Rivkin

In as much as I like Markus's writing, always very meticuluos curbing through old and new nihonto literature, I think there many non-nihonto sources that he did not address here. 15th century saw a collapse of Japanese economy and virtual halt in sword production. Ashikaga's were consistent in issuing mobilisation order combined with pardons of debts, so that bushi could requisition blades and armor from pawn shops. In return, pawn brokers were introducing tighter restrictions on accepting armor and blades as collateral (for various reasons, most of the sales were apparently classified as loans), which still did not help with that no one was actually buying them. Bizen was an exception since it still had a stream of customers for its top work, but in this atmosphere to talk about prevailing prices on blades or armor is difficult. Also it is not unexpected that a good portion of exports could have been older blades. Second, Japanese trade and commerce was always a matter of state's monopoly (especially since China for most periods did not accept non-state agents) - and the overall system of production was more akin to ever-decaying socialism with regulated prices and state licensing, but numerous exceptions for individual dealings, rather than a truly competitive market. Government license more often than not meant the right to requisition goods at the "official price", so the problem why much greater quantity of copper were requested from Edo period mines for the purpose of being sold abroad than actually arrived in Nagasaki has a simple explanation. Some businesses could resist if their patrons were strong enough; however in Kyoto-Nara area nearly all commerce was still patronized by a few major temples, and since they were instrumental to these missions abroad it is unlikely they had to haggle with swordsmiths beyond the basic expenses. At the same time, how much was actually shipped and actually sold can also be questioned, especially with Chinese sources notoriously silent on the issue and a complete lack of period finds. It has to be admitted any period finds on the continent are rare, but they do exist, and it is clear that only around 1550 there comes a flood of Japanese hira-zukuri wakizashi to Amur river and beyond, as well as various tsuba found anywhere from Korea to Vietnam. Third is that the money paid also had very relative value at the time. For the government it was on a very formal level all the same. In Japan later there will be copper, silver, gold and even paper money, with official equivalence but real life substantially different purchasing ability (which was still a crime). During the 15th centruy, its not exactly clear what was happening in Japan with copper. Yes, there were exports, but Korean sources indicate that these copper exports were reprocessed to yield silver. Whatever the reason, copper coin was exceptionally prized, but Chinese silver currency was avoided, Chinese silk was prized, and to some extent Chinese scrolls and paintings, which served until the Meiji revolution as a default gift to Kyoto aristocracy and Tenno's relations. Yet the mixture in which the payment was conducted is also to some extent uncertain - sometimes there are clear Japanese statements saying so much was received in copper coin, but not in others. And comparing the same nominal price in copper coin to the nominal price which could've been paid in kind is very difficult. Kirill R.

Not being Nobuie specific, but in any realm of arms and armor there comes time when someone has to appraise a pile of objects with no clear dates and references, and often with a predomination of a particular signature. Europeans generally point out the likely period the items are coming from, as well as the possible origin of the signature, commenting that its widespread use prevents more precise identification. Russians find pieces of more or less uniform craftsmanship and length, to be declared as the "pattern adopted by the Royal guard", and then all the way down to a mish mash of poor quality pieces which are "ersatz examples provided by unscrupilous makers". Japanese take best pieces and say - that's the first generation. Then come somewhat different and wilder ones - that's the second. The rest is "later generations". Kirill R.

My very personal and erroneous opinion: everything stated by Haynes, Elliott, McKinney and more so by Japanese nihonto authorities in regards to continental fittings, blades, and their trade interactions with Japan has to be treated with more than a grain of salt. All of it is based on "its logical to assume" argumentation since no one actually bothered at all to browse any of the major collections of the continental tsuba or Japanese items unearthed in Korea or greater Manchuria. There was recently a government grant in Japan given to archaeology student to go and study along this lines - and even in this case the student managed to partner with a continental university that does not have anything decent.... Without checking the relevant books, here the issue is more about how these well known texts about Japanese blades being exported to China have to be interpreted, and there is a large uncertainty. Well mounted blades as far as I remember were listed separately and their numbers were quite few, for the most its not exactly clear what was going on there in terms of mounts. Unlike the earlier Japanese exports around during the early Heian period, for some reason contemporary Chinese documents are mostly silent on these numbers altogether, and there is indeed huge and rapid increase of Japanese items being unearthed on the continent, but it corresponds to the 16th century rather than 15th century... Taking in mind that it was not completely uncommon for various Japanese sources to give drastically different records with regards to foreign trade, copper trade export disaster of the late 1600s-early 1700s being a great example, these export numbers might be accurate or they might be not. Kirill R.

