Leaderboard

慶應四年七月日 = on a day in the seventh month of of Keiō 4 (1868 CE) 水府 稲延徳正作 = Suifu Inanobe Norimasa saku

This above is a good point for people to always bear in mind; first and foremost the workmanship and traits should underpin our understanding, followed by the (secondary) view of the signature. In the last 20-30 years, long since the great Koza publication was written, scholarship has moved a bit in relation to the multi-generational theory and lately single-generation interpretations often prevail where previously there was a strict separation about some smiths (often the case in Bizen Osafune for example). Various examples include Mitsutada, Nagamitsu but also Kunimune etc. Moving on to how many zaimei Shintogo tachi exist. With regard to the zaimei Shintogo Kunimitsu tachi…well, there are more than one. Of course they are a great rarity but I think I have records of 5-6 such zaimei tachi. And it is very possible that Jussi might have unearthed more with his visits to shrines and temples and perusal of old records. I attach some of the examples I have records of. Of these, on a couple of occasions, I have been privileged to hold and study the last blade (TokuJu, one ana). It is an extremely fine blade, with sophisticated and fine jiba and in no way inferior to his tanto ( I have studied some in hand and various behind glass). So, I am not sure to which [inferior ibid.] tachi the Koza refers in the excerpt above.

They might be Obikazari (帯飾り) - Sash ornament. Ref. 銀製ぶら（帯飾り）｜珍しい和装の装身具（アクセサリー）｜オリジナル帯飾りクリップ（プレート）付き | べっ甲かんざし･髪飾り･和装小物専門店 銀座かなめ屋

(Owner’s address and name) 和歌山縣伊都郡河根村大字河根 – Wakayama-ken, Ito-gun, Kane-mura, O’aza Kane 亀澗光治 – Kametani Koji/Mitsuji/Mitsuharu 三品義明 – Mishina Yoshiaki - One of WWII smiths in Seki

Thanks to everyone who contributed in here. As a final update, after carefully considering everything said here, I have put in an order for a different blade that I have been eyeing for a while. A Gorozaemon-no-jo Kiyomitsu masterpiece, fully signed, dated (1537) and ubu, with all the workmanship and style I was looking for. @Scogg and @Hoshi special thanks for your posts.

Hi John, Suifu (水府) is the name of a village in Hitachi province. The formatting of this mei is slightly unusual, with the two characters of Suifu being arranged horizontally (and read right-to-left) at the top, and one would ordinarily also expect them to be followed by "住", but I guess the smith took some artistic licence here.

京城府中區本町 – Keijo-fu Chuku Honmachi 四丁目一六番地 – 4-chome, 16-banchi 堀内吾郎　所有 – Horiuchi Goro, shoyu Ref. Keijō - Wikipedia

Gents Dore and Reese an auction house in the uk has an auction of swords and fittings on the 15th of November there are over 100 pieces for sale. Even if you are not in the market to buy anything you could do worse than spend a pleasant hour looking at the items for sale. This link will take you to the auction the swords and fittings start at lot 701 https://auctions.doreandrees.com/catalogue/81A7582615F99A2E3774098876CAACFC/AD74375B82A358E6EEF0CE537DEF266D/fine-Japanese-art-including-the-eva-aubrey-sweet-collect/ Regards Mike

Yes, it's true! I am afraid to buy a sword tassel unless it shows considerable wear and has a bit of damage here or there indicating it is from WWll era. Especially when considering a higher priced field grade tassel let alone a general's tassel. What a racket, many of these reproduction tassels are getting so good it's terrifying to spend big money only to find it is a well-made reproduction. As collectors, I suspect most of us want the nicest looking item we can find, there it is, nicely folded pristine in a box, have to have it only to discover its a well-made reproduction. They get your money, then sellers claim...not know fake, not know fake, your fault you judge. John (psnshogun) has made much appreciated attempt to help with how to properly identify fake from real but I still find it difficult to confidently tell the difference in many cases. Particularly in photos as it is impossible to have the tassel in hand. John has mentioned he is preparing a guideline as how to identify real from reproduction. Hopefully, he will share it soon.., Dave

