SteveM

刀匠　石原正直　　　swordsmith: ISHIHARA Masanao 研師　亀山実一 polisher: KAMEYAMA Jitsuichi

Japanese wikipedia is telling me that Otegine was located in one of the Matsudaira family's storage vaults in Ōkubo (Tokyo), when it was destroyed during one of the US fire raids on Tokyo in 1945. They took the molten lump of metal to Hon'ami Kōson to see if it could be restored, but there was nothing to be done. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BE%A1%E6%89%8B%E6%9D%B5

Note: the papers don't mention Shikkake either.

Edit of my previous post. It must be TAKISAWA Katsushi, if the opposite side indicates the first initial is "K" as mentioned in post #3

Maybe not so strange if the recipient (Mr. Erickson?) is a non-Japanese.

From Yokohama Prison Warden, TAKISAWA Masashi, November 1945.

If you are interested in military swords, Fuller & Gregory's is often mentioned as an essential reference. I am not as optimistic about the sword and mounts as Joe is. The sword might be Japanese, but even as a WW2 sword, it has been damaged by a crappy polishing job, which makes the whole prospect rather uninteresting. Its not good enough to restore, not to my mind anyway. If it came with a pristine set of mounts I would think differently, but considering the volume of decent WW2 swords out there, I would not spend much time on this one. (I'm wondering about the tsuka...almost looks like it is covered in fish scales instead of same/ray skin.)

草薙舎伝来本阿弥光徳筆刀絵図断簡 Excerpt from Hon'ami Mitsutoku's sword drawings, from (den) Kusanagi Co.

Looks to be signed 助房 (Sukefusa). This would be the smith's name - his "art" name anyway - his given name and last name would probably be different. The military sword collectors on this site can tell you more about the fittings. Regarding the quenching method: first, the big question of "why does it matter?". The method of quenching has an effect on how the sword curves, and how the hamon appears. Demand for swords shot up during Japan's imperial era. Individual smiths couldn't hand-forge enough swords to meet demand, so the government started producing swords at a number of foundries. These foundry-produced swords were typically made from various industrial steels rather than tamahagane, and they tended to be oil-quenched. The production was overseen by a number of traditionally-trained smiths, who would put their names on the tang of the swords. Your sword looks to me to be one of these types of swords (but I am an amateur at this, so take mine as a layman's opinion). Not all WW2 swords are foundry-made. Smiths continued to manufacture swords in the traditional method as well. Also, nowadays non-traditionally forged swords are not allowed to be traded or even owned in Japan. They are viewed by the authorities as weapons rather than art objects, and so there is a prohibition of these swords that continues from the American occupation era. However judging from the number of WW2 swords that keep popping up on Japanese auction sites, I think the general bias against these swords is fading. There is also a ton of information on this site. Put the search engine to good use and see what you can find. Look up at the links at the top of this page for topics that catch your interest. Stay tuned for more info. Hopefully one of the military sword experts will jump in with more authoritative info. The site below is also a much-referenced site for WW2 sword info. http://ohmura-study.net/900.html

I think Tame Ohara/Obara Masahiro kun seitan (or, in kanbun, maybe something like Ohara Masahiro kun no tame ni seitan). Made for Masahiro Ohara. On the reverse side is the Imperial Calendar date. Not too hard to figure out - I think if you google info on this it will be very easy to pick out.

My guess: 奈良安親 Nara Yasuchika

These are the 5 principles the Imperial Rescript describes. The English version of the whole Rescript is located here http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jamesorr/ImpResSoldSailors1882web.htm You can pick out the 5 principles. Curiously, the second one greatly abbreviated.

義集団作　十号 I wonder if Ohmura has any info on this group. I couldn't find anything when I searched the Japan sites.

Agree the mei looks bad. It looks like gibberish - 美集団作 or 義集団作 either way it makes not sense. The bit to the left, 十芳 (jū yoshi?) doesn't make sense either.

関住福田兼丈 Seki Jyū Fukuda Kanetake, I think.

I mean the small vertical stroke to the left of the three horizontal ones.

岩塚青年訓練所 Iwatsuka Seinen Kunrenjo Iwatsuka Youth Training Academy

Nobumasa is my bet. 信正 Very stylized "Masa", but it is not unusual. Note the small vertical stroke to the right of the three horizontal strokes. Also, the middle stroke looks too offset for it to be 三 .