Not being an expert on the subject, I don't think these late tsubas can be classified easily based on the subject matter, which is a classic combination from no less classic Chinese paintings and stories. Kaneie was sort of the first, but then from Umetada Shigeyoshi to Aizu Shoami one does see such topics now and then in pretty similar execution. Below is an artist he is neither classic Nara nor Mito, but Yokoya by training. sho from Dai sho. Actually looking at the plate on one of the pictures in the beginning of this topic, I would argue that this could very well be by the same maker. He also did a lot of iron works that do look somewhat more simple compared to his kinko, but very much along the same imagery, slightly raised rim etc. Kirill R.

As far as gimei goes, Hosho Sadamune is not that bad. This attribution was applied to top level blades during the late Muromachi and early Edo periods, Tokugawa and allies Hosho's had a tendency of becoming Sadamune in attributions. Today in my opinion even though papers to this name are not issued, green papers will have a tendency to jump to just a comparable ko Hosho thing... Case in point, if the blade is indeed Hosho (which is easy to check), then they are all tend to be quite good, even Sue-Hosho. The signature might have found the way there to indicate something that is more than just good. It can be just worthless rod, that someone just enhanced so that it sells somehow. But at least there is a chance. Ok, looking in the actual album its in really tough condition. You'll be lucky to find a spot where some work is seen. The signature is done so ugly, it was unlikely in any good collection though... Kirill R.

Yes, Meito Zuikan. I had an opportunity to re-photograph some of the blades published and compare the technique with the one he originally used. Kirill R.

A lot of western museums have now large collections of rusted rods because most European collectors around 1900 refused to buy blades in shirasaya, koshirae only. No nightly changes - one is a legitimate long term storage option, the other is not save rare cases. Kirill R.

Not an expert on iron tsuba but the signature looks fresher then the rest and even the rest is very uniform and sort of flat. 19th century? Kirill R.

I am missing one or two issues in Fujishiro’s photo essays. Kirill R.

A skill often acquired after seeing at least hundreds and owning dozens of good swords. Kirill R.

The only one I know who fits this is late Gorelik. He suffered from severe poverty, which did impact his writings - often condensed to the point of being stripped from much of the discussion and argument, for the sake of getting the book out in time. Very unfortunate! Now some of his contributions can be appreciated only by a specialist. Besides him I am perplexed to name anyone. I mean people of solid novel contribution, creating their own school of dating and attribution, changing our knowledge of the field... In the early West that would be Stone and Oakeshott, first is a collector par excellence, second is less wealthy but a notable collector as well. In Japan that would likely be Dr. Honma, and Wakayama, I guess. One of the obvious issues is that besides LaRocca's work on Tibet and David Nicolle's monographs there is really not much original of comparable scale that would be coming today from professorial-curatorial arms and armor circles. Markus made a solid contribution through many useful books. Kirill R.

Can be about 1000 years. Kirill R.

Its an extremely tough question that sort of does not have a good answer. There are some swords in major collections which were polished the last time during the early Edo period; they do not show pristine early Edo level polish, one can say they are completely out of polish. Sciense-wise it can come down to question of how stable is a grain of martensite in a configuration where it sort of physically "sticks out of the surface". Yet stability of martensite, probability of phase transition and thus ability to retain structure versus time is a highly arcane subject; In fact everything that comes down to real sciense of steel is an arcane subject, in part since its notoriously resistant to first principles modeling and its more or less clear we are talking about centuries in the least, i.e. beyond the practical lifetime of what is sold today. There were even some (nonsense) analytical estimates that predicted that martensite and thus evidence of heat treatment actually disappears in 1000 years. Kirill R.

There is always an element of impropriety for me to comment on other's offerings, because occasionally I sell myself so there is conflict of interest, but personally I don't find either of the three exciting. Sengaku period did saw a lot of cross-breeding in terms of style, but still this Masaie looks a little bit more like generic early shinto than typical Masaie. Its not a great signature, so not a lot of reason to fake, and maybe there was even shinto Masaie, something to check, but sue-Mihara typically does have strong hada, and still tends to do hamon in Yamashiro style. Most of purchases today go through the internet, so ebay, stores etc. are sort of fine, with caution. Kirill R.

No, there is not. There are no records I am aware of, and thus arrogantly assume they are either deviant or non-existent, that clearly demonstrate such concern among the documented, major historical collections, and such things as taking out a precious tanto from the early Soshu master or even a major Bizen Ichimonji blade and cutting someone with it simply to keep up its spirit belongs to the world of manga and various O-sensei. Nobody was taking blades out of Shosoin in the mid-Muromachi to keep them alive a bit longer, or else they suffocate. The cutting was sometimes conducted with major names, but for the reasons of testing rather than saving a blade. There is a Mongol-Manchurian originating tradition to sacrifice people to the banner, likely similarly originating traditions to eat enemy's liver, display heads and so on. This being said, an average Bungo blade or something of similar kind will do the job of cutting quite well enough and with no serious risk to the heritage. Kirill R.

