ROKUJURO

David, the TSUBA is likely made of antler (= bone, not horn), probably from Sambar deer. The "embellishments" are big scales from a kind of ray, as far as I know. The whole SAYA decoration uses common material, but the combination looks as if made from left-over stuff. "SAYA" with no plura "s". Japanese nouns do not have a plural form.

Alex, it is a naturally preserved oak wood, and can be even much older! Hunting knife with bog oak handle:

Roy, I don't think that would work. The craftsmen in Japan would need a "positive" model. What you could ask them is if a well made wooden TSUNAGI could possibly help in this case, but I doubt it. In the past I have made such a TSUNAGI from steel for a customer (I am a bladesmith), but of course I had the blade as template.

Brian, I wish you soonest recovery after the knife attack! You will enjoy to feel the pain fade!

Could no. 13 perhaps be a SAN MAI TSUBA ?

Robert, I believe these TSUBA are actually in a very good state of preservation and do not look much different compared with the time of their manufacture. Do not forget that all iron TSUBA were patinated for a "used" look. Parallel to this, the patina was a way to protect the surface of a TSUBA.

Justyn, many later TSUBA cannot be related to a specific school, as designs and techniques spread around and were widely copied. This one looks like a very late but very good TSUBA with autumn theme, probably the shape is also called MOMO GATA.

Deanne, The second TSUBA looks more like an OWARI, TODA school, to me.

Mike, It is easy. You buy some 20 to 30 related books and study them for 15 years (or more). You go looking at authentic swords in museums, exhibitions and collections. You go looking at swords at auctions and KANTEI sessions, where you can handle them. You study the subject here on the NMB. Then, when you look at a sword you like and want to buy, you can assess the school, the era of manufacture, and sometimes even the smith. Looking at pictures and guessing the age of a blade is really difficult and often, you cannot be sure. By the way, the age of a blade is not as important as its quality.

Sword was probably made in october of 1941.

Rob, these photos are upside-down. Please take care NEVER to touch the steel of the blade with your bare hands! The carbon steel is very likely to develop rust (and lose value!). And please do not clean anything except with a dry soft cotton rag!

Dave, it can be dangerous to use these kind of blades in KATA. What may look like an acceptable blade may break under stress and injure yourself or someone else - the DOJO of Flying Daggers! You may know what I mean. The NAKAGO is ugly and will not allow a good fit in any newly made (or old, for that matter) TSUKA. Yours is wrapped in a wrong style. The TSUKA-ITO will come loose in use and unwrap all the way off the TSUKA. Not Japanese style! You say it is heavy. How heavy? Weight is not a quality aspect; true SAMURAI era blades are relatively light, weighing at around 800 g (plus/minus). This is a late copy of a military sword, made to deceive uninformed buyers. With all its issues, I don't think it is an "Island sword".

Derek, UCHIKO is powdered polishing stone (UCHIGUMORI stone), so if fine enough (= good quality), it will increase the shiny appearance. If bad qualiy (= coarse), it will scratch the blade.

It is not a MEI in my eyes. Someone - probably not the TSUBAKO - scratched some characters into the metal. Useless attempt to add a signature.

Impeccable!