SteveM

It may not be a date. I mean, it seems like one, but it could just be some random identification number. The 平 in front of the 1953 might be a clue, but it means nothing to me.

The wooden tag says 井野兵曹長 Sergeant-Major Ino The white paint says 平一九五三 (Hira/Taira 1953). Don't know the significance of that. The second kanji on the tang seems to be 久 (hisa), but I can't make out the first one.

徳= A fairly popular kanji for era names. A lot of candidates for the first kanji. 天徳 長徳 寛徳 応徳 承徳 元徳 建徳 永徳 至徳 明徳 宝徳 享徳 延徳 I think of all these, 元徳 looks like the most plausible candidate (visually). Looks like a fairly typical stylization of 元. As far as the sword shape and other aesthetics go, I leave it to the experts. The one thing I don't like is how the 元 appears above the mekugi-ana, and then the 徳 appears well below the mekugi-ana, as if the mei were engraved after that particular mekugi-ana were opened. It may have been retroactively carved (which sometimes happens, as I think this came up on another recent thread). If it wasn't retroactively carved, it means the original engraver left a very accommodating gap between the 元 and the 徳.

Oops, sorry, missed that one. It does look fabulous. Love the photography too. Wish I could figure out how to take close ups like that. Guess I need to invest in a proper macro lens.

It's already gone Juyo It says the habaki is also believed to be by Hankei, and that there is a similar habaki also on another Hankei piece that is currently the property of the Sumiyoshi Jinja.

I disagree with this. But the disagreement may be a semantic one. Provenance and authentication definitely influence value. In any form of art. And an NBTHK certification is an important piece of provenance. The certification does nothing to change the quality of the sword itself, but the sword's value is influenced by the NBTHK certificate.

Yes, that's right.

I think its one of three possibilities 1. Authentic mistake (typo, as you say) 2. Mistake made by counterfeiter 3. Correct kanji (only we don't understand the reference) I actually think #1 is the most improbable. I think #2 is probable, as it is a nicely executed kanji (by someone who knows how to write kanji) its just that this particular kanji doesn't fit in with the context - so it was carved by someone who knows how to write, but doesn't know enough about swords. But I also don't completely discount #3. Maybe there is some contemporary thing or some - I don't want to say code, but let's call it a deliberate carving of a wrong kanji for some purpose that we don't understand.

For me, there are four elements to this: ebay, questionable papers, high price, neophyte. And maybe all of these issues are wrapped up in one inevitable, recurring, problematic theme: valuation. Its a beautiful sword, and at $9000, it should be. Considering the request for general thoughts and comments, the advice given was pretty appropriate. It would be irresponsible to encourage a neophyte to buy a $9000 sword with old papers even though there is a chance that the papers are valid. The obvious question is; why didn't the previous owner (or the current dealer) re-submit to shinsa? In Japan, the big dealers would certainly have done this to validate the sword, and to increase the price. Or, they would guarantee the sword will pass shinsa, which mitigates the consumer's risk pretty effectively. I don't know whether or not the dealer on ebay will do the same. If so, the risk is mitigated (but it is still a rather expensive sword for a neophyte, but this is my subjective opinion...for Ken S it might not be that big of a purchase). The old authentication could still be valid, but as long as there is doubt over the old papers, we have to treat them as suspect, and we have to tell/remind the neophytes that the papers are suspect. If we were just enjoying the sword and talking about its shape and hamon and activity, we can look at and judge the sword for what it is. Once we start talking about price, the question of papers and shinsa cannot be ignored. On the signature itself, this is where the NBTHK becomes a frustrating black box for me, as they will not publish the details of why they pass or fail certain signatures. If I compare the signatures of the sword in question, with a certified signature from the same smith (for example, here http://www.samuraisword.com/nihontodisplay/Hozon/Koretsugu/4%20koretsugu0003.JPG)the signatures look very similar. If it is a counterfeit, we can say that the counterfeiter was pretty skilled. Still, there are some differences. The tsuki part of 前 in the ebay sword is squarish, while the same part in the authenticated sword is roundish. The 住 in the ebay sword is somewhat horizontally elongated, with the horizontal strokes all intersecting as they should, while the authenticated signature is elongated vertically, with a distinct separation of the main horizontal stroke. If I look at yet another NBTHK Koretsugu (http://www.aoijapan.com/img/sword/2014/14473-1.jpg) it has the same rounded tsuki in 前, and the same separated bits of 住. So it has these bits in common with the other papered Koretsugu. Are any of these minor variations problematic enough to cause the ebay sword to fail shinsa? I don't know, and I can't know unless I'm friends with the gentlemen of the NBTHK. That, for me, is enough to make me paranoid about paying $9000 for a sword - even though it means I may be rejecting a perfectly beautiful sword with obviously beautiful features. This is kind of an irrationality imposed on the market by the NBTHK, albeit an irrationality which is set up to try to protect the industry. SteveM

