Ted Tenold

Recommending this sword for use in cutting excercise is like recommending a car with loose lugnuts for racing. What can happen, will not be good.

My first impression is that the tsuba is okay. Looks like it has a shakudo fukurin on it (added later maybe?) and remnants of gold nunome (grasses perhaps?). Signature is the only thing I don't like about it. Very contrived looking, and not at all well struck.

Technically speaking every stone from Arato to Uchigumori is the foundation or "Shitaji-togi" (Lower polish), while everything after it is Shiage-togi (Upper polish). Habaki and shirasaya makers each have their own preference, but crafting either one on an already polished blade is not very popular with either. The habaki and shirasaya can be made after Kaiseido before progressing into the nagura stones. The shape is set, and any scratches that might be induced by the process of making the habaki or shirasaya won't be of any great consequence. The pattern left by the kaisei can make it more difficult to see hagire if present, so proceeding to nagura is a little more advantageous as the scratches induced are (generally) longitudinal on the blade, but hagire can appear at any stage through uchigumori. Just one of the risks that must be accepted unfortunately. A thorough inspection with a scope or magnifier is a good preventative measure as well, but still no gaurantee.

Whoops....George. My directions above have been ammended. I saw a slight mistake that should read: It should be faily obvious anyways, but just in case.

Okay guys, group hug. It's run it's course and we all get it. Next....

Great set of fuchigashira, and quite appropriate! Happy Holidays to all!

George, The Togo shrine in Harajuku has a flea market on Sunday morning, though I'm not sure if it's every sunday or just the first sunday of the month when I'm there. There is a man there that specifically deals in Japanese militaria. You might try that one. Take the Yamanote Line to Harajuku station. Exit from the Takeshita street exit, and walk directly across the intersection down Takeshita Street about 1/10th of a mile. There's a slight dog-leg right at this point with small path to the left. Take the path and then a quick right to the back stairway entrance. The main entrance to the Togo Shrine is from Omotesando, the main thoroughfare in Harajuku where there are many Department stores, but from the station it's the long way around, so I just go down Takeshita. It is a flea market, so I'd recommend you exercise the same caution you would at any other, as there are lots of old things to be had, but also some overpriced overhyped stuff, as well as reproductions and imports. Also there's a shop (at least there *used* to be) in Setagaya-ku owned by a man named Reto Kleinpeter. Here's his info and addresss from a business card I got from him some years back. The Real Thing Reto Kleinpeter 2F, OT Building 2-14-1 Kitazawa Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 155-0031 03-3410-9311 I'd call before venturing over because it was a while back that I met him, and I'm not sure he's still there. I first met him at an antique show in California and he had some very very nice things though the prices reflected what one might expect for very very nice things. Have fun, and Good Hunting!

Andrew, Although a mythical, it is an animal none-the-less, therefore the orientation should be that the head faces the fuchi, and upright when the sword is worn not wielded. If it were only the ken, then it would be oriented with the tip of the ken toward the fuchi. The confusion some might have is that dragons are often configured with the head facing backward from the direction they are "crawling". In pairs, one might have this look, while the other if facing the direction it is crawling. The head should therefore be considered facing the direction that the body is traveling. The fact that the head is looking about does not affect the direction it is moving toward. Also one has to remember that in a Tachi configuration (edge down), the omote and ura are opposite that of a mounting in Bukezukuri (katana/wakizashi/tanto, edge up) so the menuki will also be in opposing positions with the dominant one always facing publicly and upright.

Brian, It is Hirokuni. The kuni is a bit obscure, but there is a Kanbun smith listed in the Hizento Handbook with this character and signing as your image shows. There are two Hirokuni with the other using the koku/kuni kanji and alternately signing Hiroyoshi and Yoshiyasu and was a student of Shodai Tadayoshi. I could not find your Hirokuni in the lineage chart though.

