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

Sorry to reopen such an old thread more than 13 years after the oldest post but I wanted to share this kozuka I recently purchased. It is signed Aki Masa [Haynes 00041.0].

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

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.

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.

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 recently acquired a Gassan wakizashi (Hozon - Gassan) and would like to learn more about it. I would greatly appreciate your insight into identifying the period and any additional details you may notice. Thank you, and my apologies in advance for the photos.

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!

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

Because it’s an award, it’s recognition, who doesn’t want recognition of their work? Samuel Colt is considered a pioneer for his work in bringing the revolver firearm mass assembly into reality. That all on its own was a great accomplishment, but do you think he turned down the Silver Telford Medal? Of course not, why would anyone turn down an award. But that award gave him no more standing or value than he would have had without it. Awards are awards……..perhaps more valuable to romantics of history than the actual recipients.

Jared, I’m sorry the information provided about titles didn’t meet your expectations. We are all here because we care about Nihonto. What’s historically important to the broader study of Nihonto isn’t always the same as what’s culturally or artistically worth preserving and respecting. All of it matters to most of us, and we feel strongly about it. With any fine art, there’s a spectrum of importance. The Mona Lisa’s significance doesn’t negate the value of a family heirloom or an older painting with more personal meaning. -Sam

Changing the subject just for a moment, but loving the thoughts of woodworkers above! Last night I was watching a programme about restoring some of the walls and ceilings of a gorgeously appointed Bunkazai temple residence somewhere in Japan. (Missed the beginning so not sure where exactly it was.) Imagine large connected tatami rooms in Nijo Jo with colourful Kano-painted fusuma and wall panels, golden, with black-lacquered beams and gold fittings everywhere. That kind of place. One problem which the priest pointed out was a long vertical split in the samite gold cloth trimming down the right side of a sliding panel. They introduced the young artisan expert, wearing a backpack of tools, who assured us he would repair it in the traditional way as he had learned from his father and grandfather before him. The guy spread out a small plastic sheet on the tatami and placed upon it his minimal tool set. He opened a small Tupperware tub and showed us the glistening 'nori' rice-paste glue, the same as traditionally used by schoolchildren. "Repairs may have to be conducted again in the same place in the future" he explained, "so nothing permanent". "In fact," he added, pulling away some yellowed paper residue from out of the crack with his tweezers, "you can see how someone has done this before." He painted the Nori glue onto both sides of a hand-sized sheet of plastic, and slipped it under the edge of the gold cloth fabric, pressing it down with some brown paper as he withdrew his slide. Half an hour of repeating this process, and he declared himself finished. Could we see the line of the 'repair', well, yes, even as the camera crew said "no". Next we moved to a high-ceilinged corridor where one square-framed ceiling panel had a similar fabric split across the painting of flowers. He climbed an A-frame stepladder and used the same process over another half an hour. The after photo still showed a hairline crack and some discolouration where the Nori had seeped through(?) but at least the material was flat, stuck back in place. Educational? Yes, for me it was.

源市太　MINAMOTO Ichita Minamoto Ichita was a swordsmith from the 1600s. No idea if the signature is genuine or not.

Dear Joseph. It is perfectly understandable that you are looking for the type of boshi but there is a problem. When you read the texts they seem to suggest that there are discreet types of boshi and even that they can lead you to a specific smith. This is sometimes true, the example that Chris gave of a Mishina boshi being a case in point. Mishina being the name of the school. In some swords you would certainly expect a specific boshi as confirmation of the smith however in many others this classification by type does not work. To quote from Markus in Shinto and Shinshinto Kantei, "....on the omote side a shallow notare komi with a pointed and rather long kaeri, on the ura side a more sugu based notare with some ko gunome which turns into a jizo like and short ko maru kaeri. there is hakikake on both sides." It is useful to think of the types displayed in text books as just that, text book examples. What they are giving you is a vocabulary with which to describe the features of the hamon in the kissaki. (The same thing can be said for almost any other feature of a sword.) With some swords the description might be short and sweet, something like suguha with komaru and short kaeri, sometimes not. From what I can see in your photographs your sword does not have a nice tight nioi guchi running into the kissaki and so the description might be more convoluted. Feel free to wax lyrical in your description of the boshi on your sword. I hope that helps rather than hinders. All the best.

