Ted Tenold

I would like to point out that there is always the option of buying pieces that you like regardless of their level of quality. The difference is knowing the difference before buying. I know plenty of knowledgeable collectors who buy a piece based on the fact that they just like it, knowing full well it's not a high quality piece. It's purely a matter of doing so with eyes wide open.

It was a remarkable exhibit indeed. Tom pointed out in another thread somewhere that it's not even the kind of exhibit that one would expect in Japan, and he's absolutely correct. About ten years ago, I remember being shown a private collection of a dozen or so pieces representative of several generations. I thought that was really special, and it was. The NBTHK/AB display was mind boggling. 71 pieces and sets in one place, up close and personal. Loupes were even provided for everyone to get a really good look. My favorite, Joshin (third generation mainline) was represented by several pieces, one of which was owned by the Tokugawa family at one time. This is not the kind of opportunity that should have been missed. In fact, each show has something special whether it's 71 pieces or 5. Highest compliments to Bob Benson and Mike Yamasaki for their hard work, and deepest thanks to all who graciously lent their pieces to assemble such a wonderful exhibit. These arts and the crafts that bear them can never be studied or fully appreciated in two dimensional on a computer monitor. Even a classic painting is two dimensional in rendering, but without standing in front of it, the comfortable warmth and hue of yellows that Van Gogh used, or the brush strokes in which he laid them will go totally unappreciated. The light that shines down upon the humbled and sorrowful Penitent Magdelena by Titian, which I stood in front of at the Getty Museum with tears welling in my own eyes. Yeah sure, go look at it on line....yup, that's a picture, but it's not a painting and you won't get anywhere near the inspiration, impact, or impression. GET TO A SHOW. GET TO A MUSEUM. Pictures are nice to look at, but beyond available articles, on line study has very little to offer to advance the eye. @ David Martin; sorry, but I disagree with much of what you're saying. But I do agree with some also. Risk can be attenuated without buying pieces that one is unable to distinguish between chalk and cheese. So safer than what? Saving money, getting educated first, *then* buying something from someone that will help you? There's nothing like wasting money. Then it will be too late. Better to buy nicer pieces that will hold value, be more desireable, and better enable migrating into better pieces in the direction that becomes more appealing. So, never mind the man behind the curtain? Beginners know better? Buy stuff no one likes and it's okay? Maybe if no one likes it, there's a reason. Lemme know how that works out for ya. On the other hand, there is really is no antidote for bad taste. Here we agree. However, doing this before buying a boatload of "safer" chopstick rests, seems safer yet. Oh Ye of little faith, and less exposure. Please take the opportunity to dispel your own doubt by attending a show. The Tampa Show is in February. You may be surprised at what you find. Here I also concur. But shows do offer very nice, top rated examples to see also. I know my response reads perhaps a bit abrasive, and thus the insertion of smileys here and there to inflect a lighter tone. However, shows are getting an unfair shake as folks mistakenly believe that the internet will be their ultimate saviour and deliver them from inconvenience and monetary waste. It's a false god in the pursuit of knowledge and comprehension of any art form, well unless you consider website construction an art. :lol:

What a gyp! I read through 5 pages of posts looking for some magical "last word" that would bring peace to an otherwise contentious divide. Yet, no word, and no peace... Will someone please strike "those guards who's type shall not be spoken" from kodogu terminologies?

You shouldn't have much problem finding one in Japan, but I second Grey's recommendation for a U.S. based tsukamakishi.

Hi Edward, I currently have a sword by this maker on my site. Have a look for comparison. http://www.legacyswords.com/fs_ant_daito21.htm The numbers stamped on the nakago are just assembly and tracking numbers to keep the mountings together among many other swords in the process.

