ROKUJURO

Petr, it is certainly not a military blade! As Geraint said, SOSHU province is a possibility. This may come out as a nice one if properly restored in Japan!

Chris, a really nice TSUBA! Symmetrical design and KAKU MIMI may be a hint to OWARI, although it looks quite stout, so may indeed be EDO. Are there TEKKOTSU on the MIMI?

Luca, are you sure that this is a genuine TSUBA and not a cast copy?

Brian, the scar is in the OSHIGATA.

Lmoirkie, if this is not your name would you please sign all posts with at least a real first name plus an initial as per Brian's rules? If your blade is less than 606 mm long (tip to MUNE MACHI), then you have a WAKIZASHI. It seems to have been shortened at one time in its history. If the signature is correct and all features of the blade as well (compare with http://www.samuraisword.com/nihontodisplay/CUTTING_TEST/Nezu-Yoshitake/index.htm) you will find that YOSHITAKE was active around 1680. But the age of a blade is of lesser importance, the quality is what counts. It might be difficult to judge your blade in that condition.

Josh, why is that high-end, good condition EDO MUMEI KATANA not signed? Your question cannot be easily answered. You will have to compare the blade's quality which might be difficult if one blade is not polished. If both blades were on the same level, you should look at possible costs for restoration. Eventually, you have to decide following your taste.

That is the problem

Chris, looking at the photos I think the second buy is much worse in condition than the first. It looks as if the SHINOGI has been ground away, and there is a big flaw in the JI. In my knowledge this is probably beyound restoration, because grinding everything defective away wouldn't leave much to admire. Possible age and a signature are nothing that add to the value of a blade. The TOSOGU of the first blade have lost all their patination through 'cleaning', so this is worse than painting a Michelangelo statue in pink.....

Zoom Rabbit, please sign all your posts with at least your first name plus an initial as per Brian's rules. The item you have found is not close to anything Japanese - none of its parts! The blade does not resemble the standard HIRA ZUKURI shape of TANTO, and the mounting is fantasy at best. Of course you are free to transform the weapon in whatever shape you feel appropriate, but in my opinion any effort is wasted time and energy. Please have a look at the many beautiful TANTO pictures you can find here on NMB for comparison.

Better photos please (2 & 3)!

Jan, the stock material looks like AKAGASHI (red oak), but to my non-expert eyes it doesn't seem to have almost 200 years of age. Of course it is only one photo which does not show everything! Could that perhaps be a replica or do other firearms of that period (1830 - 1844) have that same perfect state of preservation?

Jan, I can read NOBUAKI SAKU. Hope that helps!

Signature is TAMBA no KAMI YOSHIMICHI, a number of famous smiths who's signatures have been faked endles times. Condition seems nice, so if you want to run the risk to buy a GIMEI blade and like it..... It is always a risk to purchase an item that you didn't hold in your hands previously!

Filipe, I read BIZEN KUNI no JU OSA......(KATANA MEI). Seems that the three last KANJI (FUNE plus smith's name) had been lost with the SURIAGE. If this is a genuine signature, the blade may be from late KOTO to early EDO period, I believe. Perhaps KANBUN because of little SORI. The signature is in the style of BIZEN blades I have seen, but the NAKAGO patination does not look good for me. Concerning the condition and the value: difficult to say without seeing it personally. You cannot enjoy it in this state and learn from it, but a polish might be more than € 2.000.-- plus HABAKI, SHIRA-SAYA, SHINSA, handling....I am not sure that you will get your money back on a resale, and you should not buy without knowing what you have there. If it was GIMEI, I think you will loose.

What does the age mean to you? If it is not well made, it has no value regardless of the age.

Steve, 1603 is the beginning of the 17th century!

Mick, KIYO might be a possibility, but the rest..... Sometimes it is easier to find the smith via the features of the blade. SUGATA (is there FUNBARI?) and KATANA MEI let me think of SHINSHINTO (KOTO UTSUSHI). Patination/corrosion on the lower NAKAGO is heavy and may be a hint for KOTO, the upper part does not look that old. This might be an effect of the SURIAGE. Just my personal thoughts on the basis of the photos, which do not show details; I may be way off.

Andrew, my fault! Sorry for that! I do not recognize the item on the lower right side of your photo as TSUBA.

Chris, looks like KISHU province, but better photos are necessary for my old eyes. Try with chalk in the KANJI. Date is HACHI GATSU HI - A day in the eighth month. A little strange.....

Andrew, I do not believe that we see a TSUBA on your photo. Casting techniques make only sense if the product is very close to the desired item, and in this case, a lot of factors let me believe that it was not meant to be a TSUBA. In addition to what Ford explained so competently, I may add that melting iron not only requires furnace temperatures of significantly above 1.583°C, which is only attainable with technologies that were developed later, but as Ford points out, crucibles and molds have to withstand these temperatures as well. Clay as the standard material for handling soft metals like copper and bronze may be sufficient up to 1.250°C, but only special refractories can withstand considerably higher temperatures. One has to remember that medieval Asian stoneware and porcelain ceramics were fired in kilns like ANAGAMA up to temperatures of almost 1.300°C, and this was the limit at these times. Another point is that cast iron TSUBA are brittle and not useful as part of a weapon. This has been mentioned here before. Eventually, casting techniques in early times were not a means to produce large numbers of identical objects. The items were one of a kind and required a lot of finish work.

Peter, it is technically possible to weld stainless steel to high carbon steel, however this requires the complete exclusion of oxygen. This can be done by encasing the primary metal block (which will consist of a number of metal sheets of the two steel components) in an air-tight welded iron box. When the welding of the block is completed, the combined steel block can be removed from the iron box and forged to the final shape. The final quenching and tempering of such a blade may offer some further difficulties to get to the desired results. Anyhow, the JIGANE of such a blade would show a strong Damascus-like pattern after etching. I have no idea if such a technique was known and practiced by Japanese swordsmiths.

Probably a MAO TSE tang..... njw7, please sign all posts with a real first name plus an initial to comply with the rules on NMB.

I am no expert, but while the basic TSUBA plate might have been cast from SHAKUDO, I see quite a number of gold 'dew drops' which have been inserted later in the production process. Some of them are kind of worn down, but the SEPPA DAI shows no signs of much use. Together with the thin patination, I think this is a well made TSUBA of very late manufacture, that has been pushed around on tables and in boxes by collectors, but was not mounted for a long time. Casting such an elaborate SUKASHI design would mean a lot of meticulous work with the molds, and even then, there would remain a lot of filing and polishing for a nice finish. I am interested in Ford's opinion on this one.

KANJITE, please sign all posts with your real first name plus an initial as is the rule here. I cannot read the SOSHO KANJI, but I see no numbers. America would probably be written as アメリカ or 亜米利加

I am not sure about YASUMITSU as I tend to read MOTOMITSU. Unfortunately I have no sword books to compare.