Jussi Ekholm

Happy New year folks! Here is a project of mine that I think some might enjoy. This PDF should have all sword related National Treasures (Kokuhō - 122 items), Important Cultural Properties (Jūyō Bunkazai - 792 Items) and former designation Important Art Object (Jūyō Bijutsuhin - 1096 items + 5 EX blades). I have written all of the names in Latin alphabets but I have always included all of the kanji, so you will find lots of signatures in this one. There can be an error or two in the mix as I wrote all of them in by hand and there are thousands of characters to type in. However while doing so I got to check for errors like if years actually are correct, etc. So I kinda did checkup at the same time. There should be 137 Named swords - for which I used term Meitō in this index. There are probably some more in there but for these I have 100% confirmity as I have them in reputable books or online sources from Japan, as well I have the Japanese characters to all of these named swords. How does this work. Well you have 86 pages of swords & items indexed. At first it might seem that there is logic and there is not. First we start with National Tresures, followed by Important Cultural Properties and last the Important Art Objects. This part is logical but the actual placement of items in first two categories are not. As you can see the number in front and you will most likely wonder what it is, here is the explanation for that. I have checked all my data entries to database of Agency for Cultural Affairs. You can find the said database in HERE. They have assigned a number to each item, and I have gone through all the items in crafts section and added them in number by number to make sure there are no duplicates in. The database is only for current designations and as a former category Jūyō Bijutsuhin items are not featured. However I have the old set of books that feature all of the sword related Jūyō Bijutsuhin items, and I have typed them in numerically as they appear in the books. Just note that this is just an index. However you can find some info per item from the database I linked above. Likewise I should have extra information for I guess at least 90% of the swords. But this is just an index and I do have some far superior work in progress to this going on for multiple years. The format is very simple and this should be extremely easy to use. Item number - Item type - Maker - Signature. Few notes, I did not transliterate fitting or koshirae themes as I didn't feel I would get them correct, similarily I didn't type in kinzōgan or kiritsuke mei etc. However for those that I have the data I typed in the kanji so items that you might find interesting you can use the kanji. Same goes for long signatures on the swords. The format is simple, there is just maker and possible year. Signatures are typed in kanji so you can research more on your own. Check it out and I hope it is a fun one, might be totally boring to some. Kokuho & Bunkazai Index.pdf

Just got my answer in. There is time until 5th of January for this one. This online submission has been very nice add on for us international members. While sending the card by post was not too troublesome it is still easier and faster to participate online.

Here are the extra additions I've seen on Mumei tachi & katana attributed to Uda Kunifusa Ray's tachi has: 時代南北朝末期乃至応永 - Late Nanbokuchō - Ōei Jūyō tachi has: 時代南北朝 - Nanbokuchō Tokubetsu Hozon katana with: 時代南北朝末期 - Late Nanbokuchō Tokubetsu Hozon katana with: 時代南北朝末期 - Late Nanbokuchō There are some items that are signed by Uda Kunimitsu and some mumei that are attributed to him (even 1 dated tanto to 1321 that is thought to be his work). However it might be difficult to define the generations. The most famous signed tachi is Jūyō 23 & Tokubetsu Jūyō 7, and it is written to be by 1st gen in TokuJū. You will find this tachi featured in many publications. I believe the signed tachi in Jūyō 22 might be 2nd gen and Nanbokuchō. There seem to be signed Jūyō tachi in sessions 34 & 45 and a mumei tachi in session 41 (that is attributed to 1st gen). but I haven't got more detailed info on them so far. There is also a tachi that is Toyama Prefecture Bunkazai but so far I have 0 info on it aside from designation and signature.

I think I worded it out bit badly. There are about 10 mumei Ko-Uda Jūyō in fairly recent sessions. In total there are 50+ that have passed. There has been a fairly regular Ko-Uda pass(es) in sessions between 9 to 51. Of course the few very large sessions had the largest number of Uda passes in total. Session 23 being the largest of this school by numbers, 4 signed ones and 8 mumei passing in it, so 12 Uda works in that session.

