Jussi Ekholm

Thank you for the measurements they clear up things to me a bit. I must say I would have thought the curvature was much stronger and blade is thinner at the (current) nakago than I thought it was. To me both of those are good things. I think you have a cool item The hi on just one side is bit peculiar one, likewise as it seems there is not a direct profile shift near the end of hi. This is of course the common type of profile shift that we have in naginata the mune is thick over the hi and radically tapers very soon after the hi. Picture of my Yoshikage naginata. in this the tapering is extreme going from 8,5mm on top of hi end to about 1mm on the blade portion. Now this second type is quite uncommon but as I do have a naginata that has the gradual taper I can post a picture. This Ko-Uda naginata goes from 6mm on top of hi to 4mm on blade portion. I think I have seen some naginata that have just horimono on one side but on top of my head I cannot remember an example that would just have a hi on one side. I like naginata as there is so much variety among them, they are very interesting. To me the majority of Japanese katana and tachi just seem nearly identical with tiny variation and it is kind of boring, then in comparison there is huge variety in polearms with all kinds of interesting forms and oddities.

I do think all international members still get the physical magazine, to be honest that is pretty much my only reason for my NBTHK membership, as crazy as it sounds. I think I've been a member for 15 years now, and the most important thing for me is the monthly magazine. The book print runs are pretty small amounts, I was very surprised when years ago Darcy told me about the numbers. As I cannot remember the actual number he told me I cannot say exact number but it was very small in my opinion. The Financial report in magazine 8/2025 has membership numbers and lot other information. I am not sure if it would be ethical to share that on open forum as it is in member exclusive magazine. I can just state generally that number is smaller than perhaps most would think. As I have all the magazines it is easy to see the evolution and just to be curious I checked 2005 magazine to see how things were 20 years ago... I would love to have access to view all of the items that have passed Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon as these are the unknown items that are still under radar. The problem in this is that I believe there are something like 250,000+ items in this range. I have heard that some collectors do not want to send an item to Jūyō as they want to keep it private. I can also understand that view, however for research purchases I think open share of information is extremely important. There are some "hidden" items in Japan, and I always feel excited when I find a new interesting item, however they might still be well known among Japanese circles just flying below radar. As an idea that is superb and I do feel the organization should really look into something like this.

The sword in oshigata and one that was described in the book is actually Mōri Gō 毛利江 it passed Jūyō in session 16. The sword in the picture is Jūyō Bunkasai Murakumo Gō 村雲江.

I find myself struggling a lot trying to understand the item, I just cant get it right in my head. Could you post measurements 1 & 2 for the sugata picture, to get an idea about the sori and 1 & 2 for the thickness?

Thank you for posting this Brett, you have made so many interesting threads and it is always fun to open them as I know it will be a good one. I got in bit of a rabbit hole when trying to dig up the blades and ended up finding some great info but mostly left dry. I found out that the Torikai Kunitsugu was donated to Kurokawa Research Institute in 2016. The Kotegiri Gō has been in the collection of Kurokawa Research Institute. Like Brett wrote the Tokuzenin Sadamune is in the collection of Mitsui Memorial Museum, this is absolutely amazing blade in my opinion. I've said few times I am not huge fan of the golden age Sōshū but this Sadamune and few other Sadamune I have seen have been spectacular. From the info that I can gather Maeda Masamune seems to reside in private collection, last mention I have seen about it was 1961 exhibition. As I was trying to dig info about the other swords of major importance mentioned, I found out that the named sword Satō Yukimitsu of Matsudaira family was also sold if I understood correctly in 1934 for 1,798 yen (however another source mentions same person won it for 10,000 yen). It passed Jūyō Bijutsuhin in 1935 and listed owner was the person winning the bid for it. To my understanding it resides in private collection. For the Tsuriganekiri Kuniyuki tachi I was only able to find the person who bought it from that auction and it seems he had some very nice swords. Unfortunately that 1924 mention of the item is the latest info I found about it. Unfortunately for the rest of the items I cannot find anything certain. If I understand correctly the Matsudaira sword list that I have is from 1670, and there most likely has been numerous swords added to the family collection after that time. The Yoshihiro tachi is listed with characters 義弘 so it would be either Gō or Senjuin, however I have not known a single signed tachi by Gō and even for Senjuin Yoshihiro I know of only 1 and that is in Tsurugaoka Hachimangū collection. Also that Kanenaga is really puzzling one to me, also the mumei Norishige compared to other items in the list the prices of these 2 mumei swords seem way out there, so they most likely had super serious provenance.