Marius, I think what Grey is getting at is that it's not as simple as saying "Should I put varnish on my coffee table?". Sure, you could do it, and *you* might like it, but that won't necessarily mean it represents the piece correctly. Nugui decisions are dependant on much more than just a "use/omit" equation, and can make or break a polish. The depth of nugui is a subject that goes way beyond just general application and is codependant on all the processes before it. Many of the "off the shelf" nugui mixtures available are also just too broad stroke in composition and don't fit the very specific nature of individual works. Nugui formulations can be quite closely guarded personal recipes. Improper matching of nugui type, or improper application can also have a wide range of results from no effect at all, to actually "burning" (or attenuating) the hada giving it a really ugly brown look and when that happens there's some starting over involved. So will it work? Maybe. Can you ruin a sword with it? Not really, at least not permanently, but it can misrepresent the piece and in the extreme make it look downright ugly. If all the other steps in front weren't completed properly, it's like putting clear coat on a car that's only been primered.

Cutting tests were about performance. Any associated costs to perform them, or value added was incidental. Broken blades are worthless weapons. Proven weapons are testiments of "fit for particular purpose".

Carlo, I'm not sure I can elaborate much. I think the thoughts that Jean and Reinhard expressed are as succinct as we can get. But I'll try... Many famous swords exist with direct attributions because the history of records, some with very extensive, that support them. Therefore in the vast majority, this provinance provides the foundation that solidifies the smith and work, signed or unsigned. Many have been documented over and over again with a great number of them interchanging as gifts or awards between Daimyo, Shogun, Generals, Honored individuals, etc.. But in the case of Hosho smiths there may well be a lack of support in this respect or there might be a firmer ability to pinpoint them and "individualize" the works more. The contributing factors (in my view) might be; 1. Reletively short timeline of the school. Many other schools lasted much longer than Hosho. 2. Lack (or the loss) of supporting records. This would include not only the aforementioned gift or award records, but also those by Hon'ami, Temples, or the school itself. 3. Lack reliable signed examples exhibiting some consistancy in signature and work style for variant comparison. 4. Minimal variation within workstyles that would clearly illustrate individual characteristics. ...and though it may not in the case of Hosho because of their distinctive work style; 5. Work style that is so very close to another group or smith that attribution to an isolated smith is difficult at best. When looking at a signed piece one can also surmise that althought they may evolve over a working life, or from generation to generaton, there will be some element of consistancy or similiarity. Without historic records, pinpoint work elements, or other signed works for comparison, why should one assume any singular example is shoshin? What is obvious is there is incomplete or vague analysis so far, that to me shows possiblity of some records, but not enough to make a clear judgment. Books list signature styles but without elaboration or support of oshigata to display them. The really difficult part of this is that if, for a moment, we were to imagine a signed Hosho Sadamune ubu tachi to emerge from some hidden alcove somewhere, how are we to prove it is shoshin? If it had early supporting records, that would certainly be spectacular, but if not, then it would most likely be heavily scrutinized as well, and rightfully so. However, if it matched so clearly the one recognized example, that would certainly provide some support for the find as well as some vindication for the signed tanto, and a basis for new study. I am interested in the scrutiny of the signed example and will try to find out more in the future.

Very unusual indeed. It gives me the impression that the original rim was removed and a new rim shaped, morticed on its interior to the points of the design, and fitted. Perhaps the same kind of technique as the Saotome Kiku types seen where the "spokes" are installed. The current rim is quite robust for what I would expect in conjunction with this design. Perhaps the original rim was damaged and there were steps to save the tsuba and reinforce it against subsequent damage. All completely speculative on my part, and without any basis other than first impression.

