kazarena

Hi Grey, That would be 2 swords, both made in 1366: Nagayoshi: http://nihontoclub.com/swords/0000-0365 Tomomitsu: http://nihontoclub.com/swords/0000-0375 See: http://nihontoclub.com/swords/list?orde ... ting=12487 Regards, Stan

Hi James, This is the smith mentioned in Meikan: http://nihontoclub.com/smiths/SAD16 Regards, Stan

Hi Paul, I also have a comparable amount of NBTHK magazines and it's also in my plans to go through them and compile an index of oshigata and other useful info. I started doing it few years ago, but encountered a number of problems which made this exercise hard to justify. Firstly, many interesting articles, especially 20-30 years ago, span over large number of issues, and unless I have all of them (which is not the case, some issues are harder to find and there are always gaps) the info gets fragmented and not too helpful to use. Secondly, it's the volume as you have mentioned. Unless it's a community effort, many years of work would be required. So far I found it's much easier just to take the necessary issue from the bookshelf rather than spend time creating the full index, and then occasionally just record interesting references. I will definitely be looking at the oshigata index in the autumn or even earlier, so I'm happy to share the work in this direction. We may also have some non-overlapping issues. I'm not aware of any existing indexes, it would be interesting to find out if there are any. I have a spreadsheet of issues though, stating when each issue was published (courtesy of Pierre Nadeau). Regards, Stan

Hi Mark, It is known that Honami Heijuro died in 1882 at the age of 55. This places your sayagaki roughly between 1847 and 1880. It would be good if somebody could confirm the sayagaki is indeed made by Honami Heijuro. It's just a pure speculation, but as there were only 2 Munetsugu working at that time, and the sword was still pretty new within this timeframe, it suggests the current owner wasn't sure who exactly made the sword. This may explain why it was brought to Honami. Regards, Stan

Hi Mark, Thank you for posting the photos. Yes, the date is as described, Bunsei 2 (1819). In regards to Munetsugu MUN555, also known as Mutsu no Suke Hiromoto, there's a good write-up on him here: http://www.seiyudo.com/ka-010712.htm (sorry, in Japanese). Still, there is no mention of a signature like on your sword. Also, your signature is done in large and rather sloppy characters, not typical of Munetsugu/Hiromoto. Here's another sword by Hiromoto: http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2009/0910_1106syousai.htm Anyway, it appears to be a quite exciting puzzle you'll need to solve. This is what I like about Nihonto :D Regards, Stan

Hi Mark, I think it's worth mentioning that the dates in Sho-Shin (and Hawley's too, and many other English sources) usually just mark the first year of the Japanese era (nengo). I.e. if you see something like this: 1804 is just the beginning of Bunka era (1804-1818). If you look at Japanese (as: in Japanese language) swordsmith directories, smiths are listed by era only without references to a particular year (e.g. that Munetsugu would appear as 'Munetsugu of Iwashiro, Bunka era' (which means his peak activity was in Bunka era, or, to re-phrase it, there were examples of smith's works with Bunka era inscribed on the tang, or there is some other evidence or historical accounts that the smith was active during this era, and the further back you go in time, the more spurious and imprecise these accounts will be). As Western readers aren't used to nengo system, usually the first year of the era appears in the listings. Hawley is sometimes more precise and puts a range of dates against the smith's record. It may be quite misleading for an inexperienced reader. Some eras span over 30 years (e.g. Oei, 1394-1428) but all you'll see in the English listings is 1394, even if the smith worked in 1420s and later. On the other hand, some eras are too short (only 2-3 years), and in this case you'd usually see something like 'this smith was active between era A and era B'. However, typical concise swordsmith directories would only mention era A or era B or some era in between, whichever the author considered to be the most representative period of smith's work. Regards, Stan

Hi Mark, Munetsugu is listed in Hawley under MUN521-588. I wonder if you were looking at the older version of Hawley's book and numbering was different there. As mentioned in another thread, MUN555 and MUN559 (Koyama Munetsugu) seem to be good candidates for further comparison. However, I wasn't able to find any references to either of them signing 三条宗近十六代宗次. You were saying the sword is dated. Is there a photo of the inscription with a date and also a photo of the sayagaki? Regards, Stan

Hi Mark, Sho-Shin database mostly covers smiths which appeared in Toko Taikan. NihontoClub database neither is nor intends to be a full copy of Hawley's. Less known smiths aren't covered as much, primarily due to resource constraints. I'd suggest always to look back into the sources, Nihonto Meikan and Toko Taikan first of all. If some records are missing, I'd be happy to add them for you. Regards, Stan