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.

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

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:

Have been digging a little deeper into Gō Yoshihiro blades recently - hoping to share more soon but in the mean time I found a really interesting article written in 2020 by Kurobe City that puts some flesh onto this mysterious, legendary sword smith. In the article they share some pretty incredible stories, myths and legends and even some stories and pictures from his descendants the Gō family. Yes, turns out the origin of the name Gō apparently comes from his surname Gō(郷) and it was not Gō(江) which is now used for his swords and that is only one of the amazing and super interesting tit-bits found in this article. I hope you enjoy reading this as much as I did. After reading it, it kind of reminded me a little of that line from Braveheart, where it is said William Wallace shot lightning bolts from his arse - that is, like all good stories there is a sense of blurring the lines between myth, legend and reality but with so little available on this enigmatic man and because we all love hearing a good story I am so grateful that these oral traditions have been collated and shared. As they say, there is always a little truth in the rumour. Enjoy. Gō Yoshihiro - The Master Swordsmith who created famous swords in Matsukura-Gō, Niigawa-gun, Etchū By Kurobe City (May 13, 2020) Gō Yoshihiro The Three Great Works Many mysteries surround the life of Gō Yoshihiro, one of the "Three Great Swordsmiths of Japan." He was a samurai who lived during the Kamakura period, estimated to have been born in 1298 (Einin 6) and died in 1325 (Shōchū 2). In his short life, he made a name for himself as a sword smith and left behind many excellent works. Although Yoshihiro's swords do not bear his signature, their high quality makes them unmistakable, and they were favoured by Sengoku warlords, including Toyotomi Hideyoshi. In the Edo period's "Kyoho Meibutsucho" a catalogue of famous swordsmiths), he is counted among the greatest three sword smiths of all time (the "The Nihon San Saku"), and his reputation remains unshaken to this day. The "Three Great Swordsmiths of Japan" refers to three sword smiths: Awataguchi Yoshimitsu (1229-1291), Gōrō Nyūdō Masamune (1264-1343), and Gō Yoshihiro. While Masamune and Yoshimitsu were professional swordsmiths, Yoshihiro was a samurai. For Yoshihiro, sword smithing was a hobby, and he died at the age of 27 (by traditional Japanese reckoning), so his time as a sword smith was extremely short. However, through his innate talent and extraordinary effort, he produced masterpieces of divine beauty. The Nihon San Saku Scroll with Gō Yoshihiro (top left), Masamune (middle right) and Yoshimitsu (bottom right). Loyalist and anti-shogunate patriot Gō Yoshihiro, was said to be a loyalist and anti-shogunate activist, who lived in Matsukura-go, Niikawa-gun, Etchū Province (present-day Uozu City). Some documents suggest he was the Lord of Matsukura Castle, but the details are unclear. At the end of the Kamakura period, when public order was in disarray and the shogunate was losing its ability to govern, Yoshihiro was a samurai under Inoue Toshikiyo, the deputy Gōvernor of Etchū Province, and there is a theory that he secretly harboured loyalist and anti-shogunate aspirations together with Toshikiyo and was acting in secret. Gō Yoshihiro, a samurai who became a nationally renowned swordsmith at a young age, went to Kamakura at the age of 21 and became an apprentice to Masamune. There, he honed his sword-making skills while also gathering intelligence on the shogunate's activities. However, the shogunate learned of Emperor Go-Daigo's plot to overthrow the shogunate, and the emperor's close associates were exiled or placed under house arrest (Shōchū Incident, 1324), and pursuers were sent throughout the country. It remains a mystery whether Gō Yoshihiro, who had returned to Matsukura in Etchū Province, committed suicide to avoid implicating his Lord Toshikiyo and Masamune, or whether he was captured and executed as a samurai close to the imperial court. What we do know is the remaining Gō family fled Matsukura with their family temple and moved to what is now Kurobe City, where they became ordinary blacksmiths. This is a hanging scroll depicting Fudo Myoo (Acala), has been passed down through the Gō family. Family tradition says it once hung in Gō Yoshihiro’s forge. The Legend of Inamuragasaki After the death of Gō Yoshihiro, Emperor Go-Daigo regained power in various regions, and in 1333 (Genko 3), Nitta Yoshisada finally attacked Kamakura. However, Kamakura was a natural stronghold, surrounded by mountains on three sides and protected by the sea in front. Unable to make progress, Yoshisada advanced to Inamuragasaki to try to attack from the sea, but his path was blocked by sheer cliffs, and furthermore, enemy ships were waiting offshore, firing arrows, so he could not break through. In the Taiheiki, it is said that at this time Yoshisada prayed to the dragon god and threw his golden-mounted sword into the sea, and the tide went out, moving the ships far away and removing the threat of arrows, so he was able to easily cross the coastline and attack, and brilliantly defeated the shogunate army. It is suggested the sword that was thrown into the sea in this episode of the attack on Kamakura may have been a