Ed Harbulak

I saw this sword on the Showa22 web site and if you look carefully, you can see the handle has been re-wrapped recently and not by someone familiar with how the Japanese would do it.

The family name of the swordsmith who made your blade is Motomura. He is listed in the names of the 1941 exhibition participants as "Motomura Kanemoto (Saga)". There were two WWII swordsmiths who used Kanemoto as their art name so don't get them mixed up. I think you are misunderstanding the concept of rare when it comes to the mounts your blade is in. Late in the war Japan was running out of essential materials and in order to save materials needed for the war effort, they simplified the scabbard and mountings in the last couple of years of the war. After using the type 98 mountings for most of the war, then they switched over to the Rinji style. Since it was only used for a couple of years at the end of the war, it's not as common as the type 98, but still there were plenty of the Rinji style made, so personally I wouldn't call them rare. Less common would be a better term.

According to Markus Sesko the civilian name of the Kanemoto who made your sword was Motomura Kensaku. He was born in 1907 and studied from 1924 under 3rd generation Muto Hisahiro. He worked as a Rikugun-Jumei tosho which should tell you a lot about your sword if you did a little searching about star stamps. It also appears he entered the 1941 sword competition, but I'll let you find out how he placed since you have a copy of John Slough's book Modern Japanese Swordsmiths 1868 - 1945..

We would know more if you told us the name of the sword smith.

Steve, his family name was Taniguchi Kazue, he's listed in Markus Sesko's index of Japanese sword smiths as working in the Showa era, meaning WWII. He was a good enough smith to enter the 1941 exhibition which means he was making traditional blades. He is listed along with 67 other sword smiths who ranked in 5th place which was the rising swordsmiths category. Meaning he was an up and coming smith who didn't come in first, but neither did a lot of others who entered. That doesn't mean he wasn't a good smith, it just means there were others who did better. Don't go by the ranking in the 1941 exhibition, judge the sword for the quality YOU can see. You obviously liked it enough to buy it, but now you are too hung up on what other people might think. Look at it this way, in 1941 he was good enough to enter the competition and made a decent showing. There's nothing wrong with that.

Steve, I checked my copy of John Slough's book that you have been quoting and I can't find any reference to 400 sword smiths at the 1941 exhibition.. It says "A total of 250 swordsmiths participated in this exhibition." There is also no mention of the number of people attending the exhibition, there were only 250 smiths who participated, meaning they entered blades for the competition. I think you are confusing the 1942 list of sword smiths that Kurihara Hikosaburo put together that does mention 400 smiths, but those are two different lists. Please read carefully. Kurihara's list in 1942 just lists the number of swordsmiths working that he knew about at the time, it has nothing to do with the number of smiths who entered the 1941 exhibition. It DOES NOT mean that 400 people entered the 1941 event.

During the Meiji period when wearing swords was outlawed, many fittings craftsmen looked for other ways to make a living and began making sets of table ware using kogatana for handles. This kogatana and knife blade look typical for the Meiji era and were mostly intended for the European tourist visitors to Japan. I have found some in the past on eBay selling as table ware rather than with Japanese swords.

Steve, unless your sword has a date on it, you really don't know in what year it was made other than sometime during WWII. Nor do you have any idea if your sword was the one Yoshikane entered in the 1941 competition. He may have entered more than one and presumably the blade or blades he did enter were made before the 1941 competition. Yours could have been made as late as 1945 and that's about the best you can say about your particular sword. More important than the date, is the workmanship and condition of the sword. It does look like a nice one so enjoy it for the workmanship and the history it has.

The seppa would cover up the cherry blossoms and star. That's not the way the Japanese design a tsuba to be. Yes, there are genuine tsuba (not military) where the seppa can cover the design, but those really aren't "working" tsuba, but are designed as works of art. I think this is some sort of fake. In addition the two holes look like this was meant to be attached to something using nails or screws.

The scabbard appears to be covered with textured lacquer while the material under the handle wrapping is called same' or shagreen in English. It's the skin of a ray. I'm sure others will give you more information about cleaning although it doesn't look like it needs more than perhaps a gentle brushing with something like a toothbrush.

If you can purchase 99% alcohol, that's a great choice. Don't get overly worried about the tiny amount of water in the alcohol, remember when a sword polisher polishes a blade he uses plenty of water. Just be sure to have a thin film of oil on it when you put it back in the saya.

You mentioned you plan to remove the old oil with a coffee filter and applying new oil with a microfiber cloth. Kleenex, facial or toilet tissue is fine for removing the old oil, but using a good grade of rubbing alcohol and tissue is the easier way to remove old oil from the blade. Use either the facial or toilet tissue to apply the fresh oil then wipe most of the oil off using a clean facial or toilet tissue. Only a thin film of oil is needed to keep the blade in good condition. If you search this site I'm sure you will find plenty of advice on how to remove or apply sword oil. Good luck with your new sword, it's a lot nicer than most people's first blade.

