Jussi Ekholm

I believe the book is Tōkō Soran by Kawaguchi Noboru / 刀工総覧 - 川口陟著 It is a swordsmith directory. The edition of yours has older version (刀工總覧) of the name as one of the kanji is modernized in more recent editions. I am not sure how many editions of the book have been published. On a quick search I found at least 1968 and 1972 editions in Japan.

This is the Yukihide, it is from Juyo session 23. Unfortunately the only pic of it I have is the one in the book.

This is the Shikkake naginata that is being discussed, I've been drooling over this for several years: http://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords/JT988980.htm I do agree with Pauls comment above about the quality & condition but it is 83,1 cm and ubu.

I know the discussion about the items and what should pass and what not is above me, can't really say this or that. I do know some items not passing are most likely top quality items which makes me scratch head why limit the number of passing items to the number they ended with? As there is no set limit as it fluctuates session to session. I will try to make "a case" for the Mumei Yukiyasu tachi and why I think it was ok for it to pass. Unfortunately I have not seen this one nor the other TJ Naminohira in person (and not bunkachō designated ones either). I know many see Tokubetsu Jūyō as pinnacle of quality and I believe it does say so in NBTHK standards, that top quality and condition items amongst Jūyō. However it also says in the English translated standards that item would be similar to top level Bijutsuhin or a Bunkazai. Here I think the historical and cultural significance can come into the play. From Naminohira school there are 3 Bunkazai (2 signed tachi by Yukiyasu and 1 signed tachi by Ietsugu) and 2 Bijutsuhin (1 dated tachi by Yukimasa 1159 oldest dated tachi and 1 signed tachi by Yukiyasu) Before this mumei Yukiyasu passed I believe there have been 2 Tokujū Naminohira swords (1 tachi by Yukiyasu and 1 tachi by Yasutsugu). Yukiyasu Yasutsugu The Yukiyasu tachi passed in session 8 and it was from Jūyō 27. The Yasutsugu is more recent one from session 23 and it was from Jūyō 58. Now some things that make this mumei tachi interesting include that it seems to be ubu and 82,3 cm, it is very recent Jūyō from session 64. It is also the only mumei tachi that I am aware that has an attribution to Naminohira Yukiyasu (and the age is specified in brackets to late Kamakura / early Nanbokuchō). There is a mumei katana that has Naminohira Yukiyasu attribution in Jūyō 16. It of course in the end comes down to what things you are focusing on. I do think that for 1000+ TJ swords 3 Naminohira tachi (2 signed and 1 mumei) is not too much. You can compare how many suriage mumei katana attributed to some top makers have passed (which are and should be passing at steady rate I am not denying that). I know I am making similar arguments to this topic but I do think that historical & cultural significance should also play a factor. For similar reason even though I am personally focusing on old swords I am happy to see younger swords passing too, they get their quality recognized too. As Darcy mentioned in his blog this was just the 3rd Shinshintō sword ever passing.

Some interesting results in there. Darcy has already provided transliteration of items passed on his blog: https://blog.yuhindo.com/tokubetsu-juyo-2020-results/#more-1092And you can find the Japanese PDF from NBTHK:s site. I was glad to see the big Shikkake naginata passing, likewise the very long Naminohira Yukiyasu tachi that was quite recent Jūyō. Although they might not be items that immidiately is associated with Tokubetsu Jūyō. Looking at the list it would be amazing to see all the items sent in for the shinsa. Small session so there should be some amazing swords that did not pass this time.

I would second Jacques in this that the 2nd ana was probably done for different mount. I will borrow few Images from Seskos Meikan as I feel it is the easiest way to show the consistency that Jacques was talking about. You can note that few examples in there have 2 ana too, just note the one in the consistent place is the original and second one an add on. I should have at least c. 60 oshigata by this smith and I do believe they pretty much follow the same pattern. I don't actually know much about Sukehiro or his work in general as I don't focus in swords of this age.

Thanks for the correction Jacques I missed the fact that first generation received the title.

JT I would approach the mei with caution. The signature indeed reads Izumi no Kami Rai Kinmichi. I believe the honorary title Izumi no Kami was gotten by 2nd generation in 1616. And the lineage continued until the 5th generation with whom the line ended. I do not have mei examples of 4th or the 5th gen Kinmichi as I don't focus swords of this era I am just limited with top Shinto smith references in books. I would not personally think this signature to be work of 2nd or 3rd generation, of course I could be wrong. Here are few authenticated mei examples for comparison https://tokka.biz/sword/kinmichi4.html https://www.toukenkomachi.com/index_ja_tachi&katanaA121218.html https://www.seiyudo.com/ka-020112.htm

I believe the signature is 阿波守藤原康綱 (he used different variant of 綱) and smith is Awa no Kami Yasutsuna.

It was listed in Bonhams 2014 auction - Arts of the Samurai. I don't know any up to date info on it. 98 cm nagasa, very big item and nice to see these surviving in original size.

It is very interesting sword George. Unfortunately I think your pictures are too close up and bit blurry as I cannot see details well, can also be my eyesight and current condition of the sword. Will be nice to see the sword if you will have it polished in the future.

