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

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!

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

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.

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.....

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.

A glorious piece of workmanship - but the material itself is just not up to the task. The fukurin is the only element keeping this piece together. https://www.jauce.com/auction/1224137596 I have to wonder if it was altered to be used as a tsuba? The seppa-dai area does not look as you would expect.

These are my tsuba from the auction. And, well, my only regret was not having a bigger wallet... Seeing all those tsuba together was like finding Santa's sledge parked in the backyard for a kid... The second tsuba has a paper, but it's a minus, not a plus... guess what's the attribution?

73 Yasuyo This sword is by Shumenokami Ichi no hira Yasuyo not Yasuyori . It was owned by the Miyasaka Shrine in Kagoshima Prefecture who handed it over to the Ibusuki police in December 1945. The blade is dated 1723 and is 33 .5 inches long . There are photographs of the sword and the lengthy inscription on the nakago in the documents from the American Archives that Stephen Thorpe shared with us . Attached to this is a copy of one of those pictures showing the Shirasaya, box and lacquered box that accompanied the sword . Further photos are on page 82 of Satsuma no katana no Tsuba by Fukunaga

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.

I would have liked to buy the Onin tsuba but too much for me I won this one. Nice to recent papers #218

This smith's name is also read as Teruyoshi. From Sesko below: "he was then employed by the Matsudaira family (松平), the daimyō of Musashi´s Kawagoe fief (川越藩), he moved to the fief and was granted with the family name Fujieda, in the first year of Bunkyū (文久, 1861) he also got the permission to engrave the three-part tomoe crest of the Matsudaira clan"

Extra pictures of the koshirae:

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

The dark side of the moon.

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...

To be honest I've never heard that smiths had to submit samples of their work to the bakufu or to the court in order to receive the title. I think they had to make a formal application, or have one made on their behalf by someone of status (the actual daimyo of the fief, for example). But I am not a deep scholar in this area. I have read Markus Sesko's article here, which I think you will find very interesting if you haven't already read it. It provided the basis of what I know. https://markussesko.com/2013/02/19/how-honorary-titles-were-conferred/ Whether this particular sword is one of his best examples or not; I think there are too many variables. The biggest one is condition. It could well have been one of his best examples, but you'd need a deeper inspection and you'd need to compare against his other known works to make that call. And I don't think one can even make a sweeping generalization about swords produced before/after receiving the title. For some smiths it may be true that their best work was toward the end of their productive life. For other smiths they may have become lazy, lost their vitality, lost access to good quality tamahagane, or some may have allowed their apprentices/students to produce under the smith's name, and so there may be some variance in quality. Other smiths may be "average" smiths, yet had the funds to acquire the title, so...too many variables to generalize.

I thought this was an exceptionally rare early koshirae and fittings that the NMB might like to see. Posted by Keisuke san of the katana_case_shi shop. The blade is a Heian period Ko-Naminohira tachi. https://www.instagram.com/p/DWfMwIpGO3G/?img_index=1

I have watched a few videos of modern smiths adding broken pieces of older nihonto to their billet. I imagine this would help provide a level of diversity from one sword to the next in steel composition. Interesting stuff, -Sam

Ron Here are a few examples of police gunto for your review—this type is also documented in Dawson’s book.

I hope I'm not bothering anyone by reviving this thread about these rather unusual tsuba. Here's mine with the wasp. The second one is one I saw online. There was one for sale in the Haynes catalog, number 54. The description said it was in the Bushu school style.

Hello from the UK, hope things are good for you all around the world. It’s grey and damp and chilly here. This tsuba left home a few years ago as part of a deal to acquire a nice sword but it recently had the opportunity to return home again …..and here it is……just for interest. To me it’s an appealing subject artistically rendered and decent quality workmanship. What are your opinions? The thin iron plate has a slight ishime texture and an even dark brown patina. I believe the old Japanese label says something like “old pine tree wasps”…..anyone confirm? H8.5cm W8.1cm T3.5mm at the slightly raised rim.

Hi all, I would like to share three tsuba that recently joined my collection: an Umetada tsuba with karakusa design (perhaps Momoyama?), a Kaga piece, and a Momoyama Heianjo. Each has a different taste and gives a slightly different feeling. Any thoughts or observations are very welcome.

It is nice looking item, and an interesting one. I am definately not a Sōshū fan, so I cannot identify the small details. However I am shape and size guy and to me the hi at the bottom is throwing me completely off. I do think in my references I should have hundreds of examples of this type of horimono and I cannot remember single one that would have another hi under the main carving, as usually the placement for this type of horimono is pretty standard. The presence of the lower hi would also indicate the sword would have been much longer than it is in it's current form. I am liking the item but I admit the carvings have me completely puzzled out.

Here is a higher res photo of the Ichimonji Sukeshige that was stolen. The description in the Nihonto Taikan pre-dates the theft and since this book was published in 1966, this may have been one of the last times this sword was in the hands of sword specialists who were documenting it. The Explanation for the sword reads as follows: The

Hello Jussi, Do you have the journals written by Yuichi Hiroi called Daisojin? I have most of the journals and I'd be happy to share the articles and photos of the missing swords. The Norishige was in these journals also but I sent those issues to Mr. Brooks. Here is a taste.

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.