Okiiimo

Ohmura's site is probably well known for those interested in gendaito but I feel worth pasting in this thread for the write up on marshal swords with kogarasu-maru construction. http://ohmura-study.net/780.html

Ramsey Please allow me to interpret nihonto lingo. Nakago = the rusty looking part of the sword that has one or more holes in it. Stephan is asking for a pic of the whole nakago as the very end of it is an important clue to sword indentifaction. More help is being offered if you provide a photograph.

Congrats Chris! The term hinaburu fuzei (鄙ブル 風情) comes to my mind looking at your new sword.

The nakago sure is shiny for an 70-year plus blade!

It's easy to say it's a Juyo candidate or to suggest that a person should resubmit the blade (until it attains higher papers in a less competitive shinsa) because that person has no skin in the game. Perhaps the asking price may leave too little reward for the risk that it will not go Juyo or perhaps there's a lot of other nice swords out there at that price point that have higher papers.

A price that a person is willing to pay is a singular summation of value that incorporates all the perceived tangible and intangible qualities of the object that is available for sale. That price varies from person to person as does their assessment of the items qualities. When something remains unsold after enough time has passed for potential purchasers to consider it, it becomes evidence that the asking price is above the populations assessment of its qualities. All of the above is stating the obvious. The Aoi Art ad hints that the item did not pass Juyo and suggests a closed door to the potential for the blade to reach a higher level of certification. Speculation that an object possibly having greater potential value is, in my opinion, one of those intangible qualities that rate high on many buyers minds. In this case, the ad diminishes the speculative quality of the blade. Further, smith fame and blade quality aside, the asking price is in the range of Juyo blades. Personally, if I were to commit $20k+ USD on a Juyo-level sword, I'd want the Juyo certificate to go with it.

I feel your question highlights the variability based on the experience and skill of the polisher rather than a conscious selection of the polish style. I understand that a polisher is supposed to follow the intent of the smith in determining the type and style of polish. Less experienced, less trained polishers might have a smaller portfolio on which to apply to a sword - so they apply what they know whether or not its appropriate for the blade. This is why some polishers are considered top notch versus others that may be lower on the scale.

I really enjoyed this thread and learned from it. Thank you Nick!

The characters represent numbers. the uppermost is shichi or 7 and the bottom one is ku or 9. I understand that they are used to keep track of the fittings as they are fitted specifically to the sword. I have an early shin gunto with open work tsuba (guard) like yours and it also has a plain wire sarute as well. No idea if it's part of the original fitting set or a later repair/replacement. My gunto has a lot of honest wear, so I suspect it's a war-time repair.

I cheated and found the answer to this kantei quiz.

The sunagashi reminds me very much of a Taneaki (student of Naotane) blade I have. I'm not sure about the three mekugi ana for such a recent blade though - implying older? Lovely blade regardless of who made it!

If I may ask the OP. What was the price paid for the menuki? Was the price was at shoshin level or modern reproduction level. Shoshin price would imply intentional deception.

I've purchased from Seiyudo and had a positive experience. I'd buy from them again even with knowledge of this transaction (although I might be a bit more careful). The menuki looks a very nice to my inexperienced eye and would look classy mounted. The conflict is that the item after shinsa did not meet the expectation of the buyer that the item was a traditionally made.

I'm really looking forward to seeing someone share their show experience. Isn't there some sort of NMB bylaw that requires at least one post/report from each NMB member attendee of sword shows? If there isn't one, there should be!

Interesting nugget of theory... that is guilt driving mei discrepancies so that experts would be able to tell them apart. Further extending this line of thinking, I wonder if the smith left such clues so that the blade could someday be identified as their own work.

I've learned from this board that what I once thought were unique questions and perspectives weren't very unique, they were just new to me.

I wonder what a Japanese sword would look like if it were optimized for a very specific performance standard, such as impact stress survival. I suspect that the comparison of an optimized sword to a "normal" one would be similar to a hypothetical human optimized to survive car crashes in comparison to a normal human (example photo attached).

Sorry Marius, I misunderstood the request for the opposite site of the origami. for comparative purposes - here's another dewa gassan origami (mumei, o-suriage) with an attribution on the "data" side of the origami. Note that in this case, NTHK attribution is readily apparent on either side of the certificate. Regards, Allan 20170405_Gassan_NTHK_Kanteisho.pdf

NTHK cert on post #13, last photograph.

A little over a year ago, I found a early shin gunto at a local antique shop and posted photographs and requested advice from this forum. I received sound advice. I submitted the blade for NTHK shinsa (it scored 76 pts) and was verified to be an Shinto blade by a chujo saku smith. It had bad pitting (particularly in the kissaki) and my first inclination was to go and improve it by having it polished. There is some pretty deep pitting near the kissaki and I received a range of opinions on whether it is restorable or not (ultimately it requires a polisher's opinion). In the end, I resolved that if the value of the sword after polishing is less than the cost of the sword and restoration, it was not a candidate for restoration. I still have that sword and I enjoy it very much as it is - chips, pits and all. I plan on caring for the sword until it's time to pass it on. At least I'll know that it wasn't messed with under my watch. Respectfully, allan

Confusion is a constant state of existence for me. When it comes to nihonto, confusion is a signal that learning may take place. When it comes to world events/politics, I try to live in acceptance rather than falling into insanity.

Is this really a Dewa Gassan blade we're talking about? If so, could someone kindly point out the kantei points from the photographs or provide a translation of the NTHK kanteisho that says "gassan"? I don't see evidence that this blade is a Dewa Gassan and I'd appreciate if someone could point out where I've overlooked something. Thanks!

Chris, Respectfully, I feel that the point of bending/breaking theory in hamon design might be a bit narrow in scope for explaining hamon selection/evolution. I believe that minimizing bending/breaking is one of many design considerations but the bend/break approach is only looking at the sword design from a singular quality of blade deformation/failure from impact. How does point of bend/break theories address considerations of edge chipping mitigation and repair, cold weather performance, cross sectional profile (e.g. hira zukure vs shinogi zukure), variations in blade length and sugata, variability in raw material and etcetera. I feel when we look at the massive record of Japanese sword development, we witness the trial and error experimentation that is a balance of tradition and teachings, availability of materials and market demand. In the end, I believe that market demand is the ultimate driver of what is produced by the smith.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge can speak to this but I see no indication on the photographs or the NTHK certification that this is a Dewa Gassan example. It doesn't have the characteristic ayasugi hada (NTHK certification says itame hada) nor does it have any reference (that I could see) to a Gassan attribution. If this is indeed Dewa Gassan, I would think there are better examples out there that at least show more of the classic characteristics of a koto Gassan besides loose hada. The NTHK cert does provide a note of an approximate era is Eiwa (1375-1378) which is interesting on how the shinsa team could define the blade to such a narrow age attribution. Anyway... these my limited thoughts. The advise to hold off this acquisition seems sound to me!

I'm so happy to hear that I'm not the only one that buys without approval and seeks permission afterwards! Lovely blade!