Eric H

... I think the Aoi Tanto is that Muramasa as the last Oshigata Eric

mostly but not exclusively Oshigata, it's one of the three Muramasa Eric

But what Muramasa?... :lol: Eric

A statement by Adrian himself should not be overlooked: Adrian said: „this article I wrote is actually a compendium of information and ideas I have found from Japanese sources in particular“. In fact it is nothing else but a survey on the theories developed by other authors... Adrians merits are to have put together the essential conclusions of these authors.. but, are they approved by established scholars?...or merely speculations?...when Adrian speculates on traces back to Sythia?... Anyway the brilliant study by Carlo G. Tacchini is highly recommended to those who are interested in the „Origins of NihonTo“. Eric

The door is open...a research on another Board on the Mokusa School: http://www.thejapanesesword.com/forum/v ... f=11&t=168 Eric

I mentioned the interesting stories in relation to important swords. I add what is known about the „Musashi Masamune“. There are many references to old sword directories. The fact that the Japanese have registered their swords and even more thousands of smiths with their names and signatures and life dates is, I think, unique in the world. Thanks to Willis M. Hawley for his books. Adrian, could you please show a pic of the oshigata. The Musashi Masamune Eric

Many Masamune swords have an established history and interesting stories about them. More recent articles from the NBTHK journals: Masamune suriage - 70.3 cm - Kinzogan mei Honami Kao (Koshitsu) owned by Okura Shukokan Token Bijutsu No. 620 - 2008 ...In the book „Koto-meizukushi Taizen“ which was published at the end of the Edo period, it was said that Masamune died in Koei 2 (1343) at the age of 81, and although this is uncertain, we are guessing that he was active at the end of the Kamakura period to the Nanbokucho period. ...and among his tachi, there is one signed Kinoshita Masamune (classified as Juyo Bijutsuhin), and another sword is a ko-tachi with an ubu-nakago (in the 4th issue of this magazine which is classified as Tokubetsu Juyo Bijutsu- hin. This blade was signed by Mitsutsune in red ink, and these are the only swords on which we have seen this signature. The sword was published by Honami Koshitsu (10th generation), and he decided it was a Masamune sword, and he signed his name in kinzogan style (gold inlay signature). The shape of the mihaba and kissaki is similar to the Meibutsu swords Joizumi and Ishida, and style of this gentle hamon is similar to the Meibutsu Suruga Masamune, and the sharp boshi is similar to the Meibutsu Kanze Masamune... Masamune - 63.9 cm - (Meibutsu Oogaki Masamune) Tokubetsu Juyo Token Token Bijutsu October 2009 ...According to the books „Kanchinihon Meizukushi“ and „Noamihon“, Masamune was a student of... ...and there is no question that he is a smith who helped established the Japanese sword as an art object. In the Nanbokucho era book „Shinsatsuoorai“, he was listed as a master smith at that time. Today, most of Masamune‘s swords are osuriage, but there are ubu kotachi which have shumei. These swords include a blade owned by the Kisho Tokugawa family in the past, and which received a Tokubetsu Juyo Token classification at the fourth shinsa... Mumei Den Masamune - 74 cm - (Meibutsu Musashi Masamune) Owned by: NBTHK (gift from Fujisawa Genyu and Fujisawa Kazuyuki) ...has a somewhat large kissaki. This katana is listed as the „Musashi Masamune" in an Edo period sword book the "Kyoho Meibutsu cho". ...but Masamune has a very few blades with a wide mihaba and a long kissaki, so in light of this fact, we need more investigations and studies of this katana in the future... To be correct in another recent publication in the NBTHK Journal, October 2009...but Sadamune has no ubu long sword in existence today, so some people doubt the existence of Sadamune, just as for Masamune. As long as „some people“ believe to be well hidden in the anonymity, it is better to ignore such statements...they only cause disturbance. What do YOU believe...has Masamune existed regarding all the many old documents...or do you deny these evidences as chimeras by invention of, let us say "some people"? Eric