Hi Reinhard, nice to meet you in Japan. Hope you found some treasures! Since we are walking down memory lane....regarding Hosho Sadamune; This year Tanobe-sensei organized a lecture for the foreign members of the NBTHK. There was a signed Hosho tanto (Sadayoshi if I remember correctly) on display. In his lecture, he addressed this topic briefly citing that although Sadamune is regarded as the founder of the school, there is only one work signed Sadamune and it is regarded as being somewhat suspicious. So in this regard, I agree (and never disagreed btw) that Sadamune could be regarded as a contentious call in kantei. As a further example, at one of the US shows the American Branch provided a kantei excercise. The kantei was informal in nature and not for score, just folks putting answers on slips of paper and handing them in. Included among the subject swords was a lovely Ko-Bizen blade. The sword was ubu and zaimei to Tomasa. Bob Benson remarked during his lecture that the only proper call would have been to Ko-Bizen even though the sword is signed because there are so few signed Ko-Bizen works at all, and certainly a direct call to Tomasa would be so obscure that one would most certainly have had prior knowledge of this particular sword. Bear in mind, these comments were regarding a signed piece. Back to Hosho; The Nihonto Koza lists the same Sadamune Jacques posted which is Juyo Bijutsuhin, and this is the contentiously regarded signed work nobody can really be sure of. So....Sadamune is regarded as the founder of the school, and we covered the lack of any of his works with conclusively reliable signatures. However Albert Yamanaka states that there are a "considerable number of blades by this swordsmith remaining today". Other sources such as Fujishiro, and the Nihonto Koza concur this by the direct descriptions and/or comparisons of Sadamune works, none of which are documented as being signed or unsigned other than the one contentious zaimei Jubi tanto. So the fact remains that there is also a concensus that Sadamune left a very large body of works, that today are unsigned. We can acertain, as is proper, that there is some measure of consistantly identifiable work among Sadamune works that would lead to any outward statement of "considerable numbers" of extant works, or such prominent mention of Sadamune in general. Otherwise, in the lack of extant works he would be regarded as his father, Kunimitsu, who has none to be identified, and thus the founding credit would likely have been passed to Sadaoki or Sadayoshi. So, therein lies the inconsistancy that a Go can be directly attributed though there are no extant zaimei works, and that darn few any at all, while Hosho Sadamune with a large body of extant works cannot be directly attributed......in *formal* kantei. However as a measure of attribution, Kanzan Sato seemed perfectly willing to place sayagaki in direct attribution to Hosho Sadamune on the aforementioned *informal* kantei blade, and the NBTHK obviously agreed enough to document it exactly the same on the accompanying papers as "Hosho Sadamune". So while I agree that there is a measure of improperness to a direct call of Sadamune in formal occassions, that doesn't make the call incorrect or inaccurate, nor does it illigetimize the written attributions that others have documented. There is little dispute that Sadamune has an extant body of works that can be attributed to him directly. It's easy to get lost in the minutia of what may be proper or improper, but never underestimate the importance of context. Okay, in order not to thread drift down memory lane completely, let's get back to John's sword. The signature reads "Hosho Goro". Fujishiro documents Hosho Goro as an inclusive part of, and alternative signature of Hosho Sadayoshi. It also is listed as an inclusive part of Sadaoki. A cursory look showed no examples for comparison for either smith, but I would encourage you to have the sword looked at. Even if the signature is questionble, Hosho works are generally not, and the signature could have been placed in attribution to someone from a very recognizable school. I guess if the mei were removed and it were a Hosho, it would be Sadamune by default. :lol:

I worded that poorly. It doesn't necessarily signify only shinshinto period. Swords that I've seen that have this kind of alteration or were specified as "Oite" Edo, were 18th/19th century alterations. Of course, as such 16th/17th century alterations occured, but there was a strong gravitation to Edo as the period progressed as it was the both a place of greater exposure to work, and gain tutalage under a large number of craftsman working there. Thus, a larger population and concentration of both permanent and transient craftsman of Edo going into the Shinshinto period might offer a larger body of examples. Perhaps I'm invoking a bit too much personal speculation on the subject, but the signature health and style doesn't lead me too much older than 18th century. Stylistically, it just *looks* young to me. It's excellent that it's verified as Nosada. Great find there John! Congrats! Good thing you got over to the Kanemoto/Kanesada exhibit too.

Consider that this is a signature of the craftsman that shortened it rather than making it. The shortening could have been performed by someone that wasn't necessarily a swordsmith, or *just* a swordsmith. In that respect, any period during or past the appraised period of the sword would be suspect. Consider also that a large number of those signatures that bear reference to "Edo" in conjunction with the locational clarification of "Oite" (meaning performed in a place *outside* their normal working location), are in Shinshinto period. I'd seperate the sword from the signature on this one. The style of signature might point you to a possible school and period if you want to chase the responsible shortener. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but it seems your looking for the guy that shortened the sword who likely (but not necessarily) was, a swordsmith in a later period , rather than the smith that made it(?).

