Jussi Ekholm

Finally found the topic as I remembered it was quite recent. Mark S. documented the changes that came with polishing by Woody. 0,1 cm in length and 5 grams in weight. I think one good indicator of how much the sword has changed from original in thickness is the difference between nakagokasane and motokasane. Here is an image of an old tachi from Nanbokuchō period I used to have. Nakagokasane was 8 mm, motokasane was 5,6 mm and motoshinogikasane 6,8 mm. While the picture is not optimal I think it shows the wear quite well.

Here is a verified example by this smith dated to same year 1450, from Jūyō 34 session. Now what is interesting that in this he is signing with the form 寳徳 that is alternative way of signing the era (it was featured in Japaneseswordindex). Historically both styles were used however I am not sure if the smith would sign the year in different form in his career? Unfortunately I only have this one Hōtoku era signature from Hidekage in my records. https://www.aoijapan.net/tachi-bishu-osafune-hidekage-34th-nbthk-juyo-paper/

You can also ditch going towards Sudo Kunitsugu route even though was suggested for researching in original sales ad as he wrote Kuni is very peculiar and original way.

I think you are very close, to me it seems like Hōtoku (宝徳) 2 - 1450.

I think the problem comes with the number of submissions & passes for lower tier items. NBTHK actually releases the numbers and I did dig them up in 2020 for this thread: In 2019 for Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon items there were 10,500+ passes In 2018 for Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon items there were 10,300+ passes Compared to 2019 Jūyō - 138 items 2018 Jūyō - 168 items Just the amount of time required to take good pictures of that amount of blades / items is a lot. Then add in all the processing to digital form and adding info etc. I do know NBTHK does has their own registry of all the items passed from which they can verify the authenticity of the papers (never done that myself but I believe it is possible). Also the English translations of certain parts of Tōken Bijutsu are accessible for free to everyone in their website from early 2012 up to this day, while lacking pictures featured in the magazine I still think one can find useful info in there: https://www.touken.or.jp/english/TokenBijutsuTranslation/backnumber.html

Here are 3 Jūyō swords for reference mei. Unfortunately I don't know the smith well enough to say anything for certain.

The last one was priced for 850k yen. Just noticed again it was attributed towards Kinjū in sayagaki. Even though I was really looking at that one when it was available I had forgotten about the sayagaki. I think it had some issues in the condition, it is sometimes hard to compare the pictures as some sellers use different techniques and possibly digitally enchance the pictures. I think this seller has quite honest pictures in general although sometimes they show the flaws in not too flattering way.

Like others have said above it is very nice sword. I feel the quality is definately there as it looks very nice in the pictures. However as I am personally very focused on shape & size, I would rather choose different type of Nanbokuchō item. Here are 6 other Ōmiya attributed mumei katana that are/were around this same price point for comparison purposes. http://www.nipponto.com/Sword/detailomiyaden.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160817205440/http:/www.nihontocraft.com:80/Japanese_Sword_Bizen_Omiya_Katana.html https://www.aoijapan.net/katana-mumei-unsigned-attributed-as-oomiya-school/ https://eirakudo.shop/token/tachikatana/detail/852780 https://www.aoijapan.net/katana-mumei-omiya/ https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords6/NT330431.htm Of these I would personally go for the last two, and even though the last one is in rougher condition it is my personal favorite as it has grand shape and size. Only negative thing size wise is the short length but that is often encountered with very wide swords.

Dale have you ever encountered this term in Japanese tsuba sources? 兜師 Like Piers I would think they might be classified under armor maker tsuba but of course tsuba are not my focus. I would rather think those as having the design of kabuto or the design was inspired by kabuto. Here is one example by very late Myochin maker. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EH5CNRIX0AAyB5O?format=jpg&name=large Edit: Added few examples https://blog.goo.ne.jp/tsuba_001/e/e146d09399c6ce3476c3b1b7ceebe693 https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords6/TB202388.htm

I think you have characters correctly in section 2. I hope more skilled language folks will chime in for confirmation. I think 瑞祥 in the description means auspicious, which I believe means for good luck in the future etc. While searching auspicious patterns with google, this image has two patterns in your tsuba in the middle row:

I think the signature is 長村清宣 - Nagamura Kiyonobu. WWII era smith. I think he is very unknown smith as I didn't find him in Seskos index. Perhaps the WWII specialized guys in here know more about him. Here is a reference sword: https://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2012/1210_1094syousai.htm

I believe the Chōgi that was in the meeting was this one (I used my detective skills ) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FGJzAAXUcAUkKgv?format=jpg&name=large

I've been butting heads with Paul over this for a good while However I must agree with his analysis on that it is not the best Shikkake work qualitywise. The size of it and how it has been preserved make it rare and precious. You cannot find many ubu naginata of this length from Nanbokuchō period surviving. I was looking at the data that I currently have and I think I have 16 naginata of around this size or larger from Kamakura & Nanbokuchō periods that have survived to this day. Of them 13 are Bunkazai, Bijutsuhin or non-classified items owned by shrines. So in overall the chances in owning a naginata of this size and age are very slim even for someone in Japan.