As important as the mei is, it's just one of many things that must be considered when determining if the blade was made by the signature alleged to be that of the maker. Since you now have examples of three verified signatures, you should also compare the shape of the end of the nakago or tang, the slant or angle of the file marks on the tang, the location of the signature with respect to the peg hole and whether the general shape of the tang of the genuine and your tang match. Ultimately, the workmanship of the blade should be similar to what that particular sword smith's characteristics are. Things like the hamon or his forging style, masame, itame, mokume, etc. In general, an examination of the characteristics of the blade should verify the authenticity of the signature, not the other way around. In my very early days collecting Japanese sword, I acquired an excellent blade by a rather famous maker. The signature on the tang matched perfectly with examples of verified signatures in the literature. I submitted the sword to shinsa where it was judged gimei or false. I asked why it was gimei since the signature was a perfect match for a genuine signature. The shinsa team pointed out that the shape of the end of the tang did not match that of the genuine smith's style. The lesson learned was that there are excellent forgers out there who can make excellent copies of signatures. Don't depend only on the signature on your sword, everything else must match the work style of the supposed sword smith. When you are satisfied that you have considered everything else besides the signature and you think it's correct, then it's time to submit the blade to shinsa to verify your own study and conclusions. I hope this helps you to appreciate the complexity of sword collecting. Enjoy the "ride", it's often a very long one and you will learn a lot along the way.

Fred had some medical problems a few months ago and his son was filling in for him, but I don't know what the situation is now.

There is an exception. I once had a sword that lost it's original mei when the blade was shortened. The swordsmith who shortened the blade signed his own name as the person who shortened the blade along with a comment that the sword was shortened to "meet with preference" or words to that effect and on the other side of the nakago he wrote the name of the smith who originally made and signed the blade. The blade passed shinsa without a problem as the work of the original smith.

Many WWII era swords, especially older blades, are often found with non-military tsuba. Find an old tsuba you like and mount it on the blade if you don't like the military style tsuba. Then you can say it's an old blade that went to war with its original tsuba. If you put the blade into 20th century civilian mounts, it will be neither military or period. It's your choice, but there are many options. The least expensive way would be to rebuild the wooden Tsuka as Dave suggested and use a tsuba of your choice.

There had been a polisher in France, who's name I no longer remember, who wrote a book on Japanese sword polishing. I believe he was at least partially trained in Japan, but I don't know if he's still alive or working. I believe there's also a Japanese trained polisher in Slovakia who I believe contributed to some topics here on NMB. It would seem the polisher you sent your sword to has at least been in contact with polishers in Japan and the video seems to indicate he knows what he's doing. It will be interesting to see the final results with your blade, assuming Brian allows it. Ultimately, the finished blade will determine if Pierluigi is a qualified polisher, so time will tell.

The dragon menuki with the sword in its tail is a male dragon and the other is a female dragon and that makes the two of them a matched pair, as they should be.

It looks like a better than average habaki and the hamon looks more complicated that most showato. For $860 it's a good gamble. My guess is that it's an older, probably mumei blade, either later shinto or shinshinto. If it turns out to be signed, then it could be a gendai. In any case, the tassel is worth $100 so I don't think you will loose. But, it sure would have been nice to get more good pictures.

A friend of mine once had a type 98 gunto with 4 menuki, two standard cherry blossom style, on each side of the tsuka, Perhaps the original owner wasn't able to make up his mind how to grip the tsuka, or perhaps he was ambidextrous.

It's probably hard to remove now because the wood of the saya has shrunk over the years. Wood shrinks, brass doesn't, means it's a very tight fit now.

Les, to answer some of your questions: 1) Your sword is definitely an older Japanese sword, but regardless of what the signature says, trust us, the signature was not written by Tadahiro. Among other things, the tip end of the tang is the wrong shape for a Tadahiro blade. 2) Tadahiro lived and worked in the mid 1600's so it's reasonable to think your sword is younger than that, perhaps from the 17 or even 1800's. The exact date is harder to pin down. Even during the working life of the more famous sword smiths, other sword smiths were making blades with forgeries of famous sword smith's signatures. That practice has been going on in Japan for hundreds of years and was a fairly common practice throughout history. I'll even bet you can find fake Rolex watches on e-Bay today. 3) You can still have the sword polished if you want, it's your sword, your money and your decision. Ken has listed two excellent American polishers in the above comment. You could even have the fake (gimei) signature professionally removed, have the blade polished, a new habaki and shirasaya (storage scabbard) made and send it to either the NBTHK , NTHK or NTHK-NPO to get an opinion of who the actual maker might be and when it was made, but quite frankly the blade isn't worth spending that much money on. Keep it lightly oiled and honor it as your families heritage that's easily more than 100 years old. Good luck with what ever you decide.

The blade is signed Hizen kuni (no) ju, Fujiwara Tada Hiro. Translated it says "made by" TadaHiro, resident of Hizen Province, Fujiwara (clan). Hizen TadaHiro is a big name smith so one always has to be careful of fake signatures, which I suspect is the case here. Technically the blade is a wakizashi but the signature is on the wrong side of the nakago or tang. There's a slim chance it's signed on the side it is because originally it was meant to be a short katana, but the writing isn't as neat as I'd expect it to be for this smith. It's a good Japanese sword otherwise, but definitely needs further study.

Are your sure it's solder and not some kind of epoxy? Many amateurs want to "fix" things but don't have the necessary tools or equipment for soldering so use epoxy instead.

In general, a person's abilities increase with how long a person's working life is or was and how long he's been doing a particular activity, like making swords. Middle age, for example ages from perhaps 30 to 60 years old in the working life of a sword smith will see quality differences between his early years, his middle years and later years. When a sword smith is in the middle of his working years, his work will most probably be at its best and then the quality may gradually go down hill as he gets older and older. As he gets older his son often starts taking over the work under his father's name so it's sometimes hard to know if the father made the blade or his son or top student. On the other hand, if the smith dies during his peak working years, his last swords will be among his best work. One sometimes sees swords with the inscription made at age 60, as sort of an indication that the smith is saying "Wow, I'm still able to make a good blade at my age". Each sword really has to be judged on it's own merits and knowing at what point in his career the smith made it.