Kris, pic better this way. More on swordsmith (also see Naval Swords part 1 in NMB Downloads at top of page for examples) Looks to be well made and saya looks interesting custom work? Kanenaga, Amaike Ginjiro (包永天池 銀次郎) (older brother of Masatsune) born 4 September, 1884 (Showa 17), registered as Seki smith at Seki 15 June, 1941 (Showa 16) and living at Daimon-cho, Seki-machi. He may not have made (many) Navy swords. Kanenaga died March 8th 1958 (Showa 33, his posthumous Buddhist name was Enkaku Chikyō (円覚智鏡). Common mei: Nōshū Seki no jū Kanenaga kore saku (濃州関之住包永作之), Kanenaga (包永)

That is a difficult and highly subjective discussion. It is fraught with problems such as: - what is an “artistic merit” and who judges that? - how can we isolate “artistic merit” from eg engineering and structural integrity, balance, cutting ability etc - why are we trying to assume consistent application of standards over the last 60 odd years of shinsa judgements, when in reality there were different panels with different views / weights and slightly different absolute and relative criteria? I posit that it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions over the entire period NBTHK judgements have been conferred. And that is fine. They have evolved as has the subject. For instance, I noticed that in the “problematic” 1970s, when there was some rampant Juyo issuance, a number of Juyo certificates were issued to swords made by Ichige Tokurin. See one such example below. In my view, his swords are not pretty and do not have artistic merit. The hamon is plain, the whole execution uninspiring.. Yes, he was interesting in that he was a samurai retainer who turned swordsmith. But do his swords have historic importance or artistic merit? In my humble view not really.

I found something from an old European book on Japanese design - unfortunately no information about what it actually is! An image found on a now non working site.

Hi David, unfortunately this appears to be a Chinese fake. The style of the handle wrap, fittings, and tang, are all wrong and rather crude.

A recent acquisition. I thought the gold hirazogan inlay was rather nice and reminded me of some of the work of Umetada Myoju (rightly or wrongly) and the Umetada school in general (but perhaps a bit “stiffer”?) The inlay is done with remarkable precision and has a bit of a katakiribori painterly style about it. It seems exceptionally heavy in hand for its size suggesting a good quality shakudo plate. Out of interest, if the gold content in the shakudo was just 5% that alone would be nearly £700 at todays values! The maker, Tohdo (Ozaki Tohdo) is an Edo period artist around 1775-1800 per Haynes and he had some obvious talent. Hirazogan is generally regarded as a more demanding technique than Takazogan. There is no room for even minor errors as they become clearly evident when the smooth flush surface receives its final polishing. Anyone else see Umetada influences?….or am I barking up the proverbial tree?

Kirk, better to read this way, and summary from Sesko: KATSUMASA (勝正), Tottori – “Hōki Kanaya Katsumasa saku” (伯耆金谷勝正作), “Hōki-jū Kanaya Katsumasa kore o saku” (伯耆住金谷勝正作之), family name Kanaya (金谷), he also engraved a single coin crest onto his tangs, jōkō no retsu (Akihide), Second Seat at the 6th Shinsaku Nihontō Denrankai (新作日本刀 展覧会, 1941)

“伯耆住金谷勝正作” (Hōki jū Kanaya Katsumasa saku). Dated “Shōwa 16” (1941)

Here you have a Umetada school to compare with. Umetada - 埋忠鐔.Joshu Nishijin Ju Umetada Shigeyoshi

The provincial capital of Hitachi province (常陸國) was Mito (水戸). Suifu (水府) was another name for Mito.

I am late to this thread and will have to read it in more depth to see if I can add any value. For now, here is one I have owned for a while. Thought it has gotten some surprising interactions out of tsuba scholars smarter than me, I have never inquired too much.

I was thinking it was some kind of tool/device used in dyeing kimono fabrics. They used to wash kimono fabric in cold river waters to "set" the dye. But, it doesn't look like a drying table or dyeing table (like the one below), which is kind of close, but somehow not right. The one on the tsuba looks like some implement used to roll up fabric. Anyway, my guess is some device used in silk weaving or dyeing/washing. https://icac.or.jp/public/culture/tool/

