Jussi Ekholm

I think there has been some good discussion yet somewhat heated. I know in the original translation thread I suspected it would be 平定守 Taira Sadamori instead of Minamoto that was on registration card. As I said then I couldn't find a single reference mei for comparison. Steve has found one and it is very different from the one on this sword. I would suspect the same thing as Jacques did that your sword in this thread would be gimei. Here is bit of an amateur explanation for what I feel on the signature. Basically the focus would be on the two characters, Sada 定 and Mori 守, and how they seem to me to be on reference signatures by Taira Takada smiths, in Bungo smith book. Of course not being native English speaker it is not easy to explain what I think I am seeing with words. Sada (定) character in general is wider on the reference Bungo smiths (while the reference Sadamori that Steve found seems to be extremely wide), and more sharp. Of course the sword in question is extremely narrow but still. In reference mei that Steve found, the Mori (守) character seems to be very long. Based on the few examples I saw in the book, the smith Hisamori (久守) seems to use bit similar long style in Mori. When you look at the long downward stroke in Mori on your sword, it seems to be on the very right side and there is a long upwards stroke at the bottom. In general I did not see these features in any Taira Takada mei, the long downwards stroke was mostly at the center of character and there was a small tick at the bottom. I am of course more than willing to change my view if other reference mei pop up somewhere, but this seems to be very unknown Bungo smith. The reason why I asked for a picture with habaki earlier is, that I think the extreme narrow form might be throwing us off. Would it be possible to see the tsuba in place and tsuka on top to see how the holes line up when tsuka is in place? As the tang is so narrow I think it might optically make us think the holes are further from machi than they are in reality? Of course I am bit puzzled as on some pictures the nakago looks very narrow and long and on some I feel it seems more regularish proportions.

Could you post a picture with the habaki on the sword? Does this sword have koshirae or a shirasaya?

I would be skeptical of the signature, as it lacks Osafune. For various Tadamitsu there are commonly 備前国住長船忠光 - Bizen kuni jū Osafune Tadamitsu and - 備州長船忠光 Bishū Osafune Tadamitsu. I did a quick search and could not find a single legitimate mei of Bizen kuni jū Tadamitsu without Osafune (備前国住忠光).

Still available, and while not in hurry selling this one I think this could fund several trips to Japan for me.

Thanks for the corrections Steve, it does seem to be quite interesting blade.

I think it is bit out of my league but I tried my abilities in trying to get this one. Hopefully Steve or our Japanese members, or others, will fix the likely errors. 至華餘鐡 / 月山貞一七十一歳 / 男貞勝謹両作 明治三十九年十二月吉日 / 以備前一文字伝粉骨X身 Shison Yotetsu / Gassan Sadakazu 71 sai / Otoko Sadakatsu kin ryō saku Meiji 39, 12 gatsu kichi hi / Motte Bizen Ichimonji den XXXX Carefully made joint work using precious iron by Gassan Sadakazu at the age of 71 and son Sadakatsu A lucky day in November 1906 / Made in style of Bizen Ichimonji tradition XXXX

I believe it is this model by vendor Handmadesword: https://www.handmadesword.com/collections/samurai-katana/products/fully-hand-forged-clay-temper-practical-black-tree-katana-sword They do have lots of air in their prices, so their retail price is well above the market value.

Just noticed the Fujishima Tomokiyo tachi is the one from Jūyō 26. So far the only tachi I have found by this smith. It would be an important reference item by this early Muromachi smith, even though it might not be as highly regarded as some of the other stuff. Again it is unfortunate they dont show the sayagaki and Jūyō info about it in the pictures or text. https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27616/lot/156/kaga-tomokiyo-active-circa-1400-a-kaga-fujishima-tachimuromachi-period-1333-1573-circa-1400-1420/

I believe it is - 濃州住兼正 - Nōshū jū Kanemasa

I agree Jimmy, these high level attributions are bit special. I believe swords attributed towards Yukimitsu will always have prestige, and will/should be priced accordingly. I think my own personal view is bit biased, and I do not see high/top class mumei as high as they are in reality.