Excellent posts Darcy, well stated. One of my favorite quotes is; "When you hear galloping hooves in the distance, it's better to assume it's a horse rather than a zebra" which conceptually metaphors the "Ockham's Razor" approach of analysis. I actually vacillated between two inconsistencies and tried to arrive and the more explainable inconsistency based on experience; Motoshige vs. Kanenaga on the basis of boshi vs. deki. I have seen a Kanenaga that was very similar in nioi deki, and the hada on this sword also pushed me to Kanenaga, and I couldn't connect the boshi on this one to Motoshige in the same manner. So I went to Kanenaga. I've only seen one Motoshige in hand and one other very strong candidate for Motoshige that had all the hallmarks but was unvetted, so I went with Kanenaga based on a larger number of in hand experiences. I'm always glad to get the period, tradition, and region correct at that's more than half the battle and narrows the field to a degree that mistakes are more or less just detail items that smiths can and do ebb and flow within. This ebb and flow is the reason for "den" attributions many feel is a demerit, rather than recognizing it as a range of creative variance good smiths were capable of summoning. That said, this piece being solidly targeted to Motoshige is cause to make it a rare and valuable study piece to a better understanding of Motoshige's virtuosity. It's been said that to understand any swordsmith entails studying 100 of their works. A daunting task considering the rareity of many makers, but clearly the message is that any smith's body of work will have work inconsistencies that only come into full focus after many many known works are studied. Thus the importance of signed and dated works in establishing a foundation cannot be overemphasized, and the absence of them contributes to the division in beliefs of solitary vs. multiple generations of any particular smith. In the absence of signed and dated "missing links" it's reasonable to believe in the long life of a multi-talented smith that lived through the transitions of work styles, or succesive generations that each expanded their creativity and individuality while maintaining elements of their lineage. Excellent read and exercise. Thanks for sharing your sword with us Rich!

I'll offer my bid;

I'm glad to see this thread progressed in a constructive manner and Suguha has been vindicated. However, I would like to add that suguha in itself is not really the issue, nor is any other hamon. The study of Nihonto is first and foremost a study of steel. Quality steel is what supports an appreciable hamon of any shape. The quality and beauty of the hamon (brightness, continuity, depth, deki, consistancy, hataraki) all are supported by the steel. Looking at some of the famous schools and makers will demonstrate that the shape of hamon is fundamentally less important than their reputation for quality jigane such as Awataguchi, Rai, Shizu, Tadayoshi, Kunihiro, etc. I guess the point I'm getting at is that if you see a wonderful hamon of any shape, you should really pay very close attention to the jigane (and hagane) that support it.

I saw this sword on the other thread. I have little doubt the blade has been etched which has exaggerated the hada in both ji and yakiba manifesting an odd look. These days, with all the production swords out there that are overwhelmingly etched for time and cost expediency, it's reasonable to have a knee jerk reaction and judge "repro" at the first glimpse of a sword like this. As Jed posted in the other thread, it was his understanding that the person he got this sword from did the restoration himself, but the polish also suggests it was burnished in some measure of traditional tools, but also somewhat hurried and overworked also. The close up of the shinogiji shows the metal looks crushed or what I call "bruised". So the polish may have been a quickie Showa era job, or perhaps the shinogiji masked off prior to etch. I'm sure it would be much more conclusive in hand, but based on what we see, the point is moot anyways. My guess is a shinshinto era sword that was machiokuri to lengthen the nakago deep into length of the tsuka (based on the number of hishi in the tsukamaki, the tsuka is about 11 inches long) and subsequently remounted again in these mounts. The western belief of the "full tang" sword superiority is less a mantra these days, but was very prevalent up to a few years ago (it was a wrongly applied marketing perception of "quality" that immigrated from the knife world). The habaki was likely original before the machiokuri as the rubbing starts at the new ana right about where the original sabigawa starts, but doens't extend much below it. The nakago looks older than Showa, and the work Mino-esque. The saya is really oddly shaped with sharp ebizaya"ish" shape and a toppei like jiri which don't really harmonize. The seppa are an odd mix of low quality mismatches. The samegawa is obviously white and new, and the tsukamaki not strong in installation. I'd defer to others on the Tsuba. Not my area of focus. The odd nakago ana could suggests the shape of a duel or prior mounting for a yari or ken. Overall, looks like a DIY re-mounted shinshinto intended as a "working" blade. That's my opinion...worth what I charge for it. :lol:

Chrisf, These are not the kinds of pieces, or collectors, that Chris B. or others are talking about. The collectors in the Allman article and their sequestered pieces fall way outside those the mainstream collecting community encounters and the items in their collections are no where near the same conditional or preservational considerations as the general topic of this discussion.