Maybe an interesting point of view by Mitsuru Ito (rougly translated, probably some small faults in there) February 9, 2025 Nittoho Yamanashi Branch Regular Meeting About the Hitsu-ana Holes on Tsuba 1. No Hitsu Late Heian to Late Edo Period These are the originals, and old tsuba no hitsu are highly valued. 2. Square and Yamagata These are old, elegant shapes with a taste that are suited to thin kozuka and kogai, and originals are rare. Kamakura (?) to Early Muromachi Period Square and Low Suhama Shape 3. Square and low Suhama shape Kamakura?~Early Muromachi period This is also an old and elegant shape suited to thin Kozuka and Kogai, and there are few originals remaining. It is thought to have originated from the same period as 2. 4. Thin half-moon shape and low Suhama shape Kamakura? ~ mid-Muromachi period This is also an old, elegant shape with a taste that is suited to thin kozuka and kogai, and there are few originals remaining. It is thought to have originated from the same period as 2 and 3. During the time of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu. 5. Both hitsuana are thin and crescent-shaped. This shape is seen in Kyoto porcelain from the Northern and Southern Courts (Nambokucho) to the mid-early Muromachi period. It is also seen in older armor makers. It is also found in Kamakura, Owari, and Koshoami. 6. Both hitsuana are Suhama-gata. This style is seen in many tsuba from the Momoyama period. This style was seen in Hirata Hikozo, and continued to be made in Higo afterwards. 7. Thick crescent shape and high Suhama shape are the most common shapes from the late Muromachi period to the late Edo period. Slightly slender ones are from the Muromachi period. In the time of Goto Norimasa, there were also ones with large cabinets to accommodate larger poles.

I think Brano made a good comment that the majority of Jūyō swords come from pretty small number of smiths. It is just NBTHK style of appreciation. Now the Kotō portion of Jūyō passes usually pretty much looks like this Few Awataguchi A lot of Rai Few Hasebe Few Nobukuni Quite a bunch of variety of 5 Yamato schools Few Shintōgo / Yukimitsu Maybe Masamune / Sadamune / Hiromitsu / Akihiro Some Shizu / Naoe Shizu Few Nanbokuchō / Muromachi Mino Few Tametsugu Few Norishige / Gō Some Ko-Bizen Lot of Ichimonji Some Osafune mainline Few Hatakeda / Ukai Few Motoshige Bunch of Sōden-Bizen Bunch of sideline Bizen Some Muromachi Bizen Few Ko-Aoe Bunch of Aoe Few Ko-Mihara Bunch of Sa school works Few Enju To me this above is not all that exciting as it happens year after year, I want to find unique an interesting pieces passing. For example a jō-saku smith that I like for some reason is Taira Nagamori (長盛). However there are only 2 wakizashi by him that have ever passed Jūyō. To me it would be much more important to have 3rd sword by him pass the shinsa than 190th Mumei Taima blade or 216th Mumei Aoe blade. Unfortunately NBTHK does not really value Bungo stuff (Excluding Yukihira and Sadahide). I was thrilled to see a first blade by Bungo Norisada pass in Jūyō 67. I do not have the art eye for details but even I must admit that many of the mumei Jūyō items are actually stunning swords and well deserving the Jūyō title. It is just my personal feeling that too much suriage mumei stuff pass. I would rather steer more passes towards very good quality signed work by Muromachi period smiths than bulk of suriage mumei Kamakura/Nanbokuchō stuff over and over again. Still it is NBTHK's game and their rules apply. There are even Tokubetsu Jūyō swords that are in my opinion not awarded by their artistic merit but rather extremely valuable historical value. Then in my personal opinion there are also the opposites where just the artistic merit pushes the sword up to Tokubetsu Jūyō level as to me the sword itself is not that interesting just the workmanship is stunning. I have seen both variations in person, and it is just personal opinion and quite possibly I might not understand the intricate details.

Noshu Seki ju Kojima Katsumasa saku. https://www.google.com/search?q="katsumasa"+site%3Amilitaria.co.za%2Fnmb&sca_esv=466299774e926d41&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1136US1136&sxsrf=AE3TifMzTHJWEbwPPAiDq7onW05EExDk_Q%3A1761223903873&ei=3yT6aIuENeuFwbkPmPPyuQo&ved=0ahUKEwjL76OprrqQAxXrQjABHZi5PKcQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq="katsumasa"+site%3Amilitaria.co.za%2Fnmb&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJCJrYXRzdW1hc2EiIHNpdGU6bWlsaXRhcmlhLmNvLnphL25tYkjosQFQxW1YlK8BcAJ4AJABAJgBPKABxAOqAQE4uAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAiAYBkgcAoAfoArIHALgHAMIHAMgHAA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

