SteveM

Hello Chris, Do you have the sword that goes with this paper?

Yes, your interpretation is correct, but take a look again at the Taishō date and your western calendar date.

I think any kind of scratch or cut in the sword should be regarded as the damage it is. Its a detraction from the sword's optimal condition. It should never be considered a plus. Unfortunately, ebay is the land where a blatant flaw can be described as a highly desirable "feature". Novices are easily lured in by stories of samurai battle, and a chip in a blade suddenly becomes a "must-have" talking point. Drives me nuts. But your second post is making a false analogy, because any sword that has a documented history of coming from a major historical figure will be appraised differently from a sword that has no such provenance. A sword that has a clear history from somebody like Ishida Mitsunari or Tokugawa, takes on value as an important historical artifact, in addition to any value it might have as an art sword. So we appreciate the well-documented historical item, with all its flaws, as being something different, but related, to an art sword without such provenance. It would be the same if we had a musket from, say, the George Washington collection, with proper documentation showing he owned it during the Revolutionary War, but was now rusted and didn't work. How would you value that compared to a working musket of the same vintage, owned by some random person? They are almost two different things, even though they may have had the same manufacturer. The only place were scratches and cuts add any value to a sword is in the magical marketplace of ebay.

Hello Grey, Take a look at Morita-san's reply in the thread below. Must be the same sword, or its match. http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/10679-translation-assistance/

廣成 Hironari. No idea of authenticity. I will flip through Wakayama later to see if there is any info. Edit: No such artist in listed Wakayama.

Making as many misses as hits these days. 護国釼筑前刈萱之関住吉正謹作 Gokokuken Chikuzen Karukaya-no-seki ju　Yoshimasa Kinsaku (Nation-protecting sword, Chikuzen Karukaya-no-seki (location name), Yoshimasa) 昭和拾二年十月吉日 Showa 12, October Next one as a spoiler for those keen to have a go. 贈　日支事変為之造皇軍 秋山長三朗

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