I think this is a good advice for anyone... Eric

Adrian, I appreciate your comments and ideas, but I have my own opinions...one is my faith in the judgement of undisputed authorities. One of them on the top of the sword world is Dr. Junji Honma, recognized scholar, the man who convinced General McArthur that the Japanese sword is an object of art and worth of preservation and one of the founders of the NBTHK. These facts are well known but it seems necessary to bring it again to be noticed. Why? From his investigations, I repeat again, after intense studys of Masamune swords and old documents, the real existence of Masamune was proven...namely based on the unrivaled superiority in skill of his workmanship. And nowadays there are obviously new supporters of Imamura Choga‘s theory. Back to 1896 Is there someone who tries to re-invent the wheel? I have read several personal comments on the quality of Masamune swords they have seen...and again I have to repeat the judging of Dr. Honma when he says „the works of the so called „Masamune Juttetsu“ are not equal to Masamune in skill"...that says it all. Briefly said in my opinion: 99.99% of us (sword enthusiasts) will never, never, never get as a high level of understanding and appreciating knowledge as Dr. Honma. Is it wrong to believe in experts...real experts? No, we must because we, with few exceptions are far away from that level... our feets are too small for those shoes. When Ford sends one of his fine works to Japan he wants it to be judged by qualified, real experts...with confidence. To conclude, there is no tombstone of Masamune but there are his works as unimpeachable testimony. Eric

Doubt about what? Gabriel von Max - Judges of...1889 Eric

From the most reliable source - Nihon Koto Shi It has been said since the Muromachi Period that Masamune was a son of Yukimitsu and a student of Shintogo Kunimitsu. There is no extant work of Masamune which is dated but there are old katana-ezu (drawing of nakago and hamon) of Masamune („Osaka Cho-mei Masamune“ with a date of the Kareki Era and „Edo Cho-mei Masamune“ with a date of the Showa Era). Meanwhile there is an extant work of Yukimitsu with a date of the Gentoku Era and this puts into question the relationship between Yukimitsu and Masamune as father and son. Kareki (Karyaku?) - 1326-1328 Showa - 1312-1316 Gentoku - 1329-1330 Eric

From the most reliable source - Nihon Koto Shi An old swordsmith directory ‘Noami Mei Zukushi‘ says, “Masamune rarely signs his smith name on his tachi and katana since he is the best swordsmith in Japan“. The style of workmanship that Masamune established came to be the basis of Soshu-den. The forging method combining soft and hard materials and the expression of many beautiful chikei and kinsuji are the accomplishment of Masamune. Then he started tempering midare-ba based on notare in large pattern which differed from midare-ba based on choji and gunome by the smiths of the former period, also nie is more emphasised than that of Yamashiro and Yamato swords. It seems that the combination of soft and hard materials was practised before Masamune and such examples are seen in the works of Ko-Bizen and Shoso-in swords too. Though, Masamune employed that forging method and tried to emphasise the conspicuous hataraki of nie intentionally. Hamon in nie-deki is tempered at higher temperature than in nioi-deki and Masamune expresses the most exquisite sword forging technique in nie-deki.. After the intense study of the extant works of Masamune and old documents, it becomes very clear that Masamune really existed and it is fact that his swords had been highly appreciated in the Momoyama and the Edo Periods much more than the Muromachi Period. There had been a great demand for Masamune blades and many „Masamune“ were invented by those in power supplying mumei katana with origami (papers) as a result. We need to re-examine swords attributed to Masamune from now on and to sort out real Masamune from amongst them. There is a term „Masamune Juttetsu“ (Ten Students of Masamune) that was probably made after the Edo Period and it includes Go Yoshihro, Norishige, Shizu Kaneuji, Samonji, Rai Kunitsugu, Osafune Kanemitsu, Osafune Chogi, Hasebe Kunishige, Kinju and Sekishu Naotsuna. Swordsmith directories of the Muromachi Period exclude Rai Kunitsugu and Sekishu Naotsuna or add Kongobei Moritaka to Masamune‘s students. Anyway extant works of all of these smiths have been confirmed but they are not equal to Masamune in skill. Also some of them are inappropriate to add to the students of Masamune considering their active ages and workmanship. Eric