I have been really happy to see your Gassan posts Bryce, it is interesting to see research on them, as they fall way out of my personal scope. I have interest in old Gassan works but not for "modern" Gassan. I do think people will specialize in this hobby too. Personally I put my time in researching pre-1500's stuff with still having interest in few schools during 1500-1600. I do not have really time to spend Edo and later stuff at all. Of course you will learn some "basics" about famous Edo smiths over time and can check books on those. The subject Japanese swords is so large field in general I think over time you could (perhaps even should) narrow it down to items that interest you personally. For example as I browse the Japanese dealer sites & Yahoo JP weekly and seek all new items, I only open up the very few items that interest me personally, mostly pre-1450's stuff. There are thousands of swords listed online in Japan and stock is ever changing, only by ignoring the vast majority of them I will have time to look into those that interest me. You might even want to focus on extremely narrow field (for example one Bizen off-brach etc.) but the more narrow you go the less even Japanese source material there is available. I have not found info on who is currently in NBTHK shinsa panel, I am not sure if the info is open to the public? I believe those with connections in Japan will maybe know some people. However back in the old days when branch shinsa were applied, I found the list of all NBTHK shinsa team members in HQ & every branch in old Tōken Bijutsu. It was several pages of names 100+ and their position was also featured. Now this was back when branch shinsa were a thing... NBTHK gets massive submission numbers to each Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa, I don't think they can spend much time on a single item (I remember doing a thread about submission numbers). I think when you get to Jūyō level they can spend more time per item, and of course in that level items are historically important or/and good quality items.

I think I have voiced my unhappiness with these big auction houses several times in the past. Of course I am way below their customers with my wallet but I think they should include much more crucial information in their descriptions & pictures. Granted I think I will never deal with them personally. Here are the zufu entries for 4 interesting items. By far the Masazane is way way above any other sword in this auction. I do not understand the evaluation of these 4 swords, as I only see the Masazane being so far above any others, I think the 3 others are decent swords but I wouldn't think them as too special items. I think the Masazane should be the one with highest valuation, and I would see Yukimitsu and Sanekage as very very optimistic, and Masazane way too low in the estimates. Just to be noted, so far I have been able to uncover only 2 signed tachi by this Ko-Bizen Masazane smith (there is another one who used different kanji) upon all my years of researching old swords. For comparison in the same data there are 80+ katana with Yukimitsu attribution, 160+ katana with Taima attribution, 30+ katana with Sanekage attribution that I have found so far. Masazane: https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27616/lot/132/bizen-masazane-circa-1017-1065-a-ko-bizen-tachiheian-period-794-1185/ Yukimitsu: https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27616/lot/143/tsabur-yukimitsu-active-circa-1303-an-important-jy-ranked-ssh-katana-kamakura-period-1185-1333-circa-1303/ Taima: https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27616/lot/150/a-jy-ranked-yamato-taima-katana-kamakura-period-1185-1333-13th14th-century/ Sanekage: https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27616/lot/158/kash-sanekage-active-circa-1340-1380-a-jy-ranked-katana-with-mounts-nanbokuch-era-1336-1392-mid-14th-century/

My guess might be - 藤原義尚作 - Fujiwara Yoshinao Saku. Unfortunately second last character is quite difficult to see. I would think it could perhaps be the Fujiwara-Takada smith from c. mid 1600's.

I think the signature could be - 平定守 - Taira Sadamori As Steve identified in the other thread he is very unknown smith of Taira Takada school in Bungo province. Not to be confused with the more famous Sadamori smiths who used different Mori character. I have book on Bungo smiths and unfortunately I can only find 1,5 lines of text in the index portion on the back of the book about this smith. Unfortunately I cannot provide a reference signature where it would be signed 平定守

I will admit that I cannot see anything from the pictures. It could be different in person but I cannot see the details at all. I believe old Gassan work in general tend to have varying amounts of visible ayasugi due to their "unique" style in making. There are some swords that exhibit very visible and almost total ayasugi, and some seem to have only slighter amount of it visible. I do think in the signature picture flash might make signature and nakago look fresher than they are in reality, as I see the patination in opening pictures being more genuine in look. Here are 3 bit different style signed and papered Gassan katana to show the variation in appearance of ayasugi. https://www.aoijapan.net/katana-gassan/ https://www.kusanaginosya.com/SHOP/232.html https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords2/KT218912.htm

I agree with others that it could very well be genuine work and would be worth checking out. Here is one papered signature comparison from Genroku, unfortunately the work style is different in this example: https://www.e-sword.jp/katana/1910-1142.htm

JTK is referring to Ōmiya Morishige here (盛重), Hatakeda Morishige used different Mori character (守重).

My guess for signature would be - 備前国長船住上野大掾藤原祐定作 - Bizen no kuni Osafune jū Kōzuke no Daijō Fujiwara Sukesada saku and date I see as - 元禄十六年二月日 - 1703. The signature side is unfortunately bit blurry so I am not 100% sure.

