Leaderboard

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

於駒橋元近作之 – At Komahashi, Motochika made this. 佐世保市浪瀬免三一番地代五班本郷盛馬 – Sasebo-shi Namise-men 31, the 5th group Hongo Morima

I am almost as far away from high end collector as you can be but I have spent lot of time with Jūyō data. First of all as a disclaimer I have to say I don't really like either of the swords. The den Gō should in my mind be a slam dunk for Jūyō - Date family ownership, excellent polish, Kanzan Sayagaki, Tanobe Sayagaki. Still every year I know that items that are in my mind bound to pass fail, and some other items that are unimpressive to me pass. The mumei Shintōgo Kunimitsu katana just passed Tokubetsu Hozon in 2025. Now take the following what I will write with a big grain of salt but I have sometimes really felt that way, just as a disclaimer I am not quality focused collector but historical. If you throw away the NBTHK papers attributing to Shintōgo Kunimitsu, would you pay 7,500,000 yen for that mumei sword? In my own opinion the NBTHK attribution sometimes carry too large value but market works how it works. Of course the fine workmanship of Shintōgo can not really be seen in few pictures. Still if I saw that mumei sword looking like it looks on the pictures I would just skip it without really even second thoughts about it, even if the price would be extremely lower than it currently is. I know it is a controversial take but hopefully it can get the discussion going.

Hello, Delicate questions. In general, I recommend staying clear from recent TH papers to big names if you cannot assess it in hand and with sufficient experience studying higher level designations for said master. If this is not possible, only go in after having it appraised by someone who can hold it in hand, and has such experience. This is the value that a trusted dealer or collector friend brings. The reason for this is that the Shinsa panel is in a succession phase where it has to invest into new judges and ensure proper knowledge transmission - and this is a bumpy road. I has been so for a few years, let's see what happens at the upcoming Tokuju Shinsa. The last session had some eyebrow raising anomalies. For pieces attributed to Awataguchi Hisakuni, Shintogo Kunimitsu daito, Go Yoshihiro, Masamune without historical kiwame a respected Hon'ami judge or an entry into the Kanto Hibisho, it is quite delicate at the moment. I would even be exercise caution right now with zaimei pieces. With this wide caveat in place, there are still incredible pieces that can surface from time to time. Value wise, every tier of paper de-risks the object, that's all it does, the object does not change, and it is this de-risking that drives market perception and creates the price premium. If I'm a dealer and I tell you I have one of the best Nagamitsu, and it's sitting at TH, and I ask you 40 million yen for it, you're going to think I'm crazy. You won't believe me unless you have the knowledge to truly and deeply assess it, in relation to the corpus, and come up with your own conclusion that it is, in fact, one of the best extant Nagamitsu. Now if I tell you it passed Juyo session 3, then Tokuju session 6, all of a sudden it's a different story probabilistically speaking it is very likely amongst the ultimate blades extant. Sure, it might be the 'lesser' of the series, but these sessions contained an incredible density of treasures and on average, they contained more peak works. Advanced collectors know this, and dealers too, forming common knowledge around these heuristics. On the other hand, if you're one of the most experienced collectors in Japan, and you've "seen it all" - you look at the blade and you just know. You don't need the Juyo or Tokuju paper, you know what's out there, you've experienced most of it, you've been in the circles. You're ready to pay 40 million JPY in a blink for that blade sitting as a TH Nagamitsu. What's the value of his top blades? It's price = n/a. And the dealer might be very relieved you recognized it as such, and happy to sell it to you, because time is money and waiting for submission cycles is financially painful. He will put you into his serious client book, and propose you more such pieces in the future. If by miracle you get handed to you a zaimei Hisakuni tanto with denrai to the Imperial family -at Hozon- in good condition, it will be millions of dollars, and now the paradox kicks in that the buyer will be even happier as it's a secret blade that isn't recorded anywhere as some collectors just enjoy the secrecy a lot. This can help - for artists you follow, as you're looking for comparables out there, check out NW's artist database: https://nihontowatch.com/artists/nagamitsu-NAG281 Just be careful out there, if it looks like it's too good to be true, it probably is. I hope this helps, Hoshi

I am not a fittings guy but my guess would be it had been fitted for wooden sword, bokutō/bokken.