Perhaps we should take a moment of silence for this sword.

The dates for the 2012 Tampa Japanese Sword Show are now posted as February 10th, 11th, and 12th, 2012. I attended this show last February, and I must say that I not only had a great time, but it was well organized with good public attendance. It is also open to dealers of militaria, asian art, as well as many other types of antique arms from around the world. It has also been announced on their site that the show will host an NTHK Shinsa. Further details regarding the show, hotel accomodations, tables, and Shinsa information can be seen at: http://www.tampajapaneseswordshow.com/

This year, the San Francisco Token Kai will be held a bit earlier than usual, August 4th - 7th, 2011. Always an excellent show hosted by the Nothern California Japanese Sword Club (N.C.J.S.C.) with a large sales room full of all our favorite sharp and pointy goodies. The NBTHK American Branch also puts lectures and displays of excellent swords and fittings of varied subjects. Many times there are other lectures and displays offered as well. Grey Doffin also hosts a sword etiquette, handling, and maintenance lecture that is always helpful and informative. For information regarding show hours, tables, hotel, and accomodations visit: http://www.ncjsc.org/SF_token_kai.htm

The path of righteousness....

Martin, that's exactly the logic a rookie applies, and exactly why it doesn't work even if you think it works for you. Your show of appreciation for help is courteous, but when folks give rookies sound advice which they then brush aside in favor of their own faulted logic, it's frustrating for those giving it. Just because the mei isn't genuine, doesn't mean it isn't a very good sword, but if you don't have the skill and experience to determine that the "metal work" is excellent and ignore the mei, then you really prove your ignorance and a very good sword may slip away. Looking at the images, I would be hesitant to call it Kanbun Shinto, or anything else for that matter. The images were taking at an oblique angle to the blade that doesn't illustrate it's shape very well for even a cursory judgement. It'd be better to see images shot directly at the sword. Enough has been said about the mei. The quality and true nature of the blade is the more important issue that needs investigation.

In the face of more than one definition by more than one authority, perhaps it's better left to some modest and flexible interpretation. Here's a scan of a katana by Ono Yoshimitsu, and the comments describe it as a Shobu zukuri. I'd venture the Shobu shape is defined more in the spirit of context rather than any precise element of it. Nihonto at large have many descriptions in gray areas.

Keith, It was never submitted to shinsa to my knowledge. The owner had no interest in doing so. It is a well made blade though.

Keith, they are infrequent, but do exist. This one is ubu and mumei.

Patrick, This board is often too quick to just toss the answers and opinions, myself included. You say you are "in the process of buying it". So you should ask yourself what abilities you have to recognize a piece that is worth acquiring based on what you like and collect. If it's just a Japanese sword....*any* Japanese sword.... then perhaps this one will do. But if you intend to actually study your acquisitions and learn from them, and still get some kind of value for your money, you'll need more than just liquid funds. I'll give you my concern first; from the image you provided, someone started the polish on this piece and left the hi (groove) untouched as there is still corrosion in it. That's the reverse of the process. The grooves (or other horimono) are approached first in polishing. Still yet, the blade is in a course finish that leaves condition and integrity impossible to see in the image. So here's two questions for you; What period do you think it is from based on shape? This is the most important fundamental skill you must develop in appreciation. Without it, you will be lost in time. Second; Given the state it's in, how can you determine it's condition? In other words, that it is free of significant detrimental defects that affect it's collectable merits? Forget the mei. Look at the sword first.