I agree with Jean: Bizen Osafune-ju Kane (cut off) 備前長船住兼 It almost looks as though one mei was chiseled over another mei. There are a number of confusing marks or scratches near the mei that make the individual kanji take on characteristics of other kanji. Particularly the 住 looks like a completely different kanji. There is enough space under the 兼 to accomodate the second half of the name, but all I see are the three prominent parallel scratches. Edit: I looked again at this, and I can't completely reject the possibility of Chikakane, but of the many Chikakane smiths, most of them use a different "kane" (近包). I couldn't find any 近兼 smiths from Bizen. There was only one smith by this name in Hawley's (CHI61), and he is from Mutsu.

Raku = 楽　(樂 in old style kanji) means fun/entertaining, ease, comfort, and a million other things. Ban = 蛮　(蠻 in old style kanji) means crude, uncivilized, barbaric I have no idea why the engraver would use 樂 instead of 蠻. 南樂 doesn't make any sense. Raku and Ban don't sound anything alike, so its a very odd mistake to make.

And, the syntax is what's called 漢文 (sort of classical Japanese patterned on Chinese grammar). It is not what is used in typical Japanese, so translating into modern Japanese and then translating that into English requires a bit of creative accounting. 南蠻鉄造之　なんばんてつつくりこれ これをなんばんてつでつくった Made using "Southern Barbarian Iron"　(Iron imported from overseas, usually Europe - Spain and Portugal). Probably you already knew this, so perhaps surplus to your requirements. Anyway, maybe useful for someone else reading this thread.

濃刕 Nōshū (刕 is an alternate form of 州 - or, I should say, it is a completely different kanji, with a different reading, but it seems to have acquired an alternate use as a substitute for 州)

Looks like it ended March 2nd, 2014.

Fake flags are everywhere. The entry barrier to the fake flag industry is extremely low. Cost of goods are dirt cheap. Skill required to create one is a fraction of a fraction of the skill required to create a credible fake sword. Anybody familiar with kanji with a good coach or with access to good reference material (the internet) can start pumping them out quickly. If you cruise the other militaria sites you will find stories of enterprising Japanese war veterans, and equally enterprising US military men stationed in Japan, churning out fake flags for the souvenir market. So, some of these things raise interesting questions; does a flag that was created in 1946, tarted up to look like it was in battle, qualify as a "war flag"? Does a fake flag that was bought by some gullible US army guy in 1951, and kept in his attic as an heirloom, qualify as a genuine war relic? Like the flag you originally posted - to me its interesting if it was a war veteran's flag. And in a way, its nice that it wasn't stripped from some dead soldier. It's something you could treasure without feeling you had taken something from someone's husband or son. But...it might not be an actual battle flag. So, its a kind of an authenticity question, a value question, a moral question, all wrapped up into one. A bit too heavy for me this Sunday night here in Tokyo.

The other flag is the sort of flag that I am speaking about above. Generic patriotic slogan at the top: 武運長久 (Good luck in battle, basically). Generic name: 加藤進一 (KATO Shin'ichi) Generic text: 名古屋市中村区西日置 (Nagoya-shi, Nakamura-ku, Nishi Hioki) There is nothing wrong with any of the above. Balance is fine, execution of the kanji is fine, nothing overtly wrong with any of the text or the names. But...its odd that a good luck flag would just have one random guy's name on it and his address. It's (supposedly) a war flag, not a self-addressed stamped letter. Typically you would expect a school or factory or possibly a neighborhood association get together to write their names and perhaps messages of encouragement or patriotic/martial slogans on the flag, and then present the flag to the person going off to war. It's extremely strange to see a flag say the equivalent of, "Good Luck In Battle, John Smith at 21st Maple St." I would avoid it.