Ok, I suppose there aren't any more people willing to offer a hypothesis, or everyone else is somewhat in agreement with what has already been stated, or just don't know... #1 Apparently made by Higo's Hayashi Matashichi (It's published in the Gustav Jacoby Collection... and if I am reading this google translation correctly, it was once in the possession of the Hosokawa and Nishigaki lineages up until the late 19th century. #2 NBTHK papers to ko-Akasaka (lacking in any sort of useful detail, as usual...) Google translation: No. 4015180 Certificate of authenticity 1. Tsuba (sword guard) with openwork design of ginger and wild goose motifs, unsigned, Old Akasaka. Chrysanthemum-shaped iron base with openwork, rounded rim. The item on the right has been authenticated as a preserved sword fitting by our association as a result of our examination, and this is certified. May 28, 2019 Japanese Art Sword Preservation Association #3 Nishigaki Kanshiro (according to a hakogaki by Sasano. This one is posted on tsuba.info and is listed as 2nd generation Kanshiro in the section on Higo tsuba. I was given the info through messaging with the owner of the tsuba, but I don't have any images to post of the hakogaki. I was also informed that this one has some signs of slight layer separation, opening the door to a possible Akasaka connection And just to muddy the waters.. here's yet another, actually closest to # 2 in that it has the larger proportioned hitsu-ana. #4 It's in the Owari section of Tsuba Shusei (the elephant book), and it describes it as: 65. Myoga and Chidori – A tsuba with a nice texture in a central recess. In an older style. Seppa-dai 3mm, kakumiri 6mm. And just to blur things even more... here's one from illustrations of ancient tsuba on uchigatana, by Keichiro Yokota #5 attributed to Myochin it's back to the smaller sized hitsu-ana but it has some alternate motifs at the top and bottom of the seppa-dai (instead of myoga/ginger), and a few other small embellishments in the way the sukashi elements were chiseled. So to sum up... a mish mash of attributions due to some overlapping physical features between schools and smiths. So we have published attributions and hakogaki to Higo's Matashichi and Kanshiro, ko-Akasaka, as well as Owari and Myochin. Then I also got some suggestions elsewhere for Kariganeya Hikobe as well. So the answer is ... still to be determined I suppose

Robert, analyses of TAMAHAGANE show that it is very pure, regarding alloy metals, but I have no data of KOTO and SHINTO era steel for comparison. What I think is important is that there is a very narrow temperature margin in the bloomery/TATARA process. Unlike many other metals, iron has a slightly wider temperature span between 'solid' and 'liquid'. This feature is making the direct reduction process possible. But you cannot leave this temperature area by much without metallurgical changes taking place. Usually, the intent is to have a good degree of efficiency in the process which rises with the temperature. Celtic and early medieval bloomery furnaces were around 30% (= 30 kg iron from 100 kg of iron ore) and were run at about 1.250 to 1.300°C. The temperature in a TATARA can be even a bit higher which means that near the vents, the iron wil be closer to melting temperature. The problem is that with rising temperature, the iron 'absorbs' more carbon. The malleability of iron ends with a carbon content of 2,02%; this is the limit where cast iron/pig iron starts to be formed. Crystallization can only take place from a liquid state, so if TAMAHAGANE was made at very high temperatures (= above 1.350°C), there is a high risk that it would not be workable on the anvil. Cast iron (roughly 2 - 5% C) will shatter like a cookie under the hammer. As far as I know, historical Japanese iron technology is not known for decarburizing processes (with the exception of OROSHIGANE, but this worked in another way) as we had them in the Middle Ages in Europe. So, the Japanese were forced to stay with the TATARA method. We should not forget that in medieval Japan, ALL iron was produced solely in TATARA, and most of the products coming out of the forge were made from (low carbon) iron, not steel! This was the same in Europe, by the way. Coming back to a potential technological leap after the KOTO era, a slightly higher carbon content in the steel might indeed make a difference in working it and in the properties, but we can exclude 'secret' alloy metals mixed in the TAMAHAGANE - or missing in EDO times. There are still more factors which can influence steel properties and the performance data of steel blades, but that would lead a bit far. BUT we should consider the fact that - starting with EDO JIDAI - many swordsmiths no longer made their own steel, and as you know, there is a big difference between potatoes that you grow in your own garden, and those you can buy in the supermarket!

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.

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.

This boundary is non-negotiable on this forum. Take it or leave it. There is no circumstance where we will ever say it's ok to use sandpaper on your blade. You may say the whole thing was rusted and no-one would pay to have it polished. So what about the guy whose blade is mostly ok but has one spot of rust? What about the guy who is in a country where there are no polishers? Do we have to form a committee to decide when it's ok and when it isn't? The fact is that we don't advocate amateur polishing. Yes...we all know many do it, we know there are rusty blades that no-one will ever professionally polish. But without a way to determine what's ok and what isn't, the rule stands that we do not encourage this. Since we are a serious forum devoted to the preservation of genuine Japanese swords, this policy will never change.