I stumbled across an Oku family genealogy in the write-up for a special exhibition on Satsuma swords (薩摩刀特別展) held at the Kagoshima Prefectural Museum of Art (cited below). The document reproduces and discusses a family genealogy (keifu) compiled by Motohira himself, originally maintained within the Oku household. The genealogy was said to have been authored or copied by the second-generation Motohira, later lost in a wartime fire, but preserved through a surviving manuscript copy owned by Sakamoto Morinari (坂元盛愛氏), a curator and specialist of the museum. Seems like the most significant contribution is a well-documented keifu-based death date for Motoyasu. Below are some key data points from the genealogical summary, with a focus on birth and death dates (supplemented with consensus dates from other sources): MOTOHIRA（元平） Birth (accepted in wider literature): Enkyō 1, 10th month (1744). Nihonto-museum states October 31, 1744, but no source citation). Autumn 1774 aligns with the age-at-death (83) Death (in genealogy PDF):「元平、七月十三日 歿、八十三歳」 — “Motohira died on the 13th day of the 7th month, age 83.” (The article does not give the year, but other sources claim Bunsei 9, which would yield a death date of September 8, 1826 (Japan used a lunisolar calendar before 1873, so Gregorian conversions use historical astronomical tables; the Bunsei-9 table (see here: https://eco.mtk.nao.ac.jp/koyomi/yoko/edo.html.en) provides date-by-date correspondences. MOTOTAKE（元武） Birth (inferred): Age 69 at death in 1810 = c. 1741/1742* (likely incorrect, as this would make him an older brother of Motohira). Nihonto-museum cites 1748, without references. Death (in genealogy PDF):「文化七 午 秋 元武、十月二十四日 歿、六十九歳」 — “In Bunka 7 (1810), year of the horse, autumn: Mototake died on the 24th day of the 10th month, aged 69” (= November 20, 1810). Nihonto-museum cites 1816 (which would be Bunka 13)—this date is presented in multiple dealer descriptions and, I believe, by Sesko. Curious to know the primary source… MOTOYASU, SHODAI（元安) Estimated Death Date: after 1821 (based on latest dated sword described in article); Nihonto-museum states that there is a signed sword dated Bunsei 4 (1821)… Estimated Birth Date: Online sources provide a birth date of ~1758 (14 years after Motohira?), but no supporting sources are cited. Seems like an awfully large age gap Vital dates in genealogy PDF: None included. His active period is based on a few dated collaboration inscriptions cited in the catalog: 1) 寛政九 己巳 春　奥大和守平朝臣元平　（弟）元安造之／（同年）寛政九 巳 秋（初代）」 — “Kansei 9 (1797), spring: ‘Oku Yamato-no-Kami Taira no Ason Motohira; (his) younger brother Motoyasu made [it].’ (Same year, autumn, shodai).” 2) 「寛政十 午 秋　弟元安以相鎚鍛之　奥大和守平朝臣元平」 — “Kansei 10 (1798), autumn: ‘Together with my younger brother Motoyasu we forged this under the hammer.’ 3) 「寛政十一 未 十二月二十六日（初代）　奥大和守平朝臣元平　奥弟元武元安造之」 — “Kansei 11 (1799), 12th month, 26th day (shodai): ‘…made by younger brothers Mototake and Motoyasu.’” = 1799/1800 (12th lunar month straddles into early 1800; precise Gregorian day depends on intercalations). 4) 「（文化五 戊辰 八月吉日）作之　奥大和守平朝臣元平　輿弟元武元安造之（初代）」 — “Bunka 5 (1808), 8th month, auspicious day: ‘…made together with younger brothers Mototake and Motoyasu (shodai)." [Note that this inscription tells us there’s something wrong with Mototake's birth date (as calculated based on the death date in the geneaology); if he were born in 1744, he would have been Motohira’s OLDER brother... Other sources cite 1748, but I don't know the source of that date... MOTOYASU, NIDAI（元安) Birth (calculated from death date in PDF): Kansei 5 (1793) Death (in genealogy PDF, from tombstone): Meiji 7-08-06 (September 16, 1874) Tombstone Transcription:（正面）「鹿児嶋縣士族 奥平元安」／（右側面）「明治七年戌八月六日」／（左側面）「行年八十二歳」 (Front: ‘Kagoshima-ken Shizoku Oku Taira Motoyasu’ / Right: ‘Meiji 7, 8th month, 6th day (1874-08-06)’ / Left: ‘Age at death: 82.”) The author concludes: born Kansei 5 (1793), died Meiji 7-08-06 (1874), age 82 (= September 16, 1874). SOURCE: Yamashita, Hiroyuki. 1988. “Oku-shi Keifu to Nidai Motoyasu [The Genealogy of the Oku Family and the Second-Generation Motoyasu].” Reimeikan Research Reports (Reimeikan Chōsa Kenkyū Hōkoku) 2: 25-42. Kagoshima Prefectural Historical Center Reimeikan. 山下廣幸「奥氏系譜と二代元安」『黎明館調査研究報告』第2集、鹿児島県歴史資料センター黎明館、1988年、pp.25–42。 https://www.pref.kagoshima.jp/ab23/reimeikan/siroyu/documents/6757_20180421102454-1.pdf