Right side = 生涼軒　Seiryōken (?) = This is the art name (gō) of the artist Katsutoshi Left side = 勝壽（花押）Katsutoshi

Hello Zack - I think the koiguchi question is purely subjective, so go with whatever works for you. If you are just looking for a semi-temporary stabilizer, and the one you ordered fits the bill and looks OK to you, then its fine. If at some point you want to go down a path of more authentic restoration, you can do that. For now, don't sweat it.

Don't worry about the different groups of nihontō admirers. I think the only real disdain any of us have, is reserved for fake swords. This means crap swords churned out of some garage somewhere, masquerading as either traditionally-forged swords or authentic Japanese military swords (which, as you know, sometimes turn out to be repurposed antiques themselves). I guess there is also some disdain for reproductions, as well. And the real distinction is not between the art buffs and the history buffs, because I think these are overlapping circles on a Venn Diagram. Rather, the distinction tends to be between the WW2 antique buffs (any blades from Imperial Japan), and those more interested in traditionally-forged and typically (but not always) Edo-era and earlier. Fortunately on this site the two groups exist in harmony, mostly, and with respect for each other. At least, I hope I can say this is the case. I haven't seen any mud-slinging lately. Also, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that there is a lot of overlap between these two groups as well. I'm more of a traditional guy myself, but I find the world of WW2 swords to be deep and fascinating and with all sorts of interesting diversions. There is a bit of impatience with people who buy something that catches their eye on ebay, and then come here looking for validation. But even these guys get treated pretty fairly here. Regarding your swords, always hard to tell without very good close-ups. In any event, the one with the Yokoyama Kozuke Daijō inscription looks to be an authentic, traditionally-made blade, but I am not skilled enough to tell you if it is a fake signature on a real blade, or a good (authentic) signature on a real blade. Check out the thread below for some more detail. http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/4063-yokoyama-kzuke-daijo-fujiwara-sukesada/

Yoshichika, I think. (吉近)

Hello Dennis, Yes, its Kanenari. For a look at some other Kanenari works - check out the links below (note: they may not all be from the same Kanenari, and they may not all be the same as your Kanenari, and the biggest caveat of all, your Kanenari may be a forgery - as many signed swords have fake signatures - but you probably already know this by now). http://www.giheiya.com/shouhin_list/japanese_sword/katana/02-1039.html (← incorrectly lists the smith as "Kane nori". Perhaps an indication of how unusual the reading is, or how obscure the smith is, or both). http://www.tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/a00044.html http://www.tokka.biz/sword/kanenarisaku.html

I think it is quite similar to the manufacturer's mark on the right of this page, the one at the bottom noted as "Tan". http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/military.htm I can find no other reference to this mark, however.

I think this is a case where the hakogaki is wrong, or, more likely, forged and wrong. I think it is unlikely that Kanzan would write the wrong kanji for the artist. (Not impossible, mind you, but I think it would be highly, highly unlikely). In Wakayama's Tōsō Kinkō Jiten on page 490 it lists one smith by the name of 貞永 (Sadanaga). It is a very brief entry, indicating this smith also went by the name of 長江 (Nagae?). It makes no mention of working in the sahari style. Sadanaga might also be read Teiei, but I think in this case it is Sadanaga. Wakayama is silent on how it should be pronounced. In any event, you say the tsuba itself was signed 貞栄 (Teiei) so I think we can at this point conclude the box is wrong. Sorry to make things even more confusing, but the reference Mauro linked to above at page 46 (tsuba #380) by the smith 国友貞栄, indicates that this should be read as Kunitomo Sadahide. This to me is very strange because hide is not a valid reading for 栄 (or 榮 in the old style), and Wakayama clearly states that the reading should be Teiei. So I think Sadahide is a mistranslation, a mistake that is repeated for entries 379, 380, and 381. Actually I also found a Christie's auction catalogue entry which also refers to a Kunitomo Teiei tsuba, and it makes the same claim that this could be pronounced Sadahide. So I'm curious if this is a legitimate (albeit idiosyncratic) reading of these kanji, or if these western sources are just echoing each other's errors. As you probably have all figured out Gohei (御幣) are the white zig-zag shaped papers that are hung outside of sites with religious (Shinto) significance.