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.....

Looking for auspices ("auspices" means "looking at birds") in tosogu is almost as varied as it is in nature. Birds may fly centripetally, centrifugally, or in circles (sometimes in the same direction, or occasionally in opposite directions). A brief treatise on “Tsuba Augury”:

An "Owari" you might notice the birds are inverted - pointing towards the seppa-dai rather than the mimi. https://www.choshuya.co.jp/senrigan/抱茗荷雁金透鍔（鐔）　無銘　尾張/鍔/尾張 Afew in this older thread https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/44479-wild-geese-in-the-clouds/

木瓜形鉄地 – Mokko-gata Tetsu-ji 鋤出高彫象嵌 – Sukidashi takabori zogan 無銘甚五 – Mumei, Jingo 昭和戊申新春 – Showa Tuchinoe-Saru, shinshun (1968, New year) 寒山誌 – Kanzan wrote.

Well no surprise there - I have compiled my own book with dozens [at least 62] of tsuba designs replicated over and over [and not all cast copies] One particular pattern of the rain dragon has now reached 162 individual examples. A question better asked of Grev Cooke as he did the book - but yes I would say it was iron. A great number of guards were copied between schools so once again it is very possible for a design to be attributed to more than one school.

Guess it is “安親作” (Yasuchika saku)…

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.

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

The part is 皆焼刃 - Hitatsura ha/ba.

They ask you to place a sticker against which sword you liked best.

Extra pictures of the koshirae:

Love the discussion, although I’m not very confident that we can eventually arrive at a solid understanding of tsuba attribution to a specific school. So, let’s get back to the details, which may become clearer as our thinking progresses. Let’s try to move from naturalistic to more abstract representations of wild geese: Now it’s quite clear how the more abstract pattern is oriented.

Chris wrote excellent post and information like that will take some time to process. It is actually quite complicated stuff. I was giving an introductory into Japanese swords during the weekend, and I briefly mentioned about the difficulties in looking at prices as there can be so much variation that is very hard to understand. This does happen at all levels, not just at high end. Sometimes it can be really difficult to say why one sword is listed at 500,000 yen and another one for 700,000 yen. I was about to dig up some reference example where the same seller has listed blades from the same school at various price points. As a fun fact I have recorded Aoi Art selling 46 different mumei Ko-Mihara blades. Here are 3 blades from my cherished northern Hōju school that all have been listed at Eirakudo and all papered as Tokubetsu Hozon by NBTHK, and all are in shirasaya so koshirae does not complicate things. As a fun fact N. 1 & 3 have also been at other dealers at different price point. 1: Tachi 78,1 cm : 2,000,000 yen : https://eirakudo.shop/token/wakizashi/detail/368087 2: Katana 79,1 cm : 2,600,000 yen : https://eirakudo.shop/806442 3: Katana 72,8 cm : 1,300,000 yen : https://eirakudo.shop/099872 If all items were equally priced I would pick them in order 3,2,1. I do like the number 3 most because of the strong shape. It has the strong Nanbokuchō profile that I like. I think the description for this one is good and there are of course some rougher areas on the blade that don't look that nice. There is one bit nasty delamination in kissaki that pop ups a bit, I could live with stuff like that but for many it might be annoying. Number 3 has also appeared on Samurai Museum for roughly 1,800,000 yen https://www.samuraimuseum.jp/shop/product/antique-Japanese-sword-katana-unsigned-hojyu-nbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-certificate-2/ and at Winners for price unknown to me https://www.winners-auction.jp/productDetail/99960 2 is the most expensive one and one that I have not yet seen anywhere else, it is recent 2025 Tokubetsu Hozon. This one has long length of 79,1 cm and in the sales ad it is mentioned this is ō-suriage. Long supposedly ō-suriage blades like this are always making my brain hurt. As then this would be an ōdachi originally and to me this does not really have the general vibe that ōdachi have. This is quite narrow sword in profile with little curvature. I know there is a hole at the bottom of the nakago but in my mind I see the middle most likely area for the original hole, so I would just see this as suriage sword and not ō-suriage. I would see this being bit similar to sword number one and both being late Kamakura period tachi originally. I am just comparing because I do have plenty of reference Hōju tachi that are in 80 to 88 cm range. I could very well see this being bit over 80 cm originally but struggle to see something like 95 cm. This does seem to have best polish of the bunch and most details are visible compared to other 2. To my eye sword also seems to be of the best quality out of all 3, the forging seems much finer than on other two. Even though you can see the pattern well it is still well made. I know Hōju often gets touted off as rough looking but Tokyo National Museum has Hōju tachi that has very fine forging. Number 1 is a decent tachi. I just can't personally see it desirable at this price point. Of course I have looked at Hōju tachi for probably over 10 years now and seen many nice ones pop up to market and going usually rather fast. I don't agree with the age estimate that is written on shirasaya and what sword shop also states 元暦 (Genryaku was 1184-85). I don't think this is late Heian - early Kamakura sword. In my opinion this is rather late Kamakura - early Nanbokuchō sword. I know that Hōju swords get often touted as really early ones, however as I have done research on them I believe there are only extremely few of the that actually date to early Kamakura. The one that I believe would be the perhaps the oldest one is the Jūyō Bunkazai tachi of Seikadō Bunko Art Museum (unfortunately haven't seen that one in person yet). The majority of Hōju school works are from late Kamakura period to early Muromachi period. I do think in the pictures this looks "hazy" and bit difficult to see the details. This tachi was later at Aoi Art and was listed for 1,200,000 yen https://www.aoijapan.com/tachi-mumei-attributed-to-hoju-nbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/ unfortunately Aoi now removes their listings (I can totally understand why they do it but it is too bad for saving information). Even though this is ubu tachi and in general I cherish original size, I just can't see myself liking this sword a lot. Now this is just a one opinion and other people might feel totally different and that is the fun part of the hobby. We don't need to like the same stuff. I think number 2 is the best item out of the bunch, number 1 closest to original, number 3 is the lowest in quality but to me best in form.

