole. If the madfa’a was deeper than the muzzle’s width, this would be a defect. Take care of the gunners. Be careful — Rzevuski MS, possibly written by Shams al-Din Muhammad, c. 1320–1350 Cannons are attested to in India starting from 1366. The Joseon kingdom in Korea acquired knowledge of gunpowder from China by 1372 and started producing cannons by 1377. In Southeast Asia Đại Việt soldiers were using hand cannons at the very latest by 1390 when they employed them in killing Champa king Che Bong Nga. Chinese observer recorded the Javanese use of hand cannon for marriage ceremony in 1413 during Zheng He’s voyage. Japan was already aware of gunpowder warfare due to the Mongol invasions during the 13th century, but did not acquire a cannon until a monk took one back to Japan from China in 1510, and firearms were not produced until 1543, when the Portuguese introduced matchlocks which were known as tanegashima to the Japanese. The art of firing the hand cannon called Ōzutsu (大筒) has remained as a Ko-budō martial arts form. Middle East The earliest surviving documentary evidence for the use of the hand cannon in the Islamic world are from several Arabic manuscripts dated to the 14th century. The historian Ahmad Y. al-Hassan argues that several 14th-century Arabic manuscripts, one of which was written by Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Ansari al-Dimashqi (1256–1327), report the use of hand cannons by Mamluk-Egyptian forces against the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260. However, Hassan’s claim contradicts other historians who claim hand cannons did not appear in the Middle East until the 14th century. Iqtidar Alam Khan argues that it was the Mongols who introduced gunpowder to the Islamic world, and believes cannons only reached Mamluk Egypt in the 1370s. According to Joseph Needham, fire lances or proto-guns were known to Muslims by the late 13th century and early 14th century. However the term midfa, dated to textual sources from 1342 to 1352, cannot be proven to be true hand-guns or bombards, and contemporary accounts of a metal-barrel cannon in the Islamic world do not occur until 1365. Needham also concludes that in its original form the term midfa refers to the tube or cylinder of a naphtha projector (flamethrower), then after the invention of gunpowder it meant the tube of fire lances, and eventually it applied to the cylinder of hand-gun and cannon. Similarly, Tonio Andrade dates the textual appearance of cannon in Middle-Eastern sources to the 1360s. David Ayalon and Gabor Ágoston believe the Mamluks had certainly used siege cannon by the 1360s, but earlier uses of cannon in the Islamic World are vague with a possible appearance in the Emirate of Granada by the 1320s, however evidence is inconclusive. Khan claims that it was invading Mongols who introduced gunpowder to the Islamic world and cites Mamluk antagonism towards early riflemen in their infantry as an example of how gunpowder weapons were not always met with open acceptance in the Middle East. Similarly, the refusal of their Qizilbash forces to use firearms contributed to the Safavid rout at Chaldiran in 1514. Arquebus Early European hand cannons, such as the socket-handgonne, were relatively easy to produce; smiths often used brass or bronze when making these early gonnes. The production of early hand cannons was not uniform; this resulted in complications when loading or using the gunpowder in the hand cannon. Improvements in hand cannon and gunpowder technology — corned powder, shot ammunition, and development of the flash pan — led to the invention of the arquebus in late 15th-century Europe. Design and features The hand cannon consists of a barrel, a handle, and sometimes a socket to insert a wooden stock. Extant samples show that some hand cannons also featured a metal extension as a handle. The hand cannon could be held in two hands, but another person is often shown aiding in the ignition process using smoldering wood, coal, red-hot iron rods, or slow-burning matches. The hand cannon could be placed on a rest and held by one hand, while the gunner applied the means of ignition himself. Projectiles used in hand cannons were known to include rocks, pebbles, and arrows. Eventually stone projectiles in the shape of balls became the preferred form of ammunition, and then they were replaced by iron balls from the late 14th to 15th centuries. Later hand cannons have been shown to include a flash pan attached to the barrel and a touch hole drilled through the side wall instead of the top of the barrel. The flash pan had a leather cover and, later on, a hinged metal lid, to keep the priming powder dry until the moment of firing and to prevent premature firing. These features were carried over to subsequent firearms.