This is extremely complicated signature and I am missing lot of key information, however I think I have a grasp of the general idea about the smiths. 越前国□広□□為三十七歳□内□□□守 / 行年七十有二 同子 高柳加賀守藤原貞広 / 国継相共□正□ other side I would believe starts with 正徳二壬辰□三月上日 and there is a lot lot more to translate. This would be made by Kaga no Kami Sadahiro (signed as Takayanagi Kaga no Kami Fujiwara Sadahiro) at the age of 72 with his son Aritsugu while he was signing with Kunitsugu (国継) and the year would be 1712 as that matches the zodiac. I was able to find a reference piece that can be seen on page 11 here (unfortunately the pic is very blurry): https://www.yamasaki-bunka.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/kyodokaiho_063.pdf Both the item in this thread and the one above link, seem to be signed as at age 72 with son Kunitsugu and year is 1712. Markus Seskos swordsmith index and Nihontō Meikan both mention that there is a item signed as at 71 with son Kunitsugu (who was signing 27 year old to that sword) and year is 1711. I think it is extremely interesting item and I hope that you can get correct and proper translation on it, as there is so much that I fail to understand. I would feel the signature would be legitimate as it is such a peculiar one and extremely long.

At 1.00 you can see the Yoshikane tachi and Tametsugu katana they have. By quick glance both would seem to be very nicely viewable. I hope it draws in big crowds and gets people excited about Japanese swords

As I am not connected to art world in any way I am curious how this Catalogue Raisonne works. Is it a free publication open to everyone to view? For the Japanese swords I would dare to think that people and organizations are very protective of their items. I have read many stories how even the best Japanese experts have had difficulties to get to even view some items. One hurdle would also be who would be the ones authenticating the items, as I know there are items for which some of the experts have varying views. Would already designated items get a free pass or would they also require lot of study and some might perhaps even fail at passing modern panel. What Piers wrote sounds like the absolute horror story and it isn't the only one like that I have heard, well of course this is the most extreme one as the smith would be Sadamune and actual proof was discovered too. I just cannot understand why the mei needs to be removed, I am absolutely against a mei removal regardless if it would be even an obvious gimei. Of course people see things differently and there are different opinions. Uwe provided absolutely amazing complilation of information about the National Treasure Uraku Kunimitsu, that is wonderful and shows how important it is to have multiple references. Also the text portions give an insight of the history of the sword and it is understandable how the quality and history combined make this sword a National Treasure. Item like this require very high level of understanding of history and appreciation of quality, unfortunately I am still lacking in both of them. I have seen this sword in 2024 and 2025 at Nagoya Tōken World, to me it was very well made sword of obviously very high quality but my level of appreciation is not enough for an item like this. On their top floor there are always just so many other items that are way more to my personal liking and I appreciate them a lot more even if they would be way below this amazing item in quality and historical value.

Huge thanks for the Sacramento Japanese Sword Club in doing this, and for you Brett to posting it up here. I remember I used to have the Yamanaka books years ago as the red cover variants. I try to avoid the Sōshū timeline as I cannot really figure it out and to me it is not that important. There is just so much contrasting information it is difficult to know what to believe. For example if Kunimitsu died at that time there are still 1315, 1316, 1319, 1320, 1322 and 1324 dated blades. For me it is also very difficult to grasp that Shintōgo Kunimitsu pretty much always signed and sometimes dated blades, yet for Yukimitsu and Masamune it is quite rare and for Sadamune I am not sure if experts accept the extremely few signed and dated swords by him as legitimate. Then Hiromitsu and Akihiro and onwards the blades are pretty much always signed again. The sword in question might be Kotegiri Gō? It is in collection of Kurokawa Research Institute Some info on it can be found here> https://www.tsuruginoya.net/stories/kotegirigou/ Sometimes it is important how things are written out as meaning can be understood in various ways. To my understanding there is a one single Ōhara Sanemori blade that has the character 勝 on it, likewise there is one single signed item by Norishige that has the character. To me drawing connection to these to smiths and two items 150+ years apart would feel like extremely optimistic. Now if the character would appear on the majority of Ōhara Sanemori blades I might feel differently but as it is on a single blade by both smiths I would think it has a different meaning and does not connect the smiths. I do think it is good and interesting that theories are researched and suggested but sometimes it can be difficult to find reference examples to support the theories as this is especially problematic with Sōshū due to lack of signed works by some smiths.