This can indeed cause hagire, but is likely to snap the blade altogether, the degree of force being the deciding factor. A swordsmith I know destroys a blade when it shows a flaw or has a quality issue. He rolls the blade over and strikes the mune against the anvil. From what I understand this method is common practice. On this note, there are many swords that exhibit cuts or battle scars on the mune and/or shinogi. More often than not (if they are period "battle scars" and not marks of modern idiocy) there will be efforts to leave these marks rather than try to repair them. They are a great testament to the blades durability and reliability. I can see your point, and when considering the sword purely as an art piece, could argue this idea. But first and foremost, these are weapons and must exhibit the quality and character of a reliable weapon. The artisitic merits vary greatly between pieces obviously, but they must all *be* and remain to be, what they were meant to be. A one armed man is not an archer because he holds a bow. I'm sure you'll have many suitors come calling. :lol:

Although plausible, I'd say highly improbable. I'd agree that this could happen or at the very least, be a contributing factor. Steel is capible of very wonky things sometimes. I also concur on the subject of Hirazukuri. We very rarely see any hirazukuri katana outside of special works. The geometry of the blade simply isn't suited to supporting the stress and torque that a shinogizukuri can once in a very long work. So few extant examples is a testament to this. If they were a better weapon, 1000 years of engineering experience would have shown it. Molecularly speaking there is a great deal of tension in a sword. The spine pulls against the edge. The extra width of shinogizukuri builds the niku (meat) into the edge for more material to distribute and tolerate the stresses. As a blade is polished down, ideally *all* the surfaces are polished thus diminishing all the material in proportion as well as the tension. As an aside, I once found a lovely Osuriage Hirazukuri Katana. Very nicely forged and a lovely yakiba with a Kinpun mei. Closer examination showed it had several hagire that were very very faint. It was obviously Koto, and was well done. Again the mystery is were they always there and unseen, or appeared with time? Who knows. Draw tempering is is the process of relieving some of these stresses (which is the true definition of "tempering") in the blade after the main quench (which is technically "selective hardening"), and is common among steel manufacturing processes. *edited for clarity*

Good point Stephen, just because you can't see it on one side doesn't mean it's not there so very judicious checking may be needed.

Give us your money and we'll buy stuff for you! Hey, remember, we're here to help you!

When it comes to fittings, I'm not the near pay grade of many of the folks here, but I'd say with a rather firm conviction that this was put on *much* later. It looks like Nagoya-mono to me. Any of the more knowledgeable want to smack the back of my head now? :lol:

You're being kind. To continue in the spirit of that kindness, I'd say... "The decisions were unorthodox, and the applications casual".

I once counted 14 on a single blade. It was a Koto period katana too. Makes one wonder how the heck it made it so long without being tossed into the pile for reforging.