There are a lot of fake flags out there. The market is awash in fake swords and fake flags. What's worse, the copiers are getting better and better at making these things look authentic. Unrealistic war slogans, apparent unfamiliarity with Japanese names and Japanese kanji usage, poor balance, deliberately obscured kanji, all the signatures done by the same hand, etc... all of these things are dead giveaways for fake flags, but the copiers seem to be learning how to cover these tracks. In fact, I would not be surprised if some enterprising copiers lurk on these and other militaria sites to get intelligence on how to make the copies seem more authentic. So, that's the long way of saying I do not know if your flag is authentic or not. Yours doesn't strike me as an obvious fake. However, the "7th Meeting" at the side of the flag makes me think it is not a contemporary WW2 piece either (but, it wouldn't be too long after the war). It's a bit curious that I can't find any other reference to this mysterious Kaihō Kai. There are some other kanji under that bit - I think referring to a location (南浦?） maybe Morita-san can help out. My guess: some sort of post war veteran's relic. C. 1950's or possibly 60's.

I think its the exact same flag. It's got the same stain as yours in the white stripe at about the 11 o'clock position. The flag on the auction site is upside down, so that same stain is appearing on the auction flag at about the 5 o'clock position. (Well, that plus all the signatures are the same... )

The flag is says "7th Reunion of Kaihō Kai (海鵬会)" and then the rest are names. I have no idea what the Kaihō Kai is. When I put the kanji into a search engine, it spits out this same flag showing up on an auction site in Japan http://aucview.aucfan.com/yahoo/h186316657/ 第七回海鵬会総会 だいななかいかいほうかいそうかい Edit: I should add that the word "reunion" doesn't actually appear on the flag. However, since its the 7th (annual?) meeting of this group, I can only assume that it is some kind of veteran's reunion. Also, obviously one cannot discount completely the possibility that the flag is some kind of counterfeit.

Another thing that slightly inflates the price of this piece is its inclusion in the 日本刀大鑑　(Encyclopedia of Japanese Swords). Meaning it comes with a bit of a pedigree - its quality having been validated by the editors and publishers of the encyclopedia.

Hello Charlie, It will be tough, if not impossible, for any of us to tell you what the sword is worth. We'd need lots of high resolution pictures of the blade to see the quality of the work, check for flaws in the steel, check to see if the rust is repairable, etc... And we'd need to see if the name of the smith is inscribed on the handle, which will have an impact on what someone is willing to pay for the sword. To give you a rough idea, take a look at the site below which has a beautiful Kunishige sword (and beautiful photographs of the relevant bits) selling for JPY 1,150,000. http://katanakura.xb.shopserve.jp/SHOP/1403-K02.html That sword is in very nice condition, nice polish, full signature, and has authentication papers, all of which add to the price someone is willing to pay. Your sword could be worth as much, or more, if it is authentic, well-made, gets a proper polish, and probably a new wooden scabbard (and maybe tart it up with a new habaki). But all of that will take time and money, and you will need to get it authenticated before anyone will be willing to pay that sort of price. Also bear in mind that your sword would be worth considerably less (and maybe close to worthless) if it has any fatal flaws in the steel, if the rust is beyond redemption, if the sword isn't well-made, or is counterfeit. This is why its inevitable that you'll need to get the handle off. There are a fair few videos on YouTube that describe how to do it (search for a clever title like: removing a Japanese sword from its handle) Whatever you do, don't be tempted to remove rust by using anything abrasive or any funky chemicals. For a ton of other very useful information, search this site for keywords that might be relevant - removing rust, for starters. Edit: As Brian indicated above, normally the blade sits in the handle and is held in place by a removable peg. I've never seen one without a peg. Not a major worry, just an oddity.

Also, the Nakano School used the normal 中, 仲野 = The sword in this thread 中野 = The name of the imperial army school.

I'm afraid its just a jumble of kanji-like fragments, and perhaps some earnest attempts at copying real kanji. If I were being very generous I would say the kanji resemble something like the below, with the boxes representing illegible kanji. 正真囗囗肥囗 まさざね囗囗ひ囗 Masazane (something) (something) Hi (something) But in truth, the 正真 doesn't look anything like a sayagaki rendering of these kanji. As for the rest, 肥 is recognizable, but normally one would expect to see 後 after 肥, since 肥後 is a famous sword-making region and is quite common in signatures. In addition, the kanji 肥 itself is somewhat rare except for this one location name, and so the combination could hardly be anything but 肥後, 肥前, or perhaps 肥州, but as you can see from the sayagaki, the kanji after 肥 doesn't resemble any of these. I'm afraid it looks like somebody not familiar with kanji made an amateur attempt at fabricating a sayagaki.

Your reading is correct. It raises a question about the kantei-sho.

I would say the sayagaki is beyond crude and is into a completely different level of misery. The wakizashi is also a worry. I hate to be a buzzkill, so I will end on a good note by saying that I agree your scanner did a very impressive job!