Without trying to assist in the hijack of the thread.. My understanding of the term Nagamaki is that it refers to the *mountings* of the blade and not the shape. Nagamaki were wrapped the length of the ebu (hence the term inferring "long wrap") while naginata were not. So while all nagamaki were naginata, not all naginata were nagamaki. The term "naoshi" just means "corrected or altered" for alternative implimentation. Taking into account the shape differences between a naganata with a shobu-esque shape, and a naginata blade with the beveled shinogi and naginatahi, I think the confusion mounts, and compounded even moreso when the occasional defined okissaki is seen. The best of my knowledge, both blade shapes are classified as Naginata. I think we can too easily let ourselves get lost in the terminologies and efforts to sub-catagorize for convenience and clarity. Yes, probably a good starter for a new thread of discussion.

Hey Curran, having sold it, I lament having done so and thus empathize with your regret. I realize the attribution is debated among folks, but I always wondered if the Hosokawa record may have noted it as a Hikozo work. That really was less important to me than the fact that I just liked it for the workmanship. However, I admit it would have been nice to satisfy my curiousity by seeing the records, but that never became possible.

I had the pleasure of owning this one and it will remain one of my favorites. It was listed in Hosokawa family record as having been mounted on a sword worn by the lord of the region.

George, et al, I've encountered several gimei gendaito. I encountered one gimei of a Minatogawa smith in Tokyo. Here's one I encountered recently of Yasunori (aka: Yasutoku). My belief is that this is a contemporary gimei, meaning in the catagory you mentioned of new-made, signed and aged to look like 1912-1945 smiths. In addition to inconsistencies in the mei, this one shows evidence of having had a mei removed from both sides of the nakago. Anyone care to note another red flat other than the mei? Hint: The sword is dated January, 1935. Furthermore, here is a small excerpt from the NBTHK/American Branch Exhibit booklet from the Tampa Exhibition in February this year.

Ford, please don't misinterpret the intent of my post. I am neither confirming nor denying this particuluar piece as a work of the maker as signed, and the opinion I expressed initially does no more to vet it than does the book in which it is illustrated. I like the work and the signature it carries holds little importance to me. My comment is directed at readers less attuned to the advancement of studies since a particular publication was first circulated. It's nice to encounter a piece that was considered exemplary of school or style, or (regardless of authentication) enjoyed enough by others to be included in the catalog. I personally don't know enough about the artist or his work to make a determination about it's authenticity, and even if I did, my opinion would still carry little weight. My point is that it's okay for us to take the information that's out there, compile it, compare it, and then think for ourselves. But it's no more appropriate for us to take everything in them as faulted, as it is to consider them gospel. Water is wet, fire is hot, and we find that out the first time we fall into a lake or put our hand on the stove. But without truely taking someone else's word for it, one must sail the world to find out you won't fall off. As far as your examples are concerned, I find them quite intriguing and informative, but as I mentioned before... and... So, fully recognizing that you are a respected craftsman your opinion is also thus respected, but arguably, remains yet another opinion in this work. Referencing to the influences and trends of artisanal inspiration of the period, while building a backdrop for the scene, provides us little more about *this* maker and whether this piece is exemplary of his body of work. After all, the OP wanted to know more about this tsuba and it's maker. Thus, I feel all the discussion surrounding authenticity, workstyle, *and* the surrounding environment of the period is in context of the thread, especially in the absence of other works by this maker that demonstrate the same characteristics and inspirations. Is it righteous? Who knows. Send it through shinsa of any particular group of choice, and get yet another opinion.

I'd add that while finding such pieces in old catalogs is good for lighting a warm nostalgic glow, they rarely lend credible authenticity to the piece as an original work unless authoritative and reliable provinance accompanied them prior to their illustration. Old books are filled with questionable pieces and most times tell us more about their travels than what they truely are.