Ed Harbulak

Hi Michael, It seems pretty straight forward to me. Echizen ju just means "living in Echizen" or citizen of Echizen. It's not an unusual way to sign. He could have just as easily written: Tango no Daijo Fujiwara Echizen ju Shigetsuna if there had been enough room on the omote side of the nakago.

The 30 minute delay for the blade that Mark mentioned in #106 above is mine. When I went to pick up the three blades I had submitted, two were finished on schedule at 5:30 PM, but the third one was still sitting on the table in front of the shinsa team. Chris told me they wanted to discuss the blade and I should come back when they were finished with all the other blades for that day at 6:PM. When I first saw the blade a year ago, I was impressed by the quality but was surprised that although it was obviously shinshinto, it didn't have a yakidashi. That should have led me to consider it was suriage, but that didn't seem likely as the entire nakago looked ubu with nicely done kessho yasuri and a well done nakago jiri. It was also evident that a signature had been erased suggesting that someone had felt the original mei was gimei and therefore had it removed from an otherwise ubu nakago. In spite of the lack of a yakidashi, the blade was just too good to pass up so I purchased it and put it in this year's shinsa. The reason the shinsa team needed to discuss the blade before returning it to me was apparently precisely because of the removed mei from an ubu nakago but no yakidashi. Something just didn't seem right to them, hence the need for a discussion among the shinsa team. When I finally got the blade and work sheet back, it was apparent that one of the team members had called it ubu, but that was crossed off and O-suriage was circled after their discussion. On close examination, it is possible to see the hamon run well into the ubu looking nakago which now is clearly not ubu. The combination of ubu appearing nakago, the removed mei but no yakidashi just didn't seem right, so rather than accept the blade as is and making an attribution, they had a conference to discuss it until the shinsa judges determined what was going on. In the end they attributed the blade to Osaka Ozaki Suketaka with 75 points. He's a Josaku smith according to Fujishiro and 60 points in Hawley. By the way, a long, sugu yakidashi was Ozaki Suketaka's normal work style. On consulting my reference books, I think the attribution to Ozaki Suketaka makes sense and is reasonable.

The blade Roger mentioned on p. 197 of his book had not yet gone to shinsa, when the book was published. So we don't know if it passed or not. On the face of it, your blade would appear to be a katana, but signed on the "wrong" side. There are things in the mei that bother me, but not being an expert on kanji and knowing that signatures can vary, don't put much faith in my appraisal. Roger is most willing to help with anything related to the Tadayoshi school, so I would suggest sending him an e-mail with photos of the mei on your blade along with length, finish on the nakago mune, etc. Get his opinion and ask if the blade he mentioned on p. 197 passed shinsa. Since you are in Illinois you might submit the blade to the NTHK-NPO shinsa at the end of April. If the blade fails, then you have some other choices to make, but first things first, I would contact Roger then the shinsa and good luck.

I agree Ray. I recall reading, but don't remember exactly where, that the nakago mune of Tadayoshi school katana are slightly rounded while the nakago mune on waks are flat. However, if the nakago mune on a katana length blade is flat, it was originally made and intended to be used as a wak. Perhaps for a taller than usual samurai. It would help if we knew how the nakago mune was finished on Patrick's blade as well as the length of the blade. If I recall, the opposite is also true. A shorter length blade with a rounded nakago mune was meant to be a katana, no doubt for a shorter than average height samurai. Then regardless of the actual blade length, which side the nakago was signed on would indicate if it was intended to be a katana or wak. Life with the Tadayoshi family can get complicated.

Hi Patrick, What is the length (nagasa) of your blade, is it a katana or a wak? The Tadayoshi school signed waks katana mei and signed katana tachi mei. From the pictures, your blade seems to be a katana, which is why I'm asking about the length. If it is a true katana, (24 inches or longer) then no matter how good the signature looks, it's gimei because it's signed on the wrong side. Comparing the mei on your blade vs. several 4th generation mei in Roger Robertshaw's book, the "i" second character of Om-i looks too short and stubby compared to genuine examples. Based on what I can see, my guess is that unfortunately it's gimei.

Mathew, that's not an impossible story your grandfather told your grandmother. At the end of the war in the Pacific there were a number of official surrender ceremonious during which the Japanese officers formally turned their swords over to officers of the allied forces, be they U.S., British, Australian, etc. Perhaps your grandfather helped out at such a surrender ceremony and was given the sword as a thank you by one of the allied officers in charge. The fact that the officer had 5 swords to pass out rather sounds like a surrender ceremony. I once owned a sword acquired that way along with the paper work describing how the sword was presented.

Hi Marius, Yes, Eiroku 1558 to 1570. Congratulations, I knew you could do it.

The era they think the smith worked in is listed in the first column on the sheet with the photograph. Right next to the stamps of the shinsa members. It's written rather neatly and by consulting a table of dates I think you will have little difficulty finding the approximate year. I could give you the answer, but by solving the problem yourself, you will have learned something you can use in the future.

Hi Chris, If by "negative from a genuine" you mean the blossom appears to be sunk down rather than raised, it definitely looks raised on my monitor. Sometimes the lighting can play tricks with the way things appear. It looks normal and genuine to me. But, perhaps I'm not seeing the blossom the way you are.

