paulb

speedy recovery my friend take care and get well soon

An article describing this blade in more detail will be posted on the board shortly. In summary the blade has been attributed to both the Shodai and the Sandai. I have known it for more than 20 years and have eventually concluded it is the work of the Shodai (although would have been happy with either) . Briefly the reasoning behind this is as follows: Niji mei blades are extremely rare. The only reference I have found to the Sandai making them was in Nihonto Koza but there are no illustrations that I can find. There are 4 niji mei blades published and these are all attributed to the Shodai. The original size of the blade would have been about 55 to 57cm. Thus it would have been illegal if made as a wakizashi by the sandai. The yasurime are katte-sagari if it were by the sandai you would expect katte-agari. I think this is a kenjo mei sword made by the Shodai. According to various sources his presentation blades were a level better than his standard work and I think this may be why some considered it to be by the Sandai as generally the quality of his jigane and nie were regarded as amongst the best of the various generations . So overall I came down in favour of Shodai but I have often been wrong before. Well done to those who identified it as Hizen. To be honest I am not sure it would have been my first choice when I saw it initially. The Shodai did not make what might be regarded as typical Hizen blades with true suguha and konuka hada until late in his career and after his name change to Tadahiro in 1624 and even then it was early stages of those features which were refined by his son and grandson. This I think is more like an utsushi piece with Awataguchi-like hada and Soshu/Shizu hamon and nie activity. It is a very interesting sword.

I think the generally held view is that the Sandai and Shodai were of a very similar standard. Which one believed to be the best had more to do with personal taste and preference. I am not sure when doing kantei by trying to predict an owner's likely preference is a particularly good methodology.

don't worry Eric, I am just annoyed with myself for being careless. I will let this run a little longer just in case anyone else wants to have a stab at it.

Ok so I am not sure what to say. I must admit on my screen I didn't see the mei when I posted it up so my apologies for being lax. However isn't the idea of this to look at the shape and features of the blade read the description and try and assess who the blade was made and when? So now you have read the mei what has been learned from the exercise? The next question is which Tadayoshi made it? you have 9 generations to choose from Fortunately the the date isn't cut on the nakago. Again my apologies for the initial error it isn't one that will be repeated.

sorry Jon I don't know I am aware of them by word of mouth. BTW it isn't a specific sword fair it is a traditional arms & militaria fair but most UK dealers are (were) there.

Only if you look hard

The most popular shows of recent years have been the Birmingham show held at the Motor cycle museum and the London show (not sure of latest venue) Birmingham has been well attended in the past but maybe gone off a little in recent years. It will be interesting to see what happens when they restart. If you want to see blades in hand I suggest you consider joining the Token of GB. We hold regional meetings for members (once restrictions are lifted.) and there are always blades to study and experienced people to talk to.

Dear all following the popularity of the recent kantei posted by Chris I have added another one below. Unfortunately my photographic skills aren't up to the standard seen in Chris' example so i have added a detailed description as well. Normally kantei blades should be a typical example of a school or smiths work. In this case there are many of the features you might expect to see but it isn't altogether typical. The sword: Shinogi-Zukuri, iori mune with tori-sori. Suriage with nijimei Nagasa 48.4cm Sori 0.9cm Motohaba 2.8cm Sakihaba 1.9cm Kasane 0.6cm Sugata: The blade was originally 6-8cm longer than its current nagasa. Despite being shortened it retains elegant proportion. The blade narrows elegantly from the machi to kissaki. The shinogi is of medium height with a fairly wide shinogi-ji. There are 3 small kirikomi visible on the shinogi, one on the ura and two on the omote. Hada: The hada is a very fine and consistent ko-itame. Overall the blade has a great deal of ji-nie which becomes brighter and larger as it progresses to the monouchi. There are also small chickei running the length of the blade. The quality of the forging and the brightness of the nie based activity are outstanding. Hamon: The hamon is a very gentle midare based on a suguha foundation. The nioi-guchi is extremely clear and bright and has a characteristic “belt like” form associated with this school. Running throughout the hamon is a great deal of activity comprising of very bright nie which cascades through the nioi-guchi and creates clouds of nie on the border with the ji. There is kinsuji in the lower half of the blade. As it progresses towards the monouchi the nie becomes larger and brighter in areas it forms nijuba and kuichigai-ba. Kissaki: The blade has a slightly small chu-kissaki with suguha boshi which is ko-maru with a short kaeri. Nakago: The Nakago is suriage with 3 mekugi-ana. There is a nijimei on the lower part of the blade and the original yasurime are clearly distinguishable. The yasurime are very slightly katte-sagari

Graham, Might I suggest as a first step you show your sword to a member of the token Society of GB? fortunately living where you do you are very close to a couple of long term collectors and members who can help you lot in going through the process. They also know those involved in various restoration work. If this is of interest drop me a pm and i can put you in touch with someone Regards Paul

Kirikomi are generally not polished out, they are regarded as "honorable scars" and part of the swords history, and actually no they don't generally devalue a blade. It is unlikely they would successfully polish out, it would involve removing too much material. With your sword there is very little to worry about. I have just bought a sword with three kirikomi of a similar size to the ones you have illustrated and don't consider them a problem, far from it. Edit sorry Michael beat me to it but at least we are saying the same thing.

Thank you both much appreciated Best Regards Paul

Dear All as always i am embarrassed by my poor abilities when reading kanji and this even worse when hand written on a paper. could somebody please take a look at the attached and suggest a date?

To Be honest Alex I find this a very unattractive piece. It just loos wrong. Perhaps those more used to using swords can tell us if there is any practical application or benefit to having a blade with such an exaggerated sori because I cannot think of one and would guess this is very unwieldy.