Welcome to the forum JT, I read your other posts as well. It is great idea to meet up with Ed. I think sharing some blades with the forum can also be a good thing, while it is lot different from viewing the items in hand you will be able to get multiple opinions/guesses about the items. And we would get fun time in looking at the items. Here is an example of a mumei wakizashi with Takagi Sadamune attribution that is about the length that yours is. Could you perhaps post a picture of the nakago (tang) of this sword in question?

I have been only keeping an eye out for early Uda stuff but here are some references. I do have some more saved up but I can link these as the links are working (some of my links are dead). Kunimitsu: https://www.aoijapan.net/tanto-mumei-attributed-as-ko-nyudo-kunimitsu/(Kunimitsu has few mumei Jūyō too) Kunifusa: https://www.touken-matsumoto.jp/eng/product_details_e.php?prod_no=KA-0259 Kunimune: https://www.samuraishokai.jp/sword/15132.html Hirakuni: https://web.archive.org/web/20140717015823/http:/www.nipponto.co.jp:80/swords/KT125609.htm Kunihisa: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tanto-Wakizashi-Unsigned-Uda-Kunihisa-First-Muromachi-1394-NBTHK/303492988473?hash=item46a9977e39:g:PVMAAOSwsmdeTTad

I can't really add much thoughts on this as there has been some very good posts written already. However I would think that the Japanese organizations are mainly focused on Japanese sword collecting in Japan, they might not totally understand how many collectors there are outside Japan too (although we are still very small in number). As I do personally feel that the shinsa fees are actually quite low (NBTHK Hozon 25,000 Yen, NTHK-NPO shinsa 17,000 Yen). If living in Japan I would absolutely spend 25,000 Yen to get an informed opinion of any given sword. Of course it is completely different ballgame if you are sending your sword for shinsa from outside Japan, as then it gets lot more complicated. You and the organizations have to go by Japanese laws and you'll need an agent (or someone else) to handle the sword through the required hoops to get your sword from you to the shinsa and back to you. We have many great guys that are doing this favor for international collectors as they provide the service for us that would otherwise be unreachable.

Haha Hoanh I wish I had that great memory. I usually try to check my translations if I am not certain about them, and as I was checking this one I stumbled to the old thread about the same sword.

Hello Chris unfortunately the one side of mei seems too far gone for me to guess about the signature of the smith but I would guess the date to be □享二二年八月日 which could be Eikyō 永享 (1429-1441) or Chōkyō 長享 (1487-1489). But considering Chōkyō only had 3 years (as I do believe this is dated 4th year as it has double 二) and also looking at the size and shape I'd think Eikyō as the better guess from those 2, so with that line of thought I'd guess it could be dated 1432. Seems to be very interesting wakizashi.

Mei is 雷光 The sword was discussed here few years ago: http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/27010-translation-help/

I think it is signed 防州住藤原貞道.

Not Osafune Masamitsu as it is much later sword 芸州住出雲大掾正光

I do think it was/is bit unfortunate stumble by Paul who has done lots of good stuff over the years for replica collecting community with SBG. Lots of misinformation in there and I do genuinely think that his business partners in this "Blades of Japan" thing might have told him some half truths etc. duped him a bit. I tried to correct him on the info regarding the Kanemitsu tanto, that it is not THE Kanemitsu on the SBG thread. I do believe he could connect martial artists to Japanese craftsmen / 2nd hand modern martial arts swords from Japan. Unfortunately most of the stuff they have are Old NBTHK papered stuff or JTK papered stuff, and well I do think the associates in Japan have their hands on that... Not wanting to throw Paul under the bus but I cannot really accept that venture of selling those blades to collecting newbies. I did point out the affordable second hand martial art sword route as more legitimate option several times but I know the markup in there is small.

I remember asking in the previous thread if your sword has a high shinogi (a fairly large difference in thickness between shinogi and mune)? That is one fairly easy explanation for the placement in my mind. Although I do think that the placement in yours is not aesthetically the most pleasing. Here is a large suriage Motomitsu blade for reference as it has the hi at the shinogi.

Very good recommendation Chris. I got mine from Krystian too and there are some very rare items featured in that book that I haven't encountered yet in other books.

Thank you for the explanation Ian.

I am always surprised how much negativity in general we have in such a small hobby. I guess politics & other complicated stuff just comes in when hobby is highly specialized like collecting Japanese swords. I am just puzzled by many things that I just read in that link in the opening. I do think it is written in quite passive-aggressive tone. As Nakahara and Nakano have extreme knowledge about Japanese swords it would be interesting to hear what kind of criteria they apply on judging someones knowledge? I mean they might not understand fully that studying Japanese sword outside Japan is a bit different ball game compared to studying in Japan. I would be quite interested to know about the fake sword mentioned there. Was the NBTHK paper legitimate and was it just difference in opinion between Nakahara and NBTHK? Was the certificate a fake one? What sword that was? I do know bits and pieces of background info from various sources and I am using my own brains to think but it is like a game of broken telephone or trying to solve a puzzle with missing pieces.

Just wanted to give feedback with excellent dealing with Krystian. Purchased a small lot of books, and will surely buy again in the future.