I must say I am very single minded person when it comes to museums. I do focus only on weapons and little bit on armor and skip majority of amazing items in general. I do think the British Museum might have many European swords that would be to my liking even more than their Japanese items. In overall I do think the exhibition will be nice and if you live in UK or visit London during that time I might recommend visiting. I believe you can see the items in the exhibition grouped in here: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/AUTH242520 for some reason it keeps loading and loading for me so I have had to search the swords 1 by 1 from their database. It is very unfortunate how few swords of their collection have pictures online (I would assume they would be the best items) and some do have only the koshirae pictured. I cannot understand why in this modern day and age museums around the world do not document their items to their online databases. That blows my mind as they do have personnel in departments and you can take decent pictures with any 10 year old phone. The factual errors and the information about items is not told on Youtube video are some things that I do dislike a lot. It may not be on the curator but rather on the format itself as it is very fast paced. As I do think it is easy to get the feeling from the video that for example the naginata is presented as Kamakura period item while it actually is from early-mid Edo period depending on the generation of Shigetaka. Likewise it is totally absurd that this koshirae and sword is being presented as Kamakura work: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1958-0730-56-a_1 Even the museum page clearly states that the blade is suriage Kanesada and for the Koshirae individual makers are identified and the koshirae as whole has been classified as Meiji period work. I do believe there are nice items in the exhibition like this Taikei Naotane wakizashi for example: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1952-1028-19-a-d This daishō with Yoshioka Ichimonji and Yasumitsu blades: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1952-1028-16-a-d , https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1952-1028-17-a-e This might be the Sukesada that Piers mentioned, unfortunately no blade pictures: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1958-0730-3-a-d

The tachi in the video is by Ko-Bizen Yoshikane, it is from Jūyō 23: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1992-0523-1 in my opinion this is the most interesting item at the British Museum. They also have Aoe Sueyuki that passed Jūyō 26: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_2002-0508-1 And tachi by Kageyasu: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1984-0723-1 Unfortunately those three tachi are pretty much the only items I find interesting in whole collection of The British Museum from what pictures I can see online. This is the naginata in the video by Shigetaka: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_JA-66 I would think it is their best naginata but it is just an average item. I do believe they do have several hundred swords as they are listed in the online database but majority of them are just not interesting at all to me personally. They have few nice swords that will be featured in this 2026 exhibition. Of course I might be overly critical about the items but I don't think they have better stuff hidden in the warehouse, I do think their several of their best items are featured in this 2026 display.

That large Masahiro blade would be a nice one to see. The Yukimitsu tantō was featured in NBTHK 2024 exhibition. I have the book and I recall seeing some images of it in private. It is historically very important item, just that personally I don't have huge love for late Kamakura Sōshū. I personally prefer Nanbokuchō Sōshū with Sadamune, Hiromitsu and Akihiro. Very controversial opinion perhaps but I like what I like

I would think both of the blades are by the same smith, 高橋長信 Takahashi Naganobu. The tachi blade is signed and dated 長信造 / 弘化三年八月吉日, Naganobu tsukuru, 1846 Wakizashi is signed 於東都雲州住長信造, Tōto ni oite Unshū jū Naganobu tsukuru I haven't used Hawley in very long time so I am not sure what is written there. However I would think never signed same way twice is just an absurd exaggeration. There are plenty of his known signature variants. Nihontō Meikan seems to have 17 various signatures listed, so he did a lot of variations but it is obvious that he did use the same signature variation multiple times. Here you can see the same signature variation on a katana that is on your wakizashi: https://iidakoendo.com/1572/ Unfortunately Shinshintō swords are not really on my scope of interest so I can't offer much help, other than saying that both of your blades look nice based on the last picture.

I wrote my opinion on that particular Tametsugu on another platform recently, my opinion might be bit controversial. Personally I am seeing obvious signs of mei removal and nakago seems to be repatinated, I would think this was originally a later katana. Of course for my data I will accept this as Tametsugu as NBTHK says so (I'll add note to myself though) but I would personally steer clear on a sword like this that I see as altered and problematic.

The attribution is to Sue-Sa 末左. NBTHK started adding 大左一門 in brackets around latter part of 2016 I believe. I think this was possibly done because people did not understand what Sue-Sa meant as an attribution and had misconceptions and thinking it was meaning Muromachi. Now perhaps in this style people will understand it better as a Nanbokuchō attribution.