ROKUJURO

Barrie, as far as I know there are three main types of quivers which were used by the SAMURAI: SHIKO, EBIRA, and UTSUBO. Yours is an UTSUBO. The general term for an arrow transport container as used in KYUDO is YAZUTSU. Just in case you are not aware of: In an UTSUBO the feathers are up (for protection) and the YANONE are held by the little grid at the bottom of the UTSUBO.

Andreja, these swords are made by people who have never seen a Japanese sword close enough to be able to copy it, and they are bought by people who know Japanese swords only from bad movies. So everything fits fine, I think. Scratches are generally not a safe sign of being genuine and Japanese, and 'old' is not a precise term in connection with NIHONTO. Can we agree that it is a sword? Then that is all you can say about it.

I did not write: As an exception,...... :D

Chris is right on this one, it's not old and as far as the pictures allow a guess, it has not been used much. A good way to find out about the signature would be to ask in a Japanese KYUDO club or at a YUMI manufacturer's in Japan.

Probably HOTEI by MASA.....?

Paul, welcome to the NMB! Feel free to show some of your items if they are related to NIHON TO!

Edward, better find two SEPPA! The FUKURE is not very pretty, but you can only make a decision for or against a polish after a trained polisher has had the blade in hand (or at least seen it). Sometimes a professional TOGISHI can work wonders! On the other hand a defect like this can prove to be quite deep and an improvement is then impossible.

Edward, I can't read the first KANJI, but the other two might be MASATSUGU. From the condition of the NAKAGO I would guess it's a KOTO blade.

Jean, as far as I understand the technical term FUNBARI, it does not describe a considerable difference in the width between MOTO HABA and SAKI HABA. Instead, the increase in width, going daown the blade from the KISSAKI, is related to the part of the blade just above the HABAKI/HA MACHI. I was told that this was a technical feature in times when blades were quite thin in construction (little KASANE) to increase their durability in combat.

Brian, it is a NAGINATA FUCHI as was mentioned. To be completely sure about the production process it would surely be helpful to have a look into the inside of the item. I have seen objects being preformed and then worked on with small chisels (Yes, Mariusz, you are not yet completely out of the race!). This might only be visible on closer inspection, but of course I trust the judgement of Ford.

George, this info is from WIKIPEDIA, but it is not correct. Flint is partly of organic origin which can be seen by the organisms found in it. The formation is not completely explored but it is a chemical process which is why Flint is amorphous.

Hamish, fast aging is a contradiction in itself. You could realize that with little sleep, drinking a lot of alcoholic stuff and smoking cigars, but I am not sure that this works with TSUBA! As I said, patination is an art, and it might need many trials to find out what would be best for your TSUBA. You might search in the www for SABIJI, but I am not too confident that the process will work on this kind of steel. For a simple 'show' TSUBA you could go to your local gun-store and ask them for a 'gun-brown' treatment. I don't know for sure but it could be that before any treatment the old corroded surface will have to be removed, but I think we should not go into the subject of do-it-yourself. There is a risk of damaging objects of value, and the NMB wants to follow it's way of protection and preservation of NIHONTO-related items. A much better way would be to ask a renowned TSUBA expert like Ford Hallam (here at NMB).

Hamfish, I may be wrong in interpreting your photos but I don't see much of a patina. Instead the surface looks corroded in spots. There are no hints of a forging treatment (I am a smith) but some small irregularities in the metal. The area around the NAKAGO ANA tells me it was die-cut. Repatinating is an art and requires knowledge and experience. It also requires exact information on the metal used, and in your case it might well be some alloyed industrial sheet metal where the traditional patination solutions will not work on as expected. I would just leave it alone and suggest you concentrate your efforts on a more promising TSUBA.

No doubt, it is a real sword, but not a Japanese one.

