Geraint

Dear Steve. Not to rain on your parade but the habaki is of a type called ganseki, illustrated here along with several other styles. http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/habaki.html All the best.

Dear Burt. Your photography is really good, I wish I could capture some of these features. The diagram you show is very dated and indeed even in this one the dotted line for slag inclusions points to the gourd shaped darker area. Slag inclusions typically show as a dark spot or area, not ridges.The marks on your blade are mukade shinae, often caused by having a bent sword straightened. Just to add to what Sam has suggested, polishers usually place a demarcation like the one in the red box at the point where the kaeri or return of the hamon in the kissaki, meets the mune. If you follow the line of the boshi you may see this. Much more detailed information about flaws,9 and indeed so much more that might be of use to you on this site), here, http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/flaws.html There is so much to learn and so much to see, that's partly why this study is so fascinating! Enjoy the journey. (I see that Sam beat me to it!) All the best

Dear Jusyn. I am wondering if the treatment suggest mist partially obscuring the Torii and temple. (I am having trouble with the angle of the torii, visually I find it disturbing!) All the best.

Dear Catalin. This appears to be a bonji horimono, have a look here and you might find it, https://swordsofjapan.com/nihonto-library/Japanese-bonji/ This would originally have been carved on the blade above the habaki and so its presence here suggest a sword which is suriage/shortened. The presence of two mekugi ana at his point suggests that it has been shortened quite a lot. A picture of the whole blade without the habaki might help us here. So far this looks like an original piece but the condition of the blade really matters so photographs please? All the best.

And the menuki are tsurugi or ken. Here with a dragon,https://www.ricecracker.com/inventory/896_menuki_ken_dragon/896_menuki_ken_dragon.html All the best.

Dear Burt. To summarise somewhat. This is a very nice sword, the thick seppa/washers and the pierced tsuba/guard as well as some other features are probably what lead your friend to tell you it was 1934, there is a quality about these mounts which not all Shingunto have. The original label called it a tachi because of the fact that the mei/signature is on the side usually called tachi mei, most katana are signed on the other side of the tang. Now as Chandler has already said this is a distinctive feature of the Hizen school who tended to sign tachi mei on katana, it would not mean that the sword was a tachi though from a dealer point of view it might be nice to describe it as such. Dating it to Shinshinto or late Edo period is understandable but in this case wrong I think. Have a look at this thread, particularly about 11 posts down where Morita san has posted an oshigata that matches well with yours. This does suggest that this smith was known for forging gendato, traditionally forged swords as opposed to Showato which are not traditionally forged. To my eye and from your photographs your sword does look interesting and I wouldn't be surprised if it does turn out to be gendaito which puts it into a whole other bracket. Go slow, don't do anything more than wipe the blade surface with some very light oil and get in touch with a local sword club who can examine the sword in hand and tell you more. There is a ton to learn and a never ending mine of information to assimilate but the journey is fun. All the best. All the best.

Dear Pawel. All depends. You have an offer of $1500 which is about £1100, that's certainly within the right realm for what it is right now. If on the other hand you are thinking of importing this then that might add to your difficulties/costs. The next question is what are you going to do with it? Do you want to have it polished and put in shirasaya? If so the costs/ time/ difficulty rise quite a bit. Generally Fujiwara Takada blades are not thought highly of so I doubt that financially you would get your money back but most of us don't collect with that in mind and the joy of restoring a blade might be your reward. If you want to own it as an interesting example and keep is essentially as it is but with some care then it's an interesting proposition. I would be concerned that it only has the one seppa, carelessly lost or have the mounts been altered? It might be possible to replace seppa but you would need to know that the blade and mounts will accept this. I do appreciate that I have raised more questions than I have answered but in the end it is your call. Do let us know how it turns out. All the best.

Welcome to NMB Martin. Point 1 Don't poliosh anything! I assume that you know not to touch the blade with bare hands, just a little light oil on this, very thin coat. So far this looks like a nice example and, depending on what the nakago/tang reveals, by a smith who commands some interest. Do you know how to disassemble the sword? If so then a good shot of the tang/nakago would be interesting. Next question, is the tsuba/guard pierced? Depending on where you are there may be some members not too far away who would be happy yo tell you more with the sword in hand. All the best.

Dear Minh. For some detail on kazu uchimono see here, https://nihonto.com/a-brief-study-of-bizen-blades-of-the-muromachi-era/ To gain more insight you are ging to need to do some seriou study, asking for opinions here is fine but as Jacques intimated we are going from photographs that are moderately good but don't reveal everything, the boshi for example. You have the lead that, in general swords from this time and province with this mei are considered as kazu uchi mono so what does that mean for the chance of TH? What about this sword leads you to believe that it has a chance of going to TH? Given that it is Sue Bizen with the classic mei and nothing more it has papered as a genuine sword, is there something that leads you to think that is has been underestimated by the Japanese seller? If there is something to be gained by having it at TH level why didn't the Japanese seller take it further? What do you think about the slightly loose forging evident in the last photograph? Just some questions for you to think about. All the best.

And just a minor correction, the mei is, 'Bishu Osafune Sukesada'. All the best.

Dear Minh. The date on the nakago is Tensho as Steve has pointed out. Nihonto club is a useful resource but not comprehensive, Hawleys lists several smiths signing this way working between 1350 and 1573. It is not reasonable to jump to a date based on Nihonto club which contradicts the mei on your sword, rather more likely to be one of the other smiths working in the Tensho period. Enjoy your sword and your research. All the best.