Thanks! I had very vague recollection concerning mons being engraved, but sort of dismissed it... Went through some books and indeed saw a number of higher end blades signed by mon - in all cases the signature was so worn out it probably dates to Momoyama or such. Long old tachi blades. Kirill R.

The object in question sort of wants to pass as Yasutsugu... I doubt the intent of engraving the mon was even to show it belonged to Tokugawa. I might be wrong and hope to be corrected in this case, but I did not see (apart obviously from very many Yasutsugu) swords in Tokugawa (either Mito or Owari) collections with mon engraved on nakago to demonstrate ownership. Its not really Japanese tradition to do so. Papers, signatures on hako are places where the ownership is often stated, sometimes one gets to see signatures chiseled on nakago saying this is owned by such and such, but engraving mon is just not the thing. Habaki can have mon. Hako can have mons. Mon on nakago typically means a shinto smith who was given the right to engrave such mon. Kirill R.

Very personal opinion - despite sugata matching severely cut down old sword, the rough broad features of hada to me suggest Muromachi. It also does not have nie that would truly stand out it seems. Sengaku Satsuma Naminohira would be my likely erroneous guess. Kirill R.

My problem with it is that for pre-1500 blade the curvatue is too uniform and shallow. It would make sense were it o-suriage, but does not look right for the ubu blade. If this is the case, its probably does not matter that much which Nagamitsu, as long as its not gimei... There are not really any famous nijimei examples coming to my head when thinking about those times. Personal and erroneous opinion, Kirill R.

Stupid question - did someone cut the hi so much below kissaki in Nambokucho period? Ok, got resolved - no the most common position, but can be encountered. Kirill R.

Very personal and erroneous: The style overall is Yamato, probably someone influenced by Tegai subschool. The execution looks a lot like Owari Masatsune. Date-wise probably late 1700s, they were quite active in the period. They can be quite decent, though the hada here is not standing out as prominently as on some of their work (well they also tend to have ware...). I would take much better pictures of the piece. It can be original, old work, just recently shortened, though by present photos to be Masatsune is more likely. Kirill R.

Wow, this kind of nakago signature I guess is quite rare. Ishido school or someone related from shinshinto? Is boshi in suguha? Kirill R.

Very personal take: Nice example of how post-mid-sengaku (quite prominent already with some Mino Kanefusa and Ujifusa?) and especially shinto [probably Shinto in this case?] to shintshinto hamon of decent quality looks like - a foam of nie on top, with very much varied crystal size, over relatively dense and uniform, wide structure below. The hada appears to be tight itame with quite some ji nie. It might be not a bad sword. Brilliant white in hada is ji nie. In this picture the bluish-dark in ha is nie when its a separate crystal. White is from hadori, a polishing technique to accent hamon, especially its nie. Kirill R.

I think it depends on what is defined as meito. The ones published in "Meibutsu" - no. Then there is a class of swords which are supposed to be identified as named swords from classic Japanese literature works of Heian-Nambokucho periods. Some of those are in Meibutsu; all have weak provenance, with clearly lossed verifiable transmission sometime between mid-Nambokucho to 1510 or so. Still they belonged to important Edo collections and are accepted as original Heian or Kamakura period swords, at least "in public". The answer here is also probably no. Then there are swords with sayagaki, usually from Meiji-Taisho period that say that this sword was in pocession of x for generations, maybe dating back to y, and its called "grievous lighting" or some other name. Usually the sayagaki is done by a shop owner (who were the main experts at the time), and those examples do come up from time to time for sale anywhere. Taking in mind that cynical scholarship is absolutely not welcome in nihonto, whether with respect to American "Ashikaga Takauji's own armor" or Japan's own "Kogarasumaru", almost all of the "meito" examples are taken at face value as originals of appropriate age and exact provenance. Kirill R.

George, as much as polishing adventure sounds interesting, an honest and cynical advice is not to embark on it for an unsigned daito unless you are dead certain its Heian to Nambokucho, with maybe Oei Bizen being an exception. The prices of unsigned swords from other periods are not that great. It saves time for a dealer who sees hundreds of unpolished swords - unsigned post-Nambokucho? Financially not worth the effort. Signed - evaluate the signature and then make the decision. Simple rules which are sufficient to function reasonably well in this business. Plus the chances that the polish will not reveal new problems is not that great. Finally, the chance that it will come out as a great sword - very small. Its better to bite the bullet and buy a really attractive sword in polish where you can see a lot of things. Kirill R.