Do you have clear image of the folding pattern (hada)? Or can it be seen in the current condition? I think the signature as plausible, depends on if the work fits for it, old Gassan work often had quite specific traits.

I believe there are 3 Sadakazu works that have passed Jūyō so far. Unfortunately I only have book entry for 20 as I am still missing session 60 & 61 books. Wakizashi in session 20. (1908) 奉久邇宮殿下命月山貞一謹作 / 明治四十一年三月日 Katana in session 60. (the one talked above) (1906) 大阪住人月山貞一彫同作 (花押) / 以相州鎌倉住人貞宗伝作之 / 明治三十九年十一月吉日 Wakizashi in session 61 (very similar mei to the katana above, possibly a pair?) (1906) 大阪住人月山貞一彫同作 (花押) / 明治三十九年十一月吉日 / 以相州鎌倉住人貞宗伝作之

I would think the signature is - 陸奥大掾三善長道 - Mutsu no Daijō Miyoshi Nagamichi

I do have lots and lots of data of pre-1500 swords as that is my focus. Unfortunately I have skipped on the later stuff as I don't have time for everything. Most common range for surviving motohaba of ubu tachi of pre-1500 is from 2,8 cm to 3,2 cm. Anything over 3,2 cm width I would consider wide and tachi under 2,8 cm I would see as narrow. While the era and tradition have their stereotypical standards, there is also often lot of variation among the surviving works of smiths. I really like researching Bizen stuff as they have so many dated example compared to other regions. You could often say that late Heian / early Kamakura period tachi would stereotypically be more narrow. However there are of course outliers Ko-Bizen Masatsune has Jūyō Bunkazai tachi with 3,4 cm motohaba and Tomonari has the small ōdachi with 3,3 cm motohaba. And in comparison both smiths have ubu tachi that are 2,5 - 2,7 cm remaining at base (I will exclude one very narrow in case source books have measurement mistake). Famous Ō-Kanehira is 3,6 cm motohaba and while other Kanehira items I have info on are sub-3,0 cm. There are some other Ko-Bizen works that are still 3,3 - 3,5 cm in motohaba and you can find comparable items that are 2,5 - 2,7 cm in motohaba. I would say the similar trend continues during Kamakura period and following into early Nanbokuchō. Ichimonji - Osafune - Hatakeda etc. Now when you research ōdachi that are very dear to me, you start to get into wide items. However unfortunately very few Nanbokuchō and Muromachi period ōdachi survive in original length. For example for the famous smith Kanemitsu there is 88,8 cm ubu tachi that is 3,6 cm motohaba (unfortunately I don't have width for the 103,9 cm ōdachi) and for comparison 73,9 cm tachi with 2,7 cm motohaba. The famous ōdachi by Tomomitsu is 126,0 cm and 4,4 cm motohaba, 82,0 cm tachi with 3,5 cm and 73,5 cm with 2,9 cm. For Kozori Hidemitsu there is 81,6 cm tachi with 3,7 cm motohaba and 74,5 with 3,0 cm. When you get into Ōei there are few wide ones by Yasumitsu, widest being 108,2 cm ōdachi at 3,5 cm. Then for comparison not all long tachi are very wide as Yasumitsu has 86,1 cm tachi that is 3,0 cm motohaba. This may be bit difficult post to catch on but I tried to show with examples that surviving very wide old blades are extremely rare and they are often very long too. Likewise it is very easy to encounter both fairly wide and fairly narrow surviving items by many smiths. But the reality is the vast majority of the thousands of tachi I have info on fall between the average scope.

I think the signature is 雲龍斎義次 - Unryūsai Yoshitsugu

Heian and Kamakura period ubu tachi are very rare and precious items. So do not think otherwise even if the number I will present next might seem large. So far I believe I have found 1238 of them (had to count them manually so it took some time). This number of course includes work and mumei attributions to smiths/schools that would have potentially worked into Nanbokuchō but I did not count any ubu dated tachi after end of Kamakura. And to be noted about 50% of this number are Bizen tachi.

On the Usagiya example as they both used the same prepared steel block, I believe they both were expected to have "Norishige like treats". I would have assumed that they would have appeared quite similar. Here is another example from the smith where he used same steel block divided by two to make 2 swords from it. http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/difference of tempering.html Unfortunately I am not a science guy so I cannot really comment on these things nor a craftsman who would make items.