The mei bun - jidai column gives it to den Jumyo from around Kanbun.

Title is just a title, not a nobility. Think of it as incorporating protective spirits of a province, rather than as a lord (lit. defender) of it. Its more esoteric in roots, i.e. there were some swordsmiths and actually fittings makers who were outright capable of conferring protection or invisibility (similar things). For a long time however bushi was a blood distinction. You had to descend from the north, from people who went away with the first Minamotos, or at least claim so. Again, Japan is a society where a paper from the current Shogun testifying it is so carries more practical weight than most historical documents. You could be adopted and thus become samurai, but it was not too common, if only because you have a system where the clan lives off some income which is held officially by one person. And in Edo period court standing on inheritance claims against such adoptees became a bit more stringent. P.S. Suketaka is a major smith, but goes in the background of nidai Sukehiro whom he imitated. Sukehiro, Sukenao, Suketaka.

There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent. [Mao Zedong] Maybe the pieces in hand would narrow down a decision? Nope! It isn't science, it's a kind of kult. The experts don't consent even on the kind of birds... (clearly karigane, not chidori, IMHO).

Hi guys, Here is something interesting to show you. A set of f/k awarded to Kamiya Dōichi, by Lord Chimura Nakashige(千村仲展) in 1868. Who was Kamiya Dōichi: Kamiya Dōichi(神谷道一) Known by the courtesy name Shikan and the art name Kansai. He was a Karō (Chief Retainer) of the Chimura family(Hatamoto), Kukuri Domain of Nōshū [Mino Province], during the Restoration. During the Hokueutsu War (part of the Boshin War), he was dispatched as the Commander of the Second Unit. After the Restoration, he became a Negi (senior priest) at the Minami-gu National Shrine. Subsequently, he entered service in Gifu Prefecture, where he was tasked with the editing of historical records. In 1879, he became the first District Governor of Kani, and later served as the District Governor for Ena, Ono, Mashita, and Yoshiki. He resigned from office in 1885 and authored works such as the "Sekigahara Senki" (Chronicle of the Battle of Sekigahara). Translations made by Gemini so I'm expecting some errors, but you'll get the idea. Award for the Echigo Military Campaign. Plum Blossom Fuchi-Kashira. One Set. Meiji 1, Year of the Earth Dragon [1868], November 15th. From the village of Kukuri in Tōnō [Eastern Mino Province]. Humbly received from Lord Chimura Nakashige. [Signed] Kamiya Dōichi. At the time of the Meiji Restoration, the Kukuri Domain of Nōshū [Mino Province] joined the Imperial Army and dispatched troops to Echigo. My ancestor, Kamiya Dōichi, served as a military inspector and fought bravely. Upon his victorious return, the Lord of the Domain, Chimura Nakashige, rewarded his distinguished service by granting him this. From there, it was passed down to my late father, Yoshimichi. The writing remaining on the lid of this case was brushed by the old master Kansai Dōichi. Having escaped the war damages of the 20th year of Showa (1945), it still exists today. It should be deeply revered. Recorded by his grandson, Yasuhiko. Enjoy!