Yes I Michael is correct, I believe this is the only mumei tachi by Uda Kunifusa that is Jūyō 39: https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/V-1742.html However I must say just by looking at the available pictures I would personally prefer the one above that Ray has in his collection over this one. They seem to be quite similarish in shape & size. I have info on 2 Tokubetsu Hozon katana with attribution to Uda Kunifusa and I believe Robert has one above too. And I have info on 2 mumei tanto but they are Hozon. But it seems mumei attributions to individual Uda smiths are quite rare and instead tend to go to Ko-Uda in general. Gakusee is on point also how Ko-Uda passes have faded in recent times. There seem to be 1 Katana and 1 Wakizashi passing in session 51 and then big gap until a katana passed in session 64. Of course many generally thought "tough" sessions hit during that gap. So similar effect might have hit other schools as well.

I have expanded my statistics on Kunifusa a bit since that last post of mine in this thread. So far I have 4 Jūyō Bijutsuhin - 3 tachi and 1 Tanto & 15 Jūyō for Kunifusa 6 Tachi, 1 Katana, 1 Wakizashi and 7 Tanto. Only one of these is mumei, a tachi of 78,6 cm. However there are lots of mumei swords at Jūyō level attributed to just Ko-Uda.

I believe Paul Martin is a trustee of NBSK and is always doing great stuff for modern craftsmen. I think he should be able to help with submission. Great job as usual from you Artur.

I do believe that is a very rare form of 1st generation signature. Here is the only confirmed example of that signature I am aware of (just note I don't focus on swords of this era) from Jūyō 22: Yoshihiko Usuki Facebook

1) Sugata, I am bit obsessed about size & shape. That is what makes my pulse go up. Curvature for ubu Heian & Kamakura stuff, really large width for suriage Nanbokuchō blades. There has to be something about the shape and size of the sword that evokes my personal feelings. Now as the majority of my blade looking is just browsing books or online sources it is very easy to make side by side comparisons. I think I would be willing to accept weaker condition and craftsmanship if the shape is to my liking over a similar example in better condition in appreciation. 2) Vague expressions and explanations that would require seeing lots and lots of swords in order to get better understanding. 3) I think I would ask how much the smith personally could influence the shape and size of swords he made and how much the other circumstances had influence on that (period, tradition, person / army etc. order) of course most likely depending on many factors but would be interesting to ask.

To me the signature of the smith seems to be - 備州長船祐定作 - Bishū Osafune Sukesada saku

Thanks for the clarification Jacques, seems like I have few more tachi by him to hunt down.

I would second the Hummm by Jacques. As far as I know when Ōhara Sanemori signed with Hōki his signature was 伯耆大原真守 - Hōki Ōhara Sanemori (at least that is the only variant of his signature with Hōki that I've found so far).

While not totally what you are looking for, I've been building a basic Jūyō Index for few years now. I will give it to NMB for free when I am finished with it (should be in 2021 [if I find the missing session], as I am missing only 2 sessions and I have magazines in mail from Japan that include results for one). I have pretty much 1-31 ready as I have books for them. I should have pretty much all swords done except for the 2 missing sessions. I still have lot work left on tosogu & koshirae (and attachments too) items from sessions 33-57 (haven't really focused on those as I have my other database project which I see far superior to this one). And as I'm still missing some items I haven't been in hurry. I've kept this totally under radar as it's just a hobby project for me. But lot of effort put in this one, so far 616 pages and a lot of items. Still currently looking Tōken Bijutsu magazines from 1985 and 1986 (Session 32 results in there) and I am looking for Jūyō book 32 as that is next in line for me and only session still missing. Here is a preview page: It is pretty basic but I like my idea 😄

Can you provide the measurements of the sword (blade length, blade width and curvature)? I can dig some reference examples after those. Also some closeup pictures of blade details would be helpful. With just those 3 pictures it is very difficult to say much.

I am bit ashmed that I haven't participated in the online kantei yet (nor sending the card either for a long time)... However I got the TB magazine on friday and got my guess in on saturday. Like Ted said above in the spring this online form is a nice modern step by NBTHK.