Dear Kyle. Obviously you will do your own research on this one and others will express opinions but at first glance this does not have the 'handwriting' of the school. As you look at examples you will note a particular style of cutting which is distinctive and I imagine hard to copy well. All the best.

Dear Stephen. Forgive me is this is presumptuous but I am sure that he would want you to remember the exchanges about tosogu and to cheer you on, I very much doubt that he would have wanted you to feel guilty but rather to remember the friendship shared over the years. All the best.

Dear Srinivas. Just to address your question directly, the hard line in the nakago is a demarcation between the earlier shape and finish of the nakago and the shape and finish of the latest suriage. Sometimes when a sword is shortened the thickness of the nakago needs to be adjusted, in this case the smith has filed the nakago above the line but chosen to retain the earlier patina below the line. Of itself nothing to worry about and not an indication of an added nakago. All the best.

Welcome back Dale! All the best.

Dear William. A significant number of Japanese swords came back to the UK at the end of WWII, most were swords produced specifically for the war using different manufacturing techniques to the process used to produce traditional swords. The Seki stamp on yours and the date range make it one of these. In more recent years such swords have been collected and examples have been brought into the country but given the missing mounts yours has probably been here since the end of the war. They were little regarded during the time following 1945, one collector's story speaks of going to see a sword and finding the fence beside the garden path made up of blades stuck into the ground with a wire threaded through the mekugi ana, the fittings had been stripped off and sold for scrap. Your sword would once have looked like this: If all you need is this thread then so be it but if you find yourself interested then perhaps consider joining the Token Society of Great Britain, easy to find on the web. If you want to do some research then this sword would be a Shingunto, pop that in a browser and you will find a ton of information. Great place to start would be: http://ohmura-study.net/900.html All the best.

Dear Kim. Welcome to NMB! Your approach to this sword is very good and will stand you in good stead in the future. To give some more detail, first picture shows a poorly shaped tsuba with a suspect hole in it, perhaps the copyist was trying to mimic a kozuka ana. The blade has a weak overall shape and the area around the kissaki/point has poor geometry. The nakago is again badly shaped and the signature is cut, metal has been chiseled out of the blade whereas Japanese swords are signed by chasing where a punch dents the metal, none is removed, and the repetitive strokes are clearly visible. The grain of the steel is crude and very obvious, hada/grain on Japanese swords can vary between almost invisible and quite clear but on this sword it seems almost to have a texture to it. The tsuka/hilt does not align well with the overall shape of the mounts, compare to the example that Alexi linked to, and is itself poorly shaped, it seems to wiggle. The fittings are close copies but not the right shapes, especially the menuki and the hangers on the saya/scabbard. The tsuka ito/binding is badly done, skinny and not laced or knotted correctly. You say you did not pay very much for this sword so in the long run this might be a fairly cheap learning experience. I am sure that we all wish you a much more interesting sword next time around. All the best.

Dear Jeremy. David is spot on with advice about not judging sori from the koshirae, after all it is a description of a feature of the sugata of the blade. I have a wakizashi where the habaki is made in such a way that when mounted the sword looks like koshizori but on its own it is clearly not. All the best.

Dear............. Or a tanto of course. The punch marks are securing/concealing two soft metal plugs that have been inserted to fill holes drilled in the tsuba. Sometimes tsuba were repurposed and a couple of screw holes drilled to fasten them to something. Edit to add. Hmm. When I look at all the photographs on the listing I can't see any sign of the holes on the face of the tsuba and although invisible repairs are a possibility they certainly weren't for the person who did the work on the back so perhaps not screw holes but stopped holes for some other purpose. All the best.

Dear Simon. Sorry to add to your disappointment, it is always a shame when this happens. Referencing your FB post and this one the 'ring' test is one that surfaces from time to time, coming I believe from an early 20th century article which suggest that a dull sound should lead you to,'suspect a cast or broken piece'. I have found that cast iron rings well unless it is cracked. Another point to note is that an 18th century piece that has survived this long without showing any signs of having been mounted on a sword needs careful examination, not to say that these things don't happen but it should focus you on the nakago ana whereupon the distinctive bottle shape should ring alarm bells. I do hope that you will have something positive in the way of feedback from the seller. All the best.

Dear Nathaniel. With regard to your specific question regarding NBTHK classification I am unable to help you but simply from an observation of the blade I would suggest that this sugata was originally made just as it now is. To describe it as 'naginata naoshi' is to say that it has the form of such a blade, not to describe its history. All the best.

Dear Gerry. I don't think there is a simple answer but all polearms suffer from the sheer inconvenience of the length of the pole from the point of view of transport and storage. As a result the blade is often separated from the koshirae, which is a shame. I have come across three yari fairly recently which come with their saya but not the pole, they now have what I suppose I should call shirasaya poles, much shorter than the originals but sufficient to protect the blades which are in their original saya. Several of the pole arm blades that I have seen for sale are fitted with shirasaya, sometimes quite elaborate but always with a short pole just sufficient to house the nakago. I do not recall ever having seen a tsunagi fitted to a yari koshirae but as with everything in this field I am sure they exist. Not directly relevant to your question but I have a fine yari which has been mounted in tanto koshirae and that has both tsunagi and shirasaya. All the best.

Dear John. I do not think the plate was/is ever welded in, simply inlaid and secured by the edges. Given that fire welding was the only available option for gaku mei the necessary force would destroy the mei and make the process useless. All the best.

Aaaannndd back to the sword! First picture seems to show a forward stoop from the monuchi, as though is has been struck against something pretty solid. Just the photograph? Or possibly just my eyes. All the best.

Dear Adam. Just a wild hunch but is it the same saya that you love? A nice sword indeed! All the best.