Among the three Hocho-Masamune there is one with a clear, white prominent bo-utsuri and a hamon that deteriorates. If you call a blade with a deteriorated hamon an important work (meito), then a blade beeing considered a meito has nothing to do with good or bad quality and is a contradiction in terms. (Nakahara) 1 - HYUGA-MASAMUNE - 24.8 cm - kokuho - mumei 2 - KUKI-MASAMUNE - 24.8 cm - kokuho - mumei 3 - FUDO-MASAMUNE - 25.1 cm - juyo-bunkazai - signed 4 - DAIKOKU-MASAMUNE - signed 5 - HOCHO-MASAMUNE - 21.8 cm - kokuho - mumei 6 - KYOGOKU-MASAMUNE - signed Eric

Swords were given as gifts by Daimyos or Commanders as rewards at various occasions and times. In the official events calendar of the Muromachi-Bakufu, the so-called sword-gifting of three Governors (on-dachi-kenjo no gi) to the beginning of the year was started. It was strictly regulated, how much was worth a blade or its "state" (signed, unsigned or unshortened). As an example following an excerpt from the etiquette rules from „Ouchi-mondo" by the Ouchi-family, Eisho 6 (1509) About sword gifts should be mentioned that those who have become a cropped nakago and resulted as Katana, or on the other hand Tachi with originally no signature, were not appropriate as gifts for the Shogun, the highest classified category. Each piece should first be checked for its usefulness as a gift. As far as unsigned blades, these are not suitable for a celebration at a large scale, but not objectionable for an ordinary celebration. Samurai receives kneeling a sword as a reward from the book "Geschichten rund ums japanische Schwert" by Markus Sesko Eric

No... the Honamis were for hundreds of years the leading professionals in the appraisal of swords, based on their knowledge as polishers and the passing down of their secrets in sword appreciation during the centuries. They were the living experts, the only official ones, trusted and supported by the Tokugawas. And important swords were given by the Tokugawas to vasalls for merits... and to trump up the swords they were fit up intentionally with Honami attributions that were not worth the paper? This is how I understand your comment. Hardly to believe...and puts the Tokugawas in the role of fraudsters...where are the evidences? Perhaps I have mistaken your comment...then sorry! In 1714 the Kyoho Meibutsu Cho was written by the Honami at the order of the Tokugawa Shogunate, a set of 3 books with the best swords that existed at that time, a total of 222 swords. To summarize, the Honamis were recognized as the ultimate authorities. Eric

In the section about „Hon‘ami Origami“ in the book „Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords“ no words can be found in relation to such abuse. Hereafter some excerpts from that article: All origami should be dated the third of the month. It is said that this date was decided by Hon‘ami Kotoku. All the origami have a particular style and skillfully elegant penmanship that varies depending of the generation or period. The ink color, style of writing, and so on must be thoroughly investigated. There have always been many origami forgeries, as they are very profitable. From the Meiji period onward, the surviving branch of the Hon‘ami family issued only a very small number of origami. In addition, take the utmost care with swords that claim to have origami. There are many cases in which the origami is not the original for that particular sword. Those who are seriously involved in the study of Nihonto know about the importance and the fundamental role of the Goka-den in history and kantei. The Goka-den method of kantei was devised by Hon‘ami Koson and his teacher Hon‘ami Ringa between the end of the Meiji period and the beginning of the Taisho period. Later, Koson popularized the system by publishing it and introducing it at sword meetings all over Japan. ....the young Koson came up with the idea of taking the Hon‘ami school‘s long history of secret and oral transmission of the characteristics of the smiths and converting it into his own personalized, simplified system known nowadays as the Goka-den. This was perfected and published in Koson‘s book „Nihonto no Okite to no Tokucho“. BTW, the legacy of Hon‘ami Koson exceeds sky-high the alleged knowledge of those self-proclaimed experts. Portrait of Hon'ami Koson - 1879-1955 Eric