I would look towards Chōunsai Toshimune as you have gone for

Darcy has this posted at Yuhindo blog (and has the info on Jūyō+ items you seek) some time ago, gives you clue about how rare really old swords are even at top level. https://blog.yuhindo.com/visualization/ In my own research I have so far encountered around 420 swords from Heian period (although some might be difficult to pinpoint if they are late Heian/early Kamakura, and I might be wrong in some of them). However mine is still a work in progress and still missing lot of the Jūyō but in turn have lot of swords outside NBTHK evaluations. Also would be helpful to know who/what is the maker or attribution on your sword. Then giving some more detailed info about that specific school etc. would be possible.

長村兼清作

Looks high quality and very interesting item. I do not focus on items of this period but I do know Korekazu and he is highly appreciated smith in general. Like Jacques I don't in general like discussing price all that much as the items are worth different amounts to various people. I can put in links to few Korekazu blades currently listed for sale in Japan so you can look them as a reference. http://hyozaemon.jp/product/korekazu/ https://www.seiyudo.com/ka-070420.htm

I believe the signature is 兼俊作 and the swordsmith Kanetoshi. I am not well versed in later smiths but Seskos Index lists two Shōwa period smiths. Based on the few signature examples I found from Japanese dealer sites I would lean more towards Murayama Kanetoshi. Reference example: http://www.giheiya.com/shouhin_list/japanese_sword/iaiyoushinken/01-1430.html

Naminohira is not generally too highly regarded school in Japan. While they do have few historically very remarkable swords their work is in general maybe quite basic/practical. Therefore the Naminohira attribution kind of lacks "prestige" in my view. Now the following might be wrong view but personally I think many basic/practical swords will get low prestige attributions by NBTHK as the workmanship is not easily defined and is maybe not of high quality. In general I think the lower prestige schools like Naminohira are quite reasonably priced, as they have lower desirability by majority of collectors. However there are some good mumei tachi with Ko-Naminohira attributions that are bit more expensive.

Unfortunately I cannot see the tsuba signature very well but my best guess from that picture might be Kiyohisa - 清久

It is a statistical outlier and I was surprised when I saw it first time. I have been following Naminohira swords (pre-Edo). In general old Naminohira swords tend to have relatively large curvature on average. For 14 signed old Naminohira Tachi I have tracked down they average the following Nagasa: 73,6 cm (some of them are suriage) - Sori: 2,6 cm - Motohaba: 2,9 cm - Sakihaba: 1,7 cm For 14 Mumei tachi with Ko-Naminohira attribution they average Nagasa: 76,8 cm (some of the are slight suriage) - Sori: 2,4 cm - Motohaba: 3,0 cm - Sakihaba: 1,7 cm For 11 Mumei katana with Ko-Naminohira attribution they average Nagasa: 68,7 cm (all suriage) - Sori: 2,0 cm - Motohaba: 2,7 cm - Sakihaba: 1,7 cm For the 4 Mumei tachi with Naminohira attribution (most likely made after Nanbokuchō) they average Nagasa: 78,1 cm (all ubu) - Sori: 3,2 cm - Motohaba: 3,0 cm - Sakihaba: 1,7 cm For the 19 Mumei katana with Naminohira attribution (most likely made after Nanbokuchō) they average Nagasa: 71,6 cm (most suriage) - Sori: 2,2 cm - Motohaba: 3,0 cm - Sakihaba: 1,9 cm Of course this is not in any means definitive analysis but based on available examples that I have for data it is easy to see that in general pre-Edo period Naminohira swords are quite long and with strong curvature and average width. For comparison I do have a mumei tachi attributed to Naminohira and Early Muromachi period, it is 77,2 cm with 3,7 cm curvature. Quite the opposite in shape to this example in the opening.

Can you post some measurements of it lenght & nakago length and full sized picture of blade & nakago. I can write better reply next week when I am back home and have all my sources at home. I do think calling Shintō period naginata in general as "womens weapons" might be just association that is not totally accurate. Also while Knutsen has lots and lots of good information on his book, some like the above posted diagram on proportions are bit skewed. I do understand that he