sword presented by Gō Yoshihiro to Yoshisada. It is believed that Gō Yoshihiro was well-versed in astronomy and knowledgeable about the ebb and flow of tides. The story is told that he informed Nitta Yoshisada of the timing of low tide when he sent him the sword, and Yoshisada used that information 8 years later to launch his attack... if this is true, then Gō Yoshihiro was indeed a brilliant strategist! Inamuragasaki cliffs A rare sword The highly sought-after and nationally treasured sword "Inaba-Gō" is considered the finest masterpiece among Gō Yoshihiro's works. "Tomita-Gō" is considered its equal, and is also designated a national treasure. Gō "江" refers to Gō"郷", and five other swords by him—"Kuwana-Gō," "Matsui-Gō," "Murakumo-Gō," "Buzen-Gō," and "Samidare-Gō"—are designated as important cultural properties. His early works show influences from older schools such as the Yamato-den (Nara) and Yamashiro-den (Kyoto), but after studying under Masamune, he based his style on the Soshu-den (Kamakura), resulting in a refined, bright, and brilliantly beautiful style. Yoshihiro's aesthetic sense is also reflected in the blade patterns, some of which depict the landscape of the Tateyama mountain range. Because Yoshihiro's swords were favoured by warlords during the Sengoku period, most of them were treasured possessions and never seen by the public. As they were moved from place to place, many were destroyed by fire or lost. "Kurikara-Gō," said to be the beloved sword of Akechi Mitsuhide, is one of those that went missing during the turbulent times. The more we learn about the many legends surrounding him, the more we regret that Yoshihiro did not live longer. Gō Yoshihiro's swords bear no inscriptions. There are various theories as to why, including: "He was not a blacksmith who made swords for sale, but a samurai (or nobleman)"; "He often presented the swords he made as gifts, and he hesitated to assert his own identity by inscribing his name to the recipient (a person of high rank)"; and "He had absolute confidence in the swords he made, and believed that anyone who knew would be convinced that they were Gō Yoshihiro's works." We can only imagine Gō Yoshihiro's character from the works he left behind and fragmented anecdotes. Kokuho: Inaba Gō National Treasure author turned into musical In 2014, a musical featuring this great sword smith as the protagonist was performed in Uozu. Toshiro Kitahara (representative of Hatena no Machi Concert), who was in charge of production, faced a lack of materials and various difficulties, and at one point almost gave up on making the work. However, he persevered with his research, completed everything from the script to the direction from scratch, and successfully staged the performance. Flyer for the Gō Yoshihiro Musical in 2014 Memorial monument The monument to Gō Yoshihiro stands near the main keep of Matsukura Castle. It was erected to honour the 26th generation descendent of Yoshihiro who died in the line of duty in 1985 who wished such a monument erected - a wish that was fulfilled by his mother Gō Toki and the City of Uozu. It is the last known monument to be erected for one of Masamune's Ten Disciples (Masamune Jittetsu). A monument modelled after a Japanese sword anvil was also built next to it. Not many people know that Etchū Province was once a centre for sword production or that sword smith Gō Yoshihiro existed, but recently, games that personify swords have ignited a Japanese sword boom, and attention to Gō Yoshihiro has been increasing. Gō Yoshihiro only lived in his hometown Matsukura for a few years after returning from Kamakura. Although there is very little evidence of interaction with the local community and no detailed records or historical documents, it is certain that Matsukura-go in Niikawa-gun is the place where many famous swords, including his national treasures, were created. Even after 700 years, his extraordinary talent and story continues to fascinate people. Monument to Gō Yoshihiro erected by his descendants and Uozo City at Matsukura Castle in Niigawa-gun, Uozu We would like to thank Toshiro Kitahara, who is the concert representative of Hatena Town and produced the Uozu hometown musical "Gō Yoshihiro" for sharing so much information about Gō Yoshihiro. [References] Toyama Prefecture Shimoshinkawa District Office, “Shimoshinigawa County History, Vol. 2” (1908) Toyama Prefecture Youth Activities Practical Council, “People Shining in the Local Area, Vol. 1” (1962) Uozu City History Compilation Committee, “Uozu City History, Vol. 1” (1962) Nobuaki Tamagawa, “Toyama Photography Portraits” (1975) Junji Okuda and Hiroshi Yonehara, “Etchū People (Toyama Bunko 11)” (1976) Toyama Shimbun, “Etchu Hyakuke, Volume 2” (1981) Koji Nojima, “Shinkawa Monogatari” (1987) Monthly Uozu Doujinsha “Legend Uozu” (1988) Toyama Social Studies Education Research Group, “The People Who Built Toyama Prefecture” (1985) Matsukura Promotion Association, “Jusan no Sato (No. 13) Special Feature on Yoshihiro Gō” (1993) Junji Okuda, “Illustrated History of Uozu, Kurobe, and Shimoshinkawa” (2000) Hometown Development Research Institute, “Kaleidoscope No. 218 Swordsmith” Yoshihiro Gō” (2010) Toyama Prefectural Board of Education “Stories of People from Hometown and Yama” (2011) Hatena Town Concert “9th Uozu Hometown Musical Yoshihiro Gō” (2014) The original Japanese version of this article can be found on the Korobe City website here.