和泉守辻助九郎兼重 – Izumi no kami Tsuji Sukekuro Kaneshige

It is on a sword Saya that Major General K Omoto surrendered in China. If that helps. Thanks

Mark, good looking sword and in original state. A good smith from Seki working from pre-war. 兼高 Kanetaka (松田 高市 Matsuda Takaichi) Born: Meiji 44 (1911) September 16; registered as a Seki smith: Showa 14 (1939) October 26. Lived in 1937 at Bugi-gun, Seki-machi, Aza naka-machi. In 1939 at Seki-machi, Naka-machi. History: trained from Taisho 13 (1924) under Kojima Kanetoki (Kanemichi). Became independent (completed traing) Showa 5 (1930) May. Example mei: Kanetaka 兼高 Noshu Seki ju Matsuda Kanetaka saku 濃州関住松田兼高作 For context of his work see Downloads at top of NMB page and find paper on Gifu Swordsmiths

Bonjour Jacques, *sigh* You have proven time and time again that you do not update your beliefs when faced with evidence. Nonetheless, for silent observers who might be tempted to buy into your unwarranted sense of conviction, here is a shape I call "the prison shiv" - made out of a broken Middle Kamakura period Kodachi, and bearing the signature of the master Sukezane. It passed Juyo. It is a trivially true statement that a mei can push a sword over the Juyo line when its artful qualities and/or condition are otherwise disqualifying. Your "Japanese mentor" is incorrect. Fujishiro is based on the quality of the smith's entire body of work normalized over the average quality of work for the period. In other words,Sai-jo saku in the Kamakura period is superior to Sai-jo Saku in the Muromachi period. You do climatology right? You know how normalization work. In contrast, Dr. Tokuno TTE1 and TTE2 use absolute values based on empirical observations of market transactions. I truly hope you learn to relax your priors and appreciate new evidence. Best, Hoshi

I helped someone local here in SA to move a project Koto katana in out of polish condition, and my part of the deal was I kept the spare tsuba that it had, which didn't belong to that sword. It's an average piece...I would say in the "Nobiue style" although obviously not even close in quality. But nice tortoise geometric design. Don't have the size on hand. Pattern is clearer on one side, the other side looks purposefully obscured a bit with hammer marks. Nice glossy patina. Anyways, just a cute tsuba. Then he offered me 2 tsuba for sale at very modest pricing, so figured I'd pick them up since stuff like this hardly ever comes up for sale in SA. Can anyone assist with the translation on the signed one? Very lightly signed, nice little tsuba...I like it. 70mm x 73mm, edges taper slightly to about 3mm from about 4mm. The other I like a lot too. Seems to have a kinpun? mei. Brushes, a leaf and not sure what the other oval emblem is. Can't tell if that is a Tadahisa or..? 75mm Round, about 5mm thick. Just sharing in case anyone has any info on them. Yes...I played with the colours a little but to show the features. All have a decent deep patina with very little wear.

Hey Tosogu fans, I'm doing my usual thing and creating this thread to share my latest acquisition with the forum. I recently picked up this pair of tiger menuki on Jauce signed Hamano Noriyuki! The menuki are uncertified however they seem to match the Hamano school stylistically. A fine detail that caught my attention and convinced me to bid for these was the different purities of gold used in the stripes of the tigers distinguishing them from each other. Here is an enlarged photo of the signature from the original auction listing, followed by a photo of my own taken from my phone camera. Apologies for the less than stellar quality!