The results for Jūyō 67 just came online. https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/第67回重要刀剣等指定品発表.pdf Another very interesting session with lot to think about. Of course lot of wondering on my part as not having info or pictures of the items. I was very excited to see two Ōdachi in this session as they are incredibly rare. I believe these ones Morimitsu & Masaie are in the collection of Yasukuni Jinja. Both were previously unknown to me and seem to be longest examples by each ot the smiths that I am aware of. I did the swords in similar format as I've done before for my index and eventually when I have time for all the non-blade items I will update that to include the most recent results. Jūyō 67 swords.docx

Thank you for posting that very interesting book Dirk, I'll need to add that one to my long book list. Here is a history bit from the Sano Museum book that I took a pic for your other thread. I skipped one paragraph so I could fit in these that I have now as it takes so much time for me to type the kanji and translate it so I chose these parts. I'll add the original text as I most likely might have made an error or two in the process. Gassan was a swordsmith of Mōgusa group. Edo period sources [古刀銘盡大全] and [校正古刀銘鑑] state that he was son of Kiōmaru and moved to Dewa. It is said that the first generation was around Genryaku (1184) and Kenkyū (1190) and continued for generations. Looking at dated work of the school, there is work by Gunshō dated to (1367) [My other source has this sword as 貞治二 1363] and Gunshō dated to (1385) [This is listed as 元中三 1386 in Juyo 21], in the Muromachi period Chikanori works from Bunki & Eishō, Masanobu works from Eishō, Toshiyoshi works from Daiei & Tenbun can be found. From Kamakura period until the Early Muromachi period the school signed Gassan saku or Gassan. From the middle of Muromachi period many smiths put their personal names under Gassan. Main smiths include Chikanori, Masanobu, Yoshihisa, Toshiyoshi, Muneyoshi and Sadamitsu.

Best wishes and hoping for full recovery.

Here are two tanto both Tokubetsu Hozon by NBTHK: https://sanmei.com/contents/media/T2174_T5010_PUP.html https://www.tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/f00117.html Then there are lots of his combination work with other smiths that do not have Ukyō no Suke in mei. I know there is a Katana in Jūyō 66 that has mei 備州長船勝光 / 文明十二二年八月日 so it is dated to 1482 but I have not seen info on it yet. I do have info 2 katana by Katsumitsu both dated to 1493 but I am not certain if they are late work by Ukyō no Suke or early work by Jirōzaemon.

I was looking at few sword glossaries and I think maybe 天井板 suggested by Steve would be the one used most.

I think you have given solid advice Franco. I just wanted that Tony would not feel too negative about the sword if it would happen to have a flaw or two. As he has mentioned several times he has been collecting just few years so far. I have a sword that has severe problems with boshi and I am perfectly ok with it. I do agree with your thoughts Franco that it is an important thing to consider as it will affect many things when collecting is considered.

I think you were correct with your notes David. It seems to be - Tenjōgane 天上金 or Tenjō 天上

I agree with Doug and Stephen above, don't be too stressed about small things. You have very interesting item and will be taking good route with UK folks giving you guidance along the way. Even though collectors often are focused on intact temper lines etc. The sword I posted above made into a prestigeous exhibition held by Sano Art Museum, Osaka Museum of History and Ichinoseki City Museum. I think there is commonly bit of divide between art vs. history. I am in the history crowd and I think your sword will be nice historical example even if it would have flaws. So I would agree with Doug that I would rather see impressive sword like this restored than lot of "average" stuff. Of course like Doug said there is always the financial factor.

I was thinking that Darcy had wrote about this a while ago. So instead of creating a new topic I thought I'd post this here after reading the monthly NBTHK magazine there was important note by Hinohara Dai after explanining the Shijo Kantei item.

I think there is hamon just that sword is out of polish / or amateur has touched it. Also the pictures taken head on with light are not really good in this case as I would suggest angling the blade towards the light source. I am not too good with photoshop but I tried to play with colors to make bit clearer where I am thinking I am seeing the hamon in this picture.

I think it is very interesting sword, congratulations on getting it with such limited information in overall. I would agree with Kirill that I think this would be genuine Gassan work from Muromachi period. I am going for conservative estimate with Muromachi as the Gassan swords signed on this side tend to be pointed towards Muromachi period (with the exception of 1 that is attributed as a Kamakura period work tachi and possibly oldest Gassan work I am aware of). Pre-Muromachi attribution to signed Gassan is very rare, and they are few in number like Kirill said above. I am attaching here a sword by Gassan smith Toshiyoshi as a reference, it is described being from 15th century but also put towards to late Muromachi in the description. I feel it has bit of the same wibe with very strong curvature and quite long blade in overall. Notice how this also has very small kissaki (tip) as your sword has. However that brings it toward the next question/point. I am hoping your sword still has boshi (hardening at the tip area). In this reference sword the hamon runs off the kissaki and is very faint near the upper blade portion. It cannot really be seen in the picture I posted but there is an oshigata in the book that shows it better. Token GB route is a good one as they have great members with huge knowledge.

This is highly speculative as the signature is very faint but I would guess it could be 月山作 - Gassan saku. You can see reference signature here: Gassan with saku added after seems to be much rarer way of signing than just Gassan based on the small data I have on Gassan signatures. Gassan smiths often worked in style that is quite easy to pinpoint. Unfortunately the sword is currently out of polish so it makes identifying features bit difficult.