DirkO

Hi Stephen, they do provide shipping: "We provide shipping services directly from our gallery, however eligibility is based on an item's dimensions. Shipments from our gallery may take four to six weeks. We pack and ship small items, small paintings and rugs. Larger items will be transferred to an alternative shipping agent upon your approval. "

I know Guido Schiller wrote a piece on this, but I can't seem to find it The idea is that Den means that although it shows the traits of the school/Smith, it also has some additional features. I think the original article was for swords, but might also apply to tosogu?

本朝鍛冶考 - Honcho Kaji Ko - (report on Imperial-collection swords) which was first published in 1796 If I'm correct, it's 1 book from a 12 Volume set. Has been republished several times. eg: http://page6.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/f156212783

Very interesting if just the bibliography. Thx for sharing.

The one on the right seems to be Fudo Myo'o

Thanks a lot Marcus! Do you happen to know if confirmations like this occurred often? Or was it more common to issue a new one, although that would warrant extra fees again?

Would it be able to get Juyo nowadays? Doubtful. Was it repolished after it got Juyo in the 70's? Likely. If a Juyo is at this price, one has to tread very carefully. I've seen Juyo that changed quite a bit after a new polish and not always in a favorable way. Not saying this is the case here, but when a deal seems too good to believe...

I bought this Hon’ami origami (Tanuma origami 1750<->1810) at auction (just the origami) and now I’m having a go at the translation. It was an interesting exercise, and now I need some help to fill in the missing pieces and to possibly correct where I’m wrong. The way I see it, it was first issued 1787 (Hon’ami Kokyu) and some years laters the origami was confirmed after further suriage by Hon’ami Koitsu/Koichi (Markus Sesko says Koitsu, Albert Yamanaka says Koichi). Any help greatly appreciated! 兼定 – Kanesada 正真 – shoshin (authentic) 長サ貳尺貳寸八分 X 磨上有之 nagasa ni shaku ni sun hachi bu X suriage kore ari 代金子拾五枚 dai-kinsu jū go mai 天明七年未 Tenmei nana nen hitsuji (1787 – year of the goat) 弥生 三 日 来阿 [光久] yayoi mikka Hon A [kakihan Kokyu] (16th generation Hon’ami mainline master) ​Backside of origami: 享和三年 霜月 三日 長 貳尺 壱寸 九分 X 磨上 Kyōwa san nen shimotsuki mikka (1803, 11th month, 3rd day) nagasa ni shaku ichi sun kyu bu X suriage x x 光一 x x Koitsu/Koichi + Kao (personal kao?) (17th generation Hon’ami mainline master)

Thanks Morita-san and Malcom, However, I don't assume my "Kagaku" 華 岳 + kao is the same person. It's a nice Sansui kakejiku and the reading is correct - but although I bought it roughly 10 years ago, the kao doesn't match? The mei does seem to match this one though: http://page10.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/m140810277 Here's a very old picture of mine (currently at work, so can't take a new one)

Thanks for the help with the kanji John! I also think Suitake would be the most probable reading.

Hi, Can't really read this one.... 華缶 Hanakan? Do I have the kanji correct? Is there anyone who knows something about this artist? Any help greatly appreciated!