A little special feature A beautiful original D Guard sword ( Koshirae with Ka Mon) with a special fitted high quality beautiful ctrafted sword balde by Muto Hidehiro with imperial special date. You can clearly see from the nakago, that it was fitted to the old handle. It is also interesing that the thick quality habaki is signed on the inside, (both sides). I think I reconize "Chikugo"

Cancel that. I’ve amazed myself and found him. Miboku. Thanks for looking!

Recent acquisition, a shakudo piece with a tranquil design depicting what? I would guess something to do with textile dyeing/production….washing silk in the stream? but I cannot think of any specific “legend” or story that relates. Maybe for a posh silk merchant’s wakizashi? Very heavy for its size suggesting decent quality shakudo. Any other suggestions? Mei is “Shokodo Mitsuchika” and I’ve asked in translation section for help with the lid inscription.

Not true. I've seen this sword in hand and I can say emphatically, this photo is a good representation of the quality of workmanship the blade exudes. What is true is that photos are only as good as the photographer and his equipment, as this example demonstrates. The midare utsuri is just as vivid in hand as it is in the image, as is the nioiguchi in the hamon.

Kris: As a leather worker, I would be careful with natural oils like mink oil because they can darken leather. Neatsfoot oil MIGHT darken the leather but usually doesn't. Another option are conditioners used on high-end purses, like Coach conditioner. Bick also makes a good conditioner. Personally, I use either Coach leather conditioner or Neatsfoot. John C.

Hi Sukaira, It’s a well forged Ko-Minara blade. In the grand scheme of Nihonto, the school is considered provincial, as can be seen in its characteristic “rustic” jihada, and this is a low ranking Juyo blade, all else considered. Juyo Ko-Mihara mumei blades are plentiful. Seasoned collectors do not seek out these blades. For this crowd, if there is interest in Ko-Mihara, at all, It is preferable to find a signed blade from this school, or at least - one attributed to a specific master, Masaie or Masahiro come to mind. While this advice may seem curious today, but given time, you’ll come to appreciate it, as I have. Now does this mean the blade is “bad” ? Not at all. It is a remarkably good example of the Ko-Mihara school. However, it is good in the context of the Ko-Mihara school, as it has outcompeted other Ko-Mihara blades in a given session. As others have said, at the end what matters is that it speaks to the you - but don’t neglect “future” you. If you maintain your interest in learning in this field, this particular sword will be less interesting to future you than current you. At this price point, you have many options, a very interesting place in terms of possibilities for “future” you. The biggest mistake you can make is to “buy too much too quickly” in this field. You need to give yourself time to grow. I hope this help, -Hoshi

The box clearly says Sansei-Zu - but if silk dyeing or weaving is involved could it be the subject is Tanabata?

It might be an allusion to its cutting qualities in that the object cut falls with the same motion as snow slides from a sleeve. I don’t think my description does it justice but you can perhaps imagine a frictionless separation of two objects that have been cut by something really sharp. I believe I’ve read of another sword’s cutting qualities being described as cutting “as snow slips from a gate post” and another in the same way that a dew drop slides from a leaf. It may have been in a Markus Sesko article but I’m stretching my memory. Here you go: Sasanoyuki- like snow from a bamboo leaf, sorry I conflated two ideas. https://markussesko.com/2014/02/18/cutting-ability-nicknames-of-swords/

Yes, I agree. Definitely getting better by the day. There are a few errors in the character recognition, but its surprisingly good, given the handwritten and slightly faded nature of the source. @Deez77 I wouldn't call that 草書体. Just typical handwriting. Translation at the link below. https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/53956-help-please-with-inscription-on-tsuba-box/?do=findComment&comment=565372

尚古堂花親 　　　→　　光親 Mitsuchika (art name of Shōkodō, other pronunciations possible, but I think that's the one) 内田家水図 →　　田家山水図　Rural/Pastoral mountain scene 金地錦紋色絵 　　→　　鍔　据紋色絵　　　suemon-iroe describes the metalworking technique of applying a decorative element made from an alloy or other precious metal into a space carved out for it into the base metal. I think the other line (Tatemaru-gata) was already given in the other thread. Edit: I'll put it here for completeness, and because there is an error in the other thread 竪丸型　赤銅地　鍔　Tsuba, oval-shaped, base-metal of shakudō (no kinzōgan).