The duke ordered the swordsmith of Kyoto secretly and made the same A Tanto as the Tanto of possession imitate perfectly. Since Koetsu came at a certain time, the duke ordered him to appraise the Tanto of this imitation. Then, as soon as Honami extracted and looked at it just for a moment, he said immediately, "This is Masamune". He was harshly scolded by the duke and the receipts and payments to a duke house were forbidden to him for the time being. The event can easily be interpreted controversial...the imitation was so perfect that the attribution was imperative. There is such a true story without limit. A sword is not known only by seeing just for a moment. The late old Mr. Choga Imamura appraised as the genuine article the imitation of Kotetsu which Kajihei of the swordsmith which makes imitation therefore forged around Meiji 20. Choga Imamura was a famous connoisseur of the swords. Nobody is perfect...aside from Kajihei in this case perhaps... :lol: By the way, one of the leading sword experts Imamura Choga put forward a new theory that doubted the existence of Masamune in the Yomiuri on Meiji 29 (1896). I think that there is no need of serious talk about the theory of Mr. Imamura Choga with its supporters who mistake the jigane of Masamune for Kunihiro and Yasutsugu at all. The quality and the lustre of the jigane of Masamune cannot be mistaken for that of shinto smiths. There are copies of ‘Hocho Masamune’ by Kunihiro and ‘Wakasa Masamune’ by Yasutsugu. Both of them are good swords as shinto but it is quite easy to differentiate them from the originals by Masamune even if you were a beginner in sword study. Honma Junji - Nihon Koto Shi (12) This thread was launched with the aim to find out the two kinds of his stamps. They have been found on two origamis...that with the red stamp is approved to be legit, the other with the brown stamp is not approved by the blade itself...is this origami a fake?...I suppose yes...it is most unlikely that Honami Koson would risk his reputation as highly regarded sword expert for an origami by courtesy. Eric

Adrian, I must confess, unfortunately, I have never seen a Masamune in reality. Your remark however on the hamon „that drops off“ can be interpreted as a kantei point, right? As you have seen as stated a very remarkable number of legit Masamunes and I believe also Tantos, I‘d like to know your opinion on the following pictures. They are quite bad, but perhaps based on the structure of the hamon and your experience I‘m interested in your opinion. This Tanto is said to be by Masamune. Eric

Well, this one was available for US $ 10,000.00...a paper can easily be thrown away! Why did you not take the chance? Eric

Dirk and Paul, thank you for the confirmation of the stamp. So the „brown“ stamp is to find on the older origamis I suppose. It has also been said on the board that attributions by Honami Koson are of less to no importance nowadays. I think this is after all a risky opinion. Honami Koson has had a high reputation as sword expert, polisher and author of several important books. Personalities like Albert Yamanaka, Nagayama Kokan, IImura Kasho and Shibata Ka have studied under him. Yes, there are origamis bearing his kao and stamp, but could these papers not be faked? Is there someone who believes seriously that he was not able to recognise a faked Masamune or a faked Kiyomaro? As abstract and as reference I have listed some origamis. 1 - MASAMUNE - Showa 11 - 1936 - gimei 2 - KUNIYUKI - Showa 21 - 1946 3 - NORISHIGE - Showa 16 - 1941 - NBTHK Hozon 4 - KIYOMARO - Showa 25 - 1952 - gimei 5 - YUKIMITSU - Showa 29 - 1954 - NBTHK Tokubetsu Juyo 6 - NAGAMITSU - Showa 29 - 1954 - NBTHK Hozon Eric

Hi http://www.sanmei.com/contents/media/K6 ... PUP_E.html Best Eric

A dubious Masamune Tanto with Honami Koson origami and stamp...but does this stamp match with your examples? Eric

However the red stamp is NOT associated to the gimei Kiyomaro, it belongs to an origami on a Soshu Yukimitsu sword... NBTHK Tokubetsu Juyo Token. The fact, that this „Kiyomaro“ has been offered on ebay for US $ 10,000.00 is evidence enough to answer the questions. Next 3 examples of authentic Honami Koson kao and style of writing. and a Reference of 2 styles of Kinzogan mei by Honami Koson. Eric

I refer to the example shown on the above specified „shibuiswords.com“ site That „Kiyomaro“ is, as has been proved, gimei. The Honami Sayagaki and paper are without doubt fakes. Style and positioning of the Kao are not in accordance to legit Honami Koson papers. Furthermore the comparison between the two pictured papers „Kiyomaro" and „Nagamitsu“ show remarkable difference. The „Kiyomaro“ paper is dated 1952, whereas the "Nagamitsu" 1954. The Nagamitsu sword has been papered accordingly to the Honami Koson paper by the NBTHK. Eric