Hi Andy, The fuchi is the brass colored reinforcing ring next to the hand guard. It keeps the wooden handle from possibly splitting. I don't see a thing wrong with it. It's original and obviously has been a part of the sword since before your grandfather obtained it in 1946. From the pictures you provided so far, the blade appears to have been shortened from an older and probably longer blade for use during WWII. The condition of the blade doesn't look too bad, although I'd be a little concerned about what appears to be a crack in the tang area. But, since you aren't (or shouldn't) be using the sword to do any cutting with, and it was considered good enough to be used as a weapon by the Japanese during the war, don't worry about the crack. I'm sure more people will give you additional information although some more detailed pictures of the bare blade as Bruce suggested would help. As for evil spirits possibly coming out of the scabbard depending on how the blade was hanging, I'd say it was your grandfather's way of keeping you from playing with it when you were young. All in all, it's a nice remembrance from your grandfather.

If I recall correctly, I believe Yasukuni smiths were instructed by the IJA to sign with a two character mei, above the mekuki ana on the omote side of the nakago with the date on the ura side. If it was a specially made blade, for example dedication to a temple or a blade the Emperor was going to present as a gift, then there was generally a longer, more detailed mei.

Hi Dennis It is a Seki stamp and it doesn't look like a Chinese fake. What makes you think it's an NCO sword? Have you ever seen an NCO with the maker's signature or a Seki stamp?

Fabio, I looked at the rubbing of the signature on the sword in question and it is indeed a fake or forgery. The second character, zen of Hi-zen, is not written the way the main line Tadayoshi family wrote that character. It's written correctly in Japanese, but the Tadayoshi family had their own style of writing that character which doesn't appear on your sword. You have been given good advice, so proceed carefully. You may also contact Roger Robertshaw who I'm sure will give you additional good information and advice.

Peter, The characters in the far right e-Bay example are spaced much closer together compared to the shoshin examples you provided, so I vote for gimei.

Fred, I can't be sure from your photo, but it doesn't look like same' or shark skin to me in the bare spots. It looks more like a coarse weave cloth of some kind. Often times at least the joints of wooded saya are covered with Japanese paper or cloth for strength before the paint is applied. I wonder if that's what you are seeing. If not, then it's certainly different than anything I've seen before.

Yes, 99.9% isopropylalcohol is excellent.

Pay particular attention to the handle wrapping which is typical of Chinese reproductions. The cross overs on the ito all go the same way while on genuine Japanese swords they alternate. That's a sure sign it's not Japanese, or at least an indication the nakago was not wrapped by someone with knowledge about the correct Japanese style.

In the book published by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston entitled "Japanese Master Swordsmiths: The Gassan Tradition" is a photograph taken in I presume about 1989. The photograph shows Gassan Sadaichi and three apprentices forging a sword at the museum in celebration of the opening of the New Asiatic Wing. Gassan Sadaichi was designated a living national treasure so definitely a Japanese sword smith, yet he was forging a sword in Boston. I'd certainly think he forged a true nihonto even though he did it in Boston rather than Japan. Did he take the blade back to Japan when he returned home, or might he have left it with the Museum? I wonder if the blade they forged was sent back to Japan to be polished. I rather doubt that the authorities in Japan would prevent a blade signed Gassan Sadaichi from entering the country. But, it's an interesting question to which I don't have the answer. Does anyone know where that blade is today?

To me, the date looks like it's "EiRoku second year 8th month" or 1559. The mei starts out Bitchu Kuni but then the remaining characters aren't quite clear enough for me to make out although I think one of them is Hiro. Some better photos would help and certainly a good picture of the broken tip of the blade. I'd call it a fantastic bargain for the price you paid.

Bruce, don't forget that WWII ended over 70 years go. Anyone who was working at the Japanese Sword Company right after the war either died long ago or has been retired for decades. That means the current employees at JSC are very unlikely to know what was going on in the company before they were born and are unlikely to be able to answer your questions based on their own knowledge. Unless the records the company might or might not have kept from the time in question still exist and the current employees know where they are stored plus have the time to search through those records, they aren't likely to be of any help in your investigation. I doubt they are lying. More likely they just don't know and don't have the time to hunt through old records, if they exist, to find the answer to your question. Unfortunately, time has that kind of effect on things that happened in the past.

Hi Grey, I attended that lecture which as I recall was given mostly in Japanese. The subject he covered during his talk was about the Bizen hamon and how it changed over time from the Heian through the Muromachi eras. His lecture had nothing to do with what's in the book that was available at the sword show. The book only gives examples of gimei and shoshin mei for some of the more famous sword smiths. The oshigata marked "X" means it's gimei while "O" means the oshigata is genuine. There are some very brief notes with some of the oshigata that explain why a mei is gimei. The notes are not too difficult to translate. I hope this helps. Ed

Perhaps it wasn't excessive file work, but necessary file work to thin the upper part of the nakago to accommodate a new habaki after the suriage. It would be interesting to see the entire blade rather than just the nakago. Leaving the original surface also kept the original yasurimei around the mei.

There are several on eBay, of all places.

Borjan, look very closely at the small box shape in the kanji for shige in the pictures of the two nakago you have above and compare them to each other. The kanji for shige in the left nakago shows the way the shodai wrote shige and the one to the right, where the horizontal lines are nearer to the bottom of the box with a space above is the way the nidai wrote shige. That difference should allow you to determine which generation made your sword.

Hi Bojan, The NBTHK Shodai Shigetaka mei looks very much like on your blade. If I remember correctly, the Shige Kanji for the Nidai looks somewhat different than the Shodai. I'm not an expert, but my guess is your blade is by the shodai. Because your blade is dated 1623 the NBTHK probably felt it wasn't necessary to mention which generation since the date on your blade should give you a good idea that it is the shodai. If your blade is coming from the sword polisher, you can always ask him which generation he thinks it is.