Though in the middle of a heat wave, the meeting was well attended with 17 members. Mr. Eschbaum has started the meeting with a short introduction. The meeting continued with kantei part. The following two blades were provided for the kantei: 1. Tanto by Rai Kunitsugu (NBTHK Tokubetsu Juyo).It is fantastic, signed and absolutely typical work from Kamakura Rai. The blade is in sunobi style with no sori and over 1 shaku. The steel has very nice “wet” look. Rai Kunitsugu was younger brother of Rai Kunimitsu and one of the students of Masamune. The sword comes from Ōkubo family collection and has old Honami papers from year 1660. 2. Katana by Echizen Yasutsugu 1st generation (NBTHK Tokubetsu Juyo) The blade is typical for Yasutsugu and done in Keicho Shinto form. It was forged with (at least some) namban tetsu steel. The hada of the sword shows typical dark Echizen-gane. The kantei was discussed by Mr. Eschbaum. A lively discussion on Echizen steel and on origins, quality and quality of namban tetsu steel used for forging of Japanese swords followed resolution of the kantei. The second part of the meeting was dedicated to Hira-Zogan inlay of Kaga and Umetada schools. Mr. Peuker and Mr. Eschbaum have started it with introduction into hira-zogan and history of Kaga school. The survey was illustrated by outstanding works from early Kaga school as well as pieces from the fist and the third generations of the Kuwamura branch of the school. From Kaga school the discussion went to Umetada school. In the account Mr. Eschbaum has drawn a comparison between Umetada, Higo and Matashishi zogan as well as discussed in detail differences between zogan of Umetada and Kaga schools. Umetada zogan usually stands somewhat out from the surface comparing to Kaga works. Between representative pieces selected from Umetada school a tsuba by Umetada Shigemitsu with an Obi motive (around 1640-1650) has provided a finest example of kodôgu making. Works of some excellent artists, who worked in Kaga style, completed the presentation, among others: a tsuba by Takase Eiju (Mito school) depicting cherry blossom in the morning mist, a later piece from Washida Mitsunaka of Shonai school in the style of Kaga Yoshiro and an extreme fine tsuba by Murakami Jochiku with depiction of snow on bamboo.

If anyone could get their hands on the catalogue, I'd be more than interested in getting a few copies

Here's another 4 for sale: http://yushindou.com/%E6%9E%97%E8%97%A4%E5%85%AB%E3%80%80%E9%89%A2%E6%9C%A8%E9%80%8F%E5%9B%B3%E3%80%80%E9%89%84%E7%A3%A8%E5%9C%B0%E3%80%80%E8%8F%8A%E8%8A%B1%E5%BD%A2/ http://yushindou.com/%E6%9D%BE%E4%B8%8B%E4%BA%AD%E3%80%80%E5%A1%A9%E5%B1%8B%E9%A2%A8%E6%99%AF%E5%9B%B3%E3%80%80%E8%B5%A4%E9%8A%85%E9%AD%9A%E3%80%85%E5%AD%90%E5%9C%B0/ http://yushindou.com/%E6%B5%9C%E9%87%8E%E3%80%80%E8%98%87%E6%9D%B1%E5%9D%A1%E5%9B%B3%E3%80%80%E8%B5%A4%E9%8A%85%E5%9C%B0%E3%80%80%E9%87%91%E8%A6%86%E8%BC%AA/ http://yushindou.com/%E5%A4%A7%E5%B0%8F%E6%8F%83%E3%81%84%E9%8D%94%E3%80%80%E5%B0%BE%E5%BC%B5%E3%80%80%E4%BA%8C%E5%AD%90%E5%B1%B1%E5%89%87%E4%BA%AE%E3%80%80%E6%B5%AA%E8%BB%8A%E5%9B%B3%E3%80%80%E9%89%84%E5%9C%B0%E3%80%80/ As said - TH is not that difficult :-)

http://www.wakeidou.com/smarts/index/10/ 5 here to get you started ????

Also, the Koson kao is very poorly done - lots of issues comparing it to true examples And the stamp at the back isn't for the headline master (which Koson was) - it was for one of the sidelines... Headline master stamp

I'm still in the first 10 years - but your reasoning is sound and it does help a lot in the assessment of unknown swords. I actually plan to do the Shijo Kantei from now on. So at first I will be , but after a lot of practise I hope to get (for the old school gamers - and probably wishfull thinking!)

Hi Mitch, Logically speaking you have the NBTHK paper to Ko-Uda (which I personally think is a card they pull out too often) - on the other hand you have an anonymous sayagaki saying Yukimitsu. Seeing the sayagaki is anonymous, it is likely that the person who wrote it either did it for his own record keeping or, if it was for 'public purposes' - didn't sign it, because he didn't want to put his name on the line. Any of these 2 options fail against NBTHK Shinsa. Like Guido said, shinsa is a very learned opinion and the organisation stands by its conclusion (there will always be sparse exceptions). Only in very rare cases can a sayagaki or hakogaki trump shinsa, usually only if done by a person who has really specialised in a certain area, whereas the shinsapanel is expected to know a lot about everything. But it's the collector/owner who should assess the weight and value of this. There's no hard and fast rule.