Jean, Here's an example: Kanekimi 兼主 This smith can be found in Meikan (p.132). Here's a sword by Kanekimi with NBTHK cert which shows hiragana for the name: http://www.bidders.co.jp/aitem/162332942 It may be the case that our Japanese friends would say 'of course it reads Kanekimi, how else would you read it' :-) but personally I'd never have guessed this reading, armed with just a couple of Japanese dictionaries (even though I can see a faint link via 'lord' meaning of the Kanji) Regards, Stan

I'll do my best Jean. If I can't recall one straight away, I'll post one when I see another example next time. Regards, Stan

Dear Jacques, I totally agree. It's just sometimes the name is read in a certain way traditionally (I mean, in Nihonto tradition). I don't know if this is the case here as I'm not too familiar with this smith, but for a layman like myself, if Meikan lists it as Masamitsu, I'll just take it as is. I'm happy to correct myself if there's a more prominent source pronouncing the name in a different way. Regards, Stan

Hi Eric, I tend to disagree. Both Hawley and Nihonto Meikan list MAS479 as Masamitsu. However, it is fair to say that Afu translated the name as Masayasu in his version of Fujishiro's. Regards, Stan

Dear Jacques, Would you mind sharing the sources where I can read more about Shodai Nobuyoshi signing Echizen no Kami? Regards, Stan

Hi Heidar, It's this one: http://nihontoclub.com/smiths/NOB586 He is listed in Settsu province, but he is from Yamashiro I think. Regards, Stan

Soten_Fan, I've added few more signatures of Naganori 永則 into Nihonto Club database to resolve your doubts. See the posts above. It's more likely to be NAG87-NAG89. It is also mentioned in Fujishiro (Koto Volume, p.243) that Naganori of Yoshii (Bizen) later moved to Izumo. There seemed to be 2-3 generations of Naganori but it may have been, as mentioned by George earlier, just one generation. It would be interesting to dig more into it! Regards, Stan N.

Hi Peter, Thanks to John for mentioning me earlier. I'm in Dublin myself. I visit Belfast occasionally, but not too often. By the way, there's a seminar on Japanese swords in Leeds in February. It's not too far from us. Regards, Stan

It appears that ALL the swords had been opened and examined by Customs in here (Ireland). Regards, Stan

Hi Grey, Being Russian myself (but not living in Russia) I heard about this way of shipping. As far as I remember it's not a requirement of any kind, but rather a way to reduce the amount of potential hassle with Customs. I don't mean tax avoidance as Russian Customs are pretty efficient in charging whatever taxes/fees they find appropriate. But when the blade is shipped separately from koshirae, it looks more like an antique item and not like an offensive weapon which is a good candidate for being taken by police/mysteriously lost in transfer/greasy fingerprints left/bent to see if it's made of real steel (yes, it's a true story!) etc. That's what I heard. I can't guarantee it's 100% correct though, but it sounds plausible. Regards, Stan

Hi Grey, There was an announcement on Jim Breen's that the site will be unavailable for few days due to upgrade. BTW, there's another very handy website which allows multi radical search (based on Jim Breen's anyway): http://jisho.org/kanji/radicals/ I find it more convenient as the page doesn't get refreshed when you pick next redical. Regards, Stan N.

And also here: http://www.afuresearch.com/glossary1.htm Regards, Stan

Hi Grey, I'm also using Jim Breen's online dictionary mentioned before. I can compile an Excel spreadsheet for you with romaji smith names vs. kanji names vs. Hawley IDs, if it helps. I'm also using another spreadsheet which only contains single kanji vs. romaji. It's pretty easy to use. PM me if interested. Regards, Stan

Hawley lists few smiths which were Lords of particular clans. Naonaga [NAO131] - Lord Muramatsu Nagatomo [NAG122] - Lord Akimoto Nagatomo Kanehisa [KAN963] - Lord of Harima, hobbymaker Shin [sHI1008] - Secret name of Lord Tsunamune. Narinori [NAR127] - Lord Matsudaira of Kawagoe Castle working as a hobby. Naonaka [NAO139] - Lord of Hikono Castle Tadamochi [TAD160] - Lord of Himeji Clan So I guess it wasn't unusual for Lords to make swords as a hobby. Regards, Stan N.

Impressive work! I had the same thing in mind some time ago after getting Fujishiro in Japanese. But then fortunately for my impatience and unfortunately for my ability to decypher mei, I got the full translation before the work started So now all I can do is envy you :lol: Regards, Stan N.

I mean, it's an error in a sense that as this smith is not well-known, Hawley's is the primary reference. And if there is Gendaito Sadatoshi then if must be a different smith. :lol: Regards, Stan

Hi Brian, Yes, it's an error. SAD706 is of Kan-ei era. Regards, Stan