Brian, you have erased a controversy in the discussion which may be good for a superficial look of harmony, but I think I understand the arguments of both sides. If we judge a piece of art on the basis of a rigid list of features and leave our educated feelings (SENSORIUM) aside then of course it facilitates the game of fakers. I feel that Ford wanted to encourage us to use our gut feelings (which is of course of little value if we are not trained on high quality objects of art) besides the 'technical' criteria which are important, too. One of the most renowned potters of the 20th century, KANJIRO KAWAI, was cited to reply to a question of a journalist on how to decide between good and bad ceramics. He answered: 'With your body.' I think this says it all. In the case of the TSUBA in question, it may be difficult to divide between true and false just by pictures, and while Pete expressed that the TSUBA might be a damaged but genuine one, Ford saw the possibilities of faking going above the level we are used to see, and I believe in his expertise. If we remember that fakes used to be made in former times basically with the same techniques as fine UTSUSHI pieces, then there is indeed no reason why it could not be done today. We are used to identify fakes by poor design and sloppy work, but what if someone with a technical and artistical background (and some machines to speed up the basic work) decided to make money with 'good' fakes? I think they are already at work today, but we shall see. Returning to the TSUBA in question, I could imagine an original TSUBA having been in a fire as mentioned. The necessary work of cleaning and 'restoring' removed some material as well as the patina, of course, which led to it's look today. The pleasing basic design is still there, but it is altered to an extent that it is difficult to relate it with certainty to a school or a maker. All in all, I find this dicussion very helpful and educating although it might not necessarily have led to a solution for the t.o.

Reuben, I would like to join in the calls for being careful because the description is not reliable. The seller writes: .... is mounted in the original mounting with a very old iron Tosho sword guard. This blade has an oversize Kissaki (very desirable),..... You should not believe in the 'original mounting'. You cannot be sure of that as long as the ages of the blade and the KOSHIRAE are not clear. The TSUBA is definitely not a TOSHO TSUBA, and the KISSAKI does not seem to be oversized (O-KISSAKI) as far as I can see from the tiny pictures.

Curtis, arrowheads of this type can be found in many stoneage cultures of the world, so very early Japan cannot be excluded. The material looks indeed like obsidian (a volcanic glass) and not so much like flint. A specialist for minerals and stones (petrologist) may be able to trace the material back to it's origin.

Gentlemen, to me the depicted animal is closer to a TANUKI than to a frog.

Brian, the thin-walled tube is perhaps not a big problem, but it should be conical, if I know it right. This one looks like recently home-made from a water-pipe. Maybe just a decoration piece for theater or western tourists.

Jean, a beautiful blade as you should expect from a JUYO! J'ai l'impression que les dimensions des KASANE (épaisseur) ne sont pas correcte.

Mark, that was probably not over paid! AKA SHINO is always nice to have, and although not by ARAKAWA TOYOZO, I submit my congratulations!

Bas, it is indeed KAZUNORI. The blade was made in October, 1943. As already mentioned, your pictures are upside down.

Bas, you could give it a try with the informations provided here on the NMB forums! But as the date is standing on the head you might have a problem reading it, so I will tell you that it says SHOWA seventeenth year (rest is missing). The MEI (signature) is NORI, but it is only half of the signature which seems to belong to a WWII blade. Try better photos directly from above, and then we may discuss again.

Ian, there is a lot to read about Japanese swords - a whole new world is waiting for you! Never think that something you cannot do could not be done! Japanese craftsmen are trained in their respective fields and they can do magic! The same applies to our specialists. I understand you exitement, but please NEVER display a 'naked' sword! As you read about the subject you will learn that blades are stacked away unless they are needed for special occasions. KOSHIRAE with blades were sometimes displayed at court, but in private homes they often had a TSUNAGI (wooden blade replacement to hold the KOSHIRAE together) inside. But take your time to enjoy and understand, stay with us at the NMB and learn a lot! It is a lifetime disease.....

Yes, this was a breaking test, not cutting! Interestingly, the blow was not executed with the MONOUCHI. Maybe it would have broken then. I have no doubt that the blade was damaged to an extent. I don't quite understand this kind of test.