The polishing process itself is highly improbably to cause a hagire. There are times when heavy pressure is placed on the sword to acheive a polish, but there's technique involved that minimizes actually flexing and weighing down or bowing the blade. I feel it would take very *very* excessive pressure while polishing to flex or stress the yakiba sufficiently to inflict this kind of damage. So much in fact that the amount of pressure required is likely to break stones too, which in many cases are quite delicate, or fracture them under the steel causing other forms of damage. If the blade needed to be straightened before the process, then absolutely yes, this process is always dicey and has a big pucker factor involved. I've straightened a lot of swords, some with some very bad bends and twists, and some with only minor ones. They are all subject to risk. Fortunately, I've had no failures, but in **every** case, I warn the owner that although I take all the precautions I can to prevent damage, it can occur and they must understand and accept that risk. Each sword is different as well, and with the art, different periods and regions will also have different physical characteristics to consider. Some are thicker or thinner, some flex very easily while others are very stiff, the width of the yakiba, period of the steel, origin of the steel, location of the bend, etc.. There are precautions that can be taken to minimize stress and make the blade more ammenably prepared for the process, but all in all, it's still a very risky process and not to be taken haphazardly. I would offer also that many hagire can be *very* difficult to see as well, and may not show up until the polishing process begins, or even progresses to a point somewhere during the process. If the sword has evidence of use in cutting with deep or lateral scratches in the ha, any one of them could be glanced over and mistaken for a scratch instead of a crack. As a point of caution to everyone, I once heard a disturbing story that hagire could be camoflaged by cutting into the edge of plywood sheet to scratch the area heavily. Obviously, the hagire would not appear again without polishing away the scratches or a very powerful scope. Incidentally, I use a 30x inspection scope to examine swords with suspicious lines in the ha before commencing polish. If I can't establish a firm judgement with that, then a light window is polished in the region to further examine it before commencing the work. Was it there before but covered or too hard to see? Was the blade straightened, or somehow mishandled? It seems obvious by the text that the owner and seller are unhappy and assign blame to the togishi. I also don't read the text that it was done while actually polishing persay, rather than it came back from the polisher like this. Damage to the shirasaya points to more mishandling, but where and how? Who knows. We have to take the description at face value and kudos to Danny and the owner for pointing out the flaw and fully describing the sword as is. I think the bottom line here is that the polisher apparently didn't see it, or if it was seen, the process wasn't immediately halted and the owner contacted for a decision to continue or abort. Okay, so recognizing hagire... To answer Milt's question; No, I've never seen a hagire that didn't go all the way through. Cracks travel from the very edge back and propogate from the scantest material at the greatest stress point, back toward the mune. They can be longer on one side than another, but I've yet to see one that did not show on both sides. Hagire are nearly always dead straight and 90 degrees perpendicular to the ha. This is because of the molecular pressure in the body of the blade pulling directly against the ha either during yakiire, or stress caused thereafter. A point to understand is that Ububa is very necessary for reason of manufacture. During yakiire, the edge is flattened quite widely throughout the length of the sword. The reason is that when quenched, the blade takes on the curve due to differening rates of cooling which in turn places molecular pressure on the yakiba as the back of the blade pulls against it. If the ha were sharpened or very thin, it more easily cracks and propogates that crack like a zipper in the quench. There can be hagire that run at slight angles or with linear changes. These are more likely sustained in edge contact damage or from the top of a hakobori (chip). They are no less a fatal flaw though the blade did survive the engagement without catastrophic failure (completey snapping). If one is found, it is likely there may be more. True, one is all it takes, but in the odd chance that it's very short and possibly correctable, look very carefully for more that may not. Hagire rarely travel past the habuchi. Once reaching the habuchi the steel is ductile and the stress is relieved into that ductility. But, that ductility won't necessarily support further stress to the body of the blade without tearing (snapping) thus the increased likelyhood of unpredictable catastrophic failure. So if you see evidence of cutting, look first at the "scratches" that stop in the ha or habuchi first, then more carefully at all the others which may be on top of the hagire. If it appears to be a lone scratch traveling past the habuchi into or across the ji, it's likely to be just that; a scratch. Also check both sides of the blade. Often the cutting angle (hasuji) of the user may have been poor and the blade may have traveled through the target somewhat heavier on one side of the blade leaving the opposing side less scratched or with shorter marks. Define and suspect accordingly. A lateral bend is an *obvious* and direct result of bad hasuji. Last, there are forms of "surface" cracks that can rarely be seen. Where they can occur is in or near the tops of lobes in formations like choji or gunome. The reason is that there can also be surface tension during heat treating that pulls these cracks in the surface of harder regions forming in the yakiba. They would more accurately be described as material seperations, but look like cracks and should be viewed with some scepticism. They rarely travel deep into the surface, but can go all the way through as well. They range from straigh"ish" to crescent shaped but are generally high in the yakiba and don't reach the edge. These are just a few recommendations. Always triple check however, because like everything in Japanese swords, your results may vary.

Per the forum rules, please sign your name to your posts.