Perhaps it might be a generalization but I think tanto sized tsuba are underrated - they require as much [or even more] work to construct, but most collectors tend to concentrate on larger guards. Bigger is not necessarily better. Maybe we need a magnifying lens mounted over these little fellows to give them the credit they deserve?

Yes indeed Mauro. In fact it is my third kozuka with the same topic! ( from Internet: Lovely scene of the warrior Kojima Takanori kneeling beneath a cherry tree, having just written a poem on a tree's trunk. Takanori was a loyal supporter of the exiled Emperor Go-Daigo, and attempted to rescue him while he was being transported to a remote location. The samurai was able to sneak into the camp, but could not reach the emperor, so according to legend, he carved a poem of encouragement in Chinese for the emperor on a cherry tree. In the morning, the guards found the poem but could not read Chinese, but the emperor could, and was heartened by the message. A shower of delicate petals falls down over him in the cool evening breeze, and a full moon glows softly overheard.)

Look at the Kamon on Shibata Katsuie’s kimono.

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.

Back to direction of the wings... ughhh I give up LOL Sometimes they appear to have their wings arcing forward, especially when they seem to be taking a power stroke to get going: But then most of time they appear to have their wings arced backward, especially when they seem to be coasting/gliding: And there is also viewing angle and perspective to factor into it, which could alter the viewer's perception... so, um

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 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).

I just found this in the second volume of „Hyaku Tsuba“ by chance: Not the same, but a similar design. Only the front is depicted. The hitsu-ana, however, are thicker than on the piece in question. The text says „Mumei Echizen“. Maybe it helps.

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.

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

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

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).

The only thing that stands in the way of this book being an instant recommendation for any newbie is its rarity and price - it was a limited print run and copies now are hard to find and expensive (especially if you don't live in the same country as the seller). Fortunately, Dmitry has generously made most of the content available online, and instead the web version can be recommended, with the advantage of being free and instantly viewable on any web-capable device: https://www.nihonto-museum.com/

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.

The examples I provided are all from papered tsuba, and all NBTHK papers reported the subjects as karigane. The stylized birds with "twisted body' are reported as 結雁金 - musubikarigane.