If I can add my own thoughts. I don't think Norishige was a complete novice when he apprenticed with Shintogo. In general, I believe an apprenticeship started much earlier than 18 and from what I've read it could be as early as 12 or 13. Thats 5 years to have learned the basics, shown some exceptional talent and aptitude, enough to have been allowed to study with someone of the stature of Shintogo who, at this moment in time, was at the end of his career. Norishige's first signed blade dates to 1309 (from oshigata) so he may only have spent a year or 2 with Shintogo before studying under the other smiths mentioned but long enough to have absorbed the techniques being used in the atelier. I also believe Shintogo died around 1312/13 so may have been in poor health, which accelerated the move of young Norishige towards those other mentors. As you eloquently describe, the interpersonal interactions are certainly atypical based on modern Japanese student-teacher relationships. Had there not been this flexibility I wonder how Soshuden would have evolved.

You guys never cease to amaze me. The academic activity being conducted behind-the-scenes is humbling. What is interesting to note is the mitsu north crown radical on shodei Kunimitsu mei is being copied by Norishige on some of his work, further cementing the connection between student and master. A great example of this is the J67 wakizashi presented in Chandlers figure. Here is a clearer image from the zufu. The quality of this blade is about as good as I've seen from Norishige and also appears early work before his mitsukawa hada became a major feature. Could that be called an ichimai boshi? Could this blade have been forged when Norishige and Go were collaborating as was mentioned in another thread? Fascinating possibility.

Love this digging. I think Norishige is strongly a fan favourite in this community. Not met any say "Not a fan of Norishige!" I count myself in the camp of Norshige fan boy. With regard to timelines, I put Kunimitsu's death at 1312 not 1319, if he died in 1319 then he died two years after Shintogō Kunihiro his son who died in 1317 and was the second head of the Soshū school. But he could not have been the second head of the Sōshu school if his father was still alive after 1317. Just some timeline adjustments according to my studies that I have already shared before (not saying it 100% but when comparing the timeline to other Soshu smiths it lines up with some success.), this is what I have for Norishige's period of study: Norishge (1290-1365), study timeline: 1. Shintogō Kunimitsu (1308-1311) - That is he started his study aged 18 and studied only 3 years not long enough to become a smith under normal circumstances. 2.⁠ ⁠Yukimitsu (1311-1321) - He moved to Yukimitsu aged 21 and studied for 10 years under him and as such he can be considered Norishige's foundation smith. 3.⁠ ⁠Gō Yoshihiro (1321-1324) - He then spent 3 years from age 31 studying under Gō. Many assumed Norshige taught Gō but it appears the opposite was true. This is while we know Gō was 9 years younger than Norishige and died 1 year after Norishige left his forge. 4.⁠ ⁠Masamune (1324-1326) - After Gō, aged 34 Norishige finally spent a further 2 more years studying under Masamune, his last sensei - Gō died the following year in 1325. As such, if it is 1320 - then by my calculation Norishige is still studying under Yukimitsu not Gō, who is also in Kamakura but studying under Masamune. So there may have been some rubbing off of influence already as tradition suggests Yukimitsu was Masamune's father and therefore Norishige and Gō both Etchű boys would definitely have been familiar with each other at this stage with Gō having been in Kamakura from 1319 (aged 21.)

Here's a reference I threw together for the NMB Note the J25* mei was labeled "mei ga aru" at shinsa and the J23 example was labeled as the nidai (top row 4th from left)

August, 1855 for the rookies.

Yes, the Matsue Supervisory Unit of Kokura Army Arsenal.

2cm is quite impressive! Best of luck in your sale!

And here is that TJ tanto from the listing a year ago when it was offered on consignment for $295K. The Mei is beautifully struck with a free flowing and confident style.