I am in absolute awe of your skill. Incredible work congratulations. Also glad to see you have space for more swords

Christian, I used Uchiko up to about 15 years ago and yes I have been guilty in the past of misusing it and leaving star burst imprints on a blade. Fortunately it happed early enough in my collecting career not to damage any better quality blades. Someone pointed out to me the error of my ways and I adjusted my cleaning routine accordingly. Hopefully some of the messages here will have a similar effect on other less experienced members and they can bypass the "doing damage to learn a lesson" stage.

I have also seen blades damaged by Uchiko. I think this has become increasingly apparent in recent years because firstly swords are more widely dispersed around the world and people have not been shown the correct way to use it and secondly, and I think most significantly, the variation in quality in what is sold as uchiko has grown substantially. This being the case I agree 100% with Barry the best and safest way to remove oil is to use a microfiber cloth. Things change, until recently the NBTHK demonstrated how to clean blades using uchiko, perhaps they still do, but the majority of us mortals I would much rather follow a safer course.

Thank you for clarifying that Jacques. In the original description I was attempting to describe what I was seeing rather than defining a form but as always I appreciate your contribution.

The sword has Tokubetsu Hozon papers attributing it to Naoe-Shizu. Below I have outlined why I believe they reached this conclusion. Please remember this is opinion (mine) not a statement of fact. Sugata- The blade is O-suriage but retains a magnificent sugata. It is wide and thin. when Ubu the nagasa would most likely have been 80cm. The shape points very strongly to a blade made in the Nambokucho period. Hada- The hada is extremely clear (stands out as the NBTHK say) it is a combination of a sinuous itame and masame and has a great deal of activity in the form of ji-nie and chickei. It appears to be a combination of Soshu and Yamato hada which would lead one to Mino as a likely possibility. Hamon- Extremely active with a great deal of nie and sunagashi. The factors above point to early Mino work so possible contenders would be Yamato-Shizu or Naoe Shizu. Examples of Yamato-Shizu blades I have seen tend to have a very natural midare hamon. In contrast Naoe-Shizu looks more "constructed" or contrived with greater variation in rise and fall towards the ha. I think this blade falls very much in to the latter form. Taking all the above in to account an attribution to Naoe-Shizu would seem a reasonable conclusion. Regardless of attribution this is a stunning sword and one I think would very likely pass juyo shinsa were it to be submitted. Thanks to all who had a go and congratulations to those that got it right

I understand your thinking JP but I may have misled you. While I think the boshi is pretty much mirror image the hamon overall is not. Personally I would not think of the sugata as late muromachi. Try and imagine what its original ubu form would have been. As it is O-suriage it means that all or at least the vast majority of the original nakago is missing. If that's the case the likelihood is that the nagasa was at least 12-15cm longer, i.e. 82-85cm. This means it was a massive blade long wide and thin. I think this places it earlier than you are thinking.

There is no yakidashi but of course the blade is O-suriage so had there been it might have been lost when shortened. But also check out the dimensions it is o-suriage but the nagasa is still almost 70cm

sorry Bazza I don't have that image (oversight on my part when I had it to photograph). As I remember it it was a mirror image of this side.

As the previous post under this title created some interest I thought we might look at this one. Again take a look at the images and description. I think despite being O-suriage it shows classic features of period, tradition and school. See what you think: The blade is an O-suriage katana. It is shinogi-zukuri and iori-mune. The blade has a slightly extended chu-kissaki. The blade is wide without a great deal of taper towards the kissaki. It is relatively thin. The overall impression is of a grand imposing blade. Nagasa: 69.7cm Sori: 1.3cm Motohaba 3.1 cm sakihaba 2.4cm Kasane 0.6cm. Jigane: The hada is a combination of tight itame, nagare and masame. The masame is particularly noticeable close to and running in to the hamon. The itame becomes tighter in the monouchi and there is bright ji-nie present throughout the length of the blade. In several places the ji-nie joins together to form bright Tobiyaki hovering above the hamon. The overall appearance is bright and clear making it look hard and sharp. Hamon: Starting at the hamachi in a thin suguha it gradually increases in width to form a broad undulating midare with rounded togari. The Nioi-guchi is relatively thick and interspersed with bright nie. The crests of the togari are populated with slightly larger nie and at some points clusters of bright ara-nie form Tobiyaki which hover just above the hamon. Following the masame hada within the hamon nie forms sinuous lines of sunagashi which cut through the nioi-guchi. Overall the hamon is extremely complex and beautiful. Boshi: The boshi is ko-maru with a short kaeri. Centrally above the hamon within the kissaki there is a Tobiyaki comprised of a cluster of ko-nie. It’s positioning (on both sides) looks to be very deliberate and demonstrates incredible skill and control of the hardening process. Nakago: The nakago is O-suriage with 3 mekugi ana. Although O-suriage it is well shaped and of good colour. The full length hi end in kaki-nagashi part way in to the nakago. The Yasurimei are a fine katte-sagari. On the Omote there is a gold inlaid inscription. The Nakago has been very well reshaped and finished

Hi Tom Both the NBTHK and Tanobe Sensei attribute it to Awataguchi Norikuni. The jigane is also considerably finer than I have seen on either Enju or Rai work. I think the image may be deceiving you a little and the ikubi kissaki makes it look more robust than it actually is. As always these are attributions but I would be very happy to accept that of Tanobe Sensei when he describes it as "A masterwork of the Early Kamakura period"

Hi Bazza, Yes you are right. My second most used statement is "A good sword will never have a bad shape" whether ubu, suriage or O-suriage the shape should look and feel right. The shape has been developed in a classic "form following function" therefore if the shape is poor it wont cut as well and is therefore not good. However one caveat, a good shape does not necessarily mean it is a good sword. A piece of bar steel can be shaped to look special.