@TastyReuben Patrick, interesting kaigunto by YOSHIAKI 義明: real name Mishina Naoichi (三品直市). Born Meiji 42 (1909) July 27. Registered as a Seki smith Showa 14 (1939) October 25 (age 30). In 1940 was a member of Seki Token Kaji Association. In Akihide Banzuke list of 1942 is rank of Ryōkō no retsu (7/7). He has examples with Sho stamp (no date) and Seki stamp (1941) with dragon horimono and bonji which is unusual in war period. Died Heisei 1 (1989) February 5 at age 70. Does not appear to work post-war. Example mei: (“Yoshiaki” SHO) (“Mishina Yoshiaki” SEKI), (“Yoshiaki” “1941” SEKI).

Mark, not much info found on 松田 兼高 ( note there are several other Kanetaka). He does not appear to have entered many exhibitions, and is not in the 1942 ranking. He was a senior smith in Seki. Born 1911 and independent (finished training) in 1930 is age 19. Seems this training was in the Nippon Tanren Juku and under Kojima Kanetoki (Kanemichi). Early registered in Seki in October 1939. So he would have been producing pre-war and the SHO stamps are from 1939? to 1942? Seki stamp is around 1943. He was a member of Seki Token Kaji Association ("swordsmiths") in 1940. Not found any info from late war, did he stop working for some reason? Here's some examples of yours: [1. Japanese Sword Index, Stein: SHO stamp] [2. Meirin Sangyo: Noshu Matsuda Kanetaka saku has SEKI stamp plus kokuin hot stamp, 68.4 cm / 1.6 cm ] [3. Ikeda Art: Matsuda Kanetaka 71.2 cm 1.8 cm SHO stamp long blade, may be custom] [4. Yahoo Auction: Noshu Seki ju Matsuda Kanetaka saku SHO stamp].

I clipped the image and corrected the distortion. It might be 正卜 - Masaura.

@Slaborde samegawa/same is a ray/stingray and is good on yours. Later in war there was some use of early plastics in artifical material, and at end of war were using paper/tape/bark etc. Seeing you are chasing info look at following post. There is some terrific material in here, but second one is for you = Encyclopedia....and only $12.50, just what you need.

大日本京都住 一光堂 宮部篤良 Dai Nippon Kyoto-jū Ikkōdō Miyabe Atsuyoshi

Ref.