It's not signed, Viktor. Here you go:

Since Jūyō shinsa operates differently and is significantly more expensive than Hozon or Tokubetsu Hozon, it can sometimes feel somewhat unpredictable. If a session is particularly strong, with many exceptional blades submitted, the competition becomes very intense, and a blade may fail to pass if it does not stand out even among already outstanding works. So, it may not pass the first time, but could be resubmitted a second, third time... As a result, the process can be quite time/cost consuming for dealers. And as Robert pointed out, if the name and attribution stand out already, it can be enough, even without Jūyō papers or above...

Uwe is correct. 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.

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).

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

Yes, Ron you are correct. That is a police sword. The few I have seen have been late war.

John, I am asking basics to help assess the blade. A signature does not tell all that might be necessary, and if you want competent comments, we need good photos in the first place. As we strongly object any DIY polishing attempts, the actual condition of a blade is of interest and importance. The little that I can see on the less than ideal photos (maybe due to my old eyes) lead me to suspect that the blade was not traditionally polished. Usually, this leads to severe damage and loss of value. So please excuse my critical questions, but I think they were justified to come to useful answers to your inquiry.

Here’s a pic or two I took about 7 years ago, before the owner sold it. The nick

One of our NBTHK members is a Bizen potter and after much effort he eventually succeeded in making a full-sized version in fired clay. Another member creates detailed exact-scale copies in wood, down to the nick in the blade edge. These are not cheap but there is a waiting list for his work, the Sanchōmō and other famous blades. Even the Mei are faithfully chiselled in.

An example from the Ashmolean museum EA1978.250 The size of the hole may have been altered even more, to be used as a maedate "crest" but I think it was first used for a practice sword. Another opinion of the useage here: http://www.nihonto.us/ONIN NAGAMAKI TSUBA.htm But I think it more likely these were used on wooden practice swords as others have stated This one - is anyones guess - not suitable for a practice sword - maybe a maedate. [or a bottle opener ! ] one in this group of twenty https://www.jauce.com/auction/x1224304881 [probably the only one of any interest!]

Images designed to make it look dramatic without really showing anything (as Uwe says above). That alone makes me very suspicious. Also the black finish on the shikoro does not look like old lacquer. Also the “gold” plates on the shikoro are heavily worn but the lacing looks brand new. Also the missing rivets holding shikoro to hachi suggest it does not fit correctly…..possibly a marriage? I am also a novice collector of armour and my opinion is worth little but I try to look closely at images to spot things that make me nervous. To my uneducated eye this looks highly dubious. Parts may well be old but………

Just picked this up. A 1934 paper weight commemorating the birthday of Crown Prince Akihito. John C.

Here's the one I got, quite happy with it. I would have loved number 27 or 58, but the bidding went up too quickly. Here's mine, from the Tenhô school.

Mauro, your sentiment basically captures one of the principal driving forces in posting this thread in the first place. It's a thought that can't be ignored the more you go down the rabbit hole of trying to sort out the mess of attributions and sometimes outlandish papers that exist (yes, even the new ones... not just the old green ones). Another point that really needs consideration is that the classification system itself is inadequate when it comes to assigning attributions. That's exactly why attributions seems to be subject to whims and fads and "cultism" of sorts. As the system stands at the moment, it's far far away from being a "science". It's only by gathering more evidence and really gathering up a strong database that we'll be able to do enough comparative analysis to really break things down into proper groupings and many more "sub-groupings" than currently exist. Some of these sub-groupings may never get a genuine name to hang on them, but I genuinely feel that could slowly tease out some more specific attributions that could even point to a specific smith's work (regardless of whether they fall under a larger category's umbrella or just shows an "influence" from one or more groups). But hopefully we can put together enough visual resources to point to see to say, "yup this is one of that guy's pieces". One day... but I sincerely hope we can all start slowly chipping away at it, one grouping at a time.

The shop name is 都幾川美術 - Tokigawa art.

This the one Dale mentioned

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

Nothing stops smiths adding various elements and other materials while forging it, to get the desired characteristics. It's not like they are forbidden from altering the recipe while they forge. I don't think it's a huge problem.

@Wah Thank you for this information Stephen, I have not heard about these magazines. They seem extremely interesting and it could be a fun project trying to get these magazines from Japan. This thread is wonderful, so much information that is not easily available. I believe this one would be the tachi you posted above. The 99,1 cm length listed in the Japanese site: https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkazai/torimodosou/kunishitei/106.html would actually be the total length of the item and not the blade length as I thought it would be.

Lots and lots of photos of the Yamatorige starting to appear across the interwebs. Actually a lot of fun reading the comments and seeing the excitement in the people posting and responding to the pictures.