From Sesko's Swordsmiths reference

I believe they are kokuru army arsenal inspection stamps

Great info here, thank you for sharing

I feel bad giving an honest opinion about items of Japanese sellers if it is interpreted as an endorsement Art Fair dealers... something I would prefer to avoid. Omiya can be very attractive. They seldom have good utsuri, but can have very nice hamon. Here the jigane is a bit rough, nioi-guchi does not seem to be consistent (which good Omiya is expected to have), overall its not the top Omiya for the price, but also photography and polish make it difficult to ascertain by photos alone. Maybe hamon plays hundreds of shades of blue, and its really beautiful.

hi, would recommend to visit the Japan Art Fair (https://www.japanartfair.com/) , there you have the opportunity to hold the swords in your hand. best regards Oli

And the translation... Token Bijutsu 530.pdf

Norishige's style of Mei carving was not very consistent during his career. The additional radical on the left of Shige 重 on the 1314 dated tanto is atypical compared to examples from his later career. Under what circumstances would such a departure from the standard kanji have occurred? A deliberate stylistic choice? Was it a common occurrence, observed for other smiths during the late Kamakura?

I believe the date is Feb Showa 13 (1938). The smith is perhaps Hiromitsu? John C.

find the difference

Here it is......

This thread unearthed a lot of interesting examples. There are no Goto ones so far. I only have one Shi-shi and it is by Goto Kenjo. My particular shi-shi seems to have the Zoomies.... Dog people will know what I mean.

I don't offhand see a record for this smith: Ashu Masamune saku, and dated a day in the 8th month of Ansei 2.

I would like to share a lovelyset of tosogu by Yokoya Tomotake featuring Shishi play fighting. It’s a great example of katakiribori workmanship, which is done to a high level. One intriguing thing I have noticed while studying the set is that the carvings of the Chinese Lions resemble the paintings from a pair of screens by Hanabusa Itcho, which is in The Met collection, I’ve attached some comparison photos. I have read that Hanabusa Itcho was a close friend of Somin Yokotani. I wonder if the screens were used by Yokoya Tomotake when composing this set of tosogu.

My small contribution, old nanban tsuba in ok state. Yet I love the two shishi and the little gold dot for the eyes.

Similar ones to this piece in Japanese publications are labelled Satsuma or Oda school

Here is an iron set of fuchi/kashira with what I was told is a pair of lion hunters/lions. I have not researched the mei.

Looks like my set, Stephen. I did the same thing to the seppa set I bought to finish out my dad's Mantetsu.

Hi Marilyn, welcome to the forum! Your sword looks to be in great condition, and thank you for sharing your family story with us. It’s very interesting to hear and aligns well with what we know about the end of the war and disarmament. Your sword is a very nice example of the Japanese Type 95 Military Sword. Yours is the Variation #4 (or pattern 3 in some sources); basically meaning it has aluminum handle and round steel tsuba. Your sword has the Tokyo First Army Arsenal inspection stamp (東) , and a more mysterious stamp that’s a Sakura flower with a line inside, we sometimes call this the “Sakura Ichi” stamp, and its origins remain mysterious. It might be associated with Kōbe/Kanbe Shōten workshop, because the stamp is similar, but it’s not known for certain. The concentric circles or 4 stacked cannonball stamp is for Kokura Army Arsenal who administered the Type 95 program. Because of the mystery surrounding the Sakura Ichi stamp, it’s a little tough to date, but according to my records and its serial number I would date it around summer 1942. It’s not a transitional model necessarily. But it’s one of the several variations amongst an ever evolving sword type that was made concurrently across multiple contractors and arsenals. So you see a bit of variety. It’s absolutely genuine like you say. No reason for concern: but the fact that yours has an extra 東 stamp on the opposite side of the ferrule is unusual and interesting. All the best, -Sam

@Rawa the tell tale is the lower end of the saya. no matching material of colour and NOT sewed to. I fear John is right... By the way, my two cents to the subject.

I thought this was an interesting variation. They put a, for lack of a better term, reinforcement band past the haikan. Found on this Wehrmact-awards thread.

That is a terrible replica...... Fortunately I have a service where I will take this off your hands and properly dispose of it........and I won't even charge you. You can trust me, I go to church. Seriously though, wow......what a beautiful piece