Hi, I can certainly chime in. Regarding your first question: There are a few chu-saku Muromachi and Edo smiths that have a tiny number of Juyo blade. for example, Kiyonori, Ujishige and so on. Less than ten of them. However, all these blades are in absolute mint condition, signed and ubu and critically, these swords pass during the lax years of the 70's, and today they would be mostly considered "Juyo in name only" (JINO, as Darcy used to say). The only chu-saku smith that passed later than than the troubled "phonebook" sessions is the Edo smith Kunimasa, and even then, no chance in today's extremely difficult and competitive sessions. These blades are difficult to sell in Japan. You see a lot of JINO online catering to the foreigner market. In this day and age, no chance. The question is too general to be answerable. In general: fixation on Fujishiro's ratings is a good starting point but inevitably incomplete, and it also requires the understanding that Saijo saku in Kamakura is not the same as Saijo saku in the Muromachi, as he normalizes his rating according to the median of the period. Also, there are many extremely rare and unrated smiths from the Koto period with masterpieces that have J and TJ blades to their names. Typically, from the Ko-Bizen, Ko-Ichimonji, or Ko-Aoe schools. As mentioned, there are also underrated ratings by Fujishiro (Some Sa students, Some Kamakura and Nambokucho Aoe, and especially glaring ones like Kencho, and most egregious of all, Ichimonji Yoshifusa). On passing Juyo and above. It's important to recognize just how correlated things are and, as a result, how easy it is to get confused: great smiths are more overwhelmingly more likely to produce top quality blades, top quality blades in great state of preservation are more likely to have been in important collections (Daimyo, Imperial...), more likely to come with an origami or Kinzogan by a Ko-Honami, more likely to be Meibutsu, more likely to be highly rated by Fujishiro and Dr. Tokuno, more likely to be featured in exhibitions in Japan, more likely to pass Tokubetsu Juyo, and so on. It's easy in this context to think "oh it's juyo because it has denrai to the Tokugawa" - but, at Juyo, this is mistaking correlation for causation. The seed of everything is the quality of the blade in the artful sense. Appraising quality is no trivial matter and requires ample exposure to masterworks until it clicks. There are many classical traits associated with artfulness that are highly appreciated, and were seldom reproduced after the Golden Age. To name a few, these features include a 'wet' looking jigane (uroi), utsuri in its various expressions, a bright and clear nioiguchi (Akaraku saeru), a deep nioiguchi, a sense of unaffectedness, the variety and quality of nie, control over the expression of the nioiguchi, and so on. How these traits are expressed by the three major traditions vary, but they all have a physical basis, they are not "in the eye of the beholder". And yes, there is a component of taste. However, It is not a mere social construct that swords that possess such attributes are considered the best swords. First, there is a biological basis to this in the human brain: it is these very swords that tend to elicit aesthetic emotions in the broadest set of viewers. When steel appears wet like a deeply frozen pond unveiling hidden layers that the mind cannot quite discern, when nie covers the edge like ethereal snow, and when it all appears inevitable and natural, as if the human hand had played no role into bringing this object into existence - It is such encounters that can have profoundly moving effect on the observer. There is a name for the trigger of this emotional response in classical Japanese aesthetics, it is called Yūgen (幽玄), and differs from the Sublime in that it unfolds progressively rather than all at once. When the sword looks flat, the steel grey, the hamon is empty, and the nioiguchi looks drawn with a crayon, it cannot produce such an emotional response in the viewer. And there is an entire continuum in between. Second, it is widely believed that quality in the artful sense correlates positively into the physical reality in the performance sense, and there are very valid metallurgic and historical reasons to believe in this relationship, but this veers into a different conversation. Now, it is important to understand that Juyo means important, it does not mean masterwork, or that it is one of the best blade by the smith. There can be other reasons why a blade is important - for instance, while it may have no boshi and ample hadatachi in the ji, if it is the only extant work by an obscure Ko-Aoe Smith, and on top of it, it was not featured in the Meikan, then it is important by virtue of its scholarly value. The same reasoning on rarity occurs for mei, a signed sword by Norishige is of superior scholarly value than a signed blade by an Edo period smith. The delta knowledge that the sword brings to scholarship affects its Juyo worthiness above and beyond its artful quality. At the highest level, when deciding between keeping a sword Jubun or making it Kokuho, exceptional provenance is also considered over and above its correlation with quality. All else considered, a masterpiece Sukezane owned by Nobunaga is more likely to be elected to Kokuho compared to one exhibiting the same artful qualities and condition but no provenance. Hope this helps, - Hoshi

@Dereks, here's a comparison with a 25cm tanto. Regarding the stamp, I'm working on it.

So, Michael, In recent years, Kanenobu has become a new go to for attributions for a nice but not top class Naoe Shizu blade. But this is different from Shigaseki Kanenobu, who is not as well-regarded by collectors or the Honbu. As Jussi pointed out there are only three Juyo awarded to the smith. And I am not sure that Jussi has the data of how many TH and Hozon papers are out there awarded to him by comparison because of the massive volume of swords produced during the Muromachi, especially in Mino. I think you should reach out to folks who watch the trends in the Shinsa team to see how much they might have opened to great works by Muromachi Sengoku-era Mino smiths. I would suggest perhaps, Ray Singer or Hoshi or even Markus. I would hate to see you go through the stress and expense of shipping a blade into Japan and then paying somebody to submit it on your behalf if it’s going to not make it past the first round only because of institutional bias. And then having to wring your hands while waiting for your sword to come back. Darcy used to have an algorithm and formula he would use to assess a sword’s chances of making it through Juyo and then Tokubetsu Juyo, which I don’t know if he handed off to anybody before his passing. All I can say, based on what I am seeing, is that the last Shigaseki Kanenobu that passed Juyo was a katana in session 58, at least 23 years ago. Don’t want to rain on your parade or dash your hopes, it just doesn’t bode well. But to be honest, a sword doesn’t have to pass Juyo to be a Smith’s masterwork and some of my favorites blades only have Hozon papers, and I am ok with that.

I've run into the same issue, John, in my charts. I've just grouped the year-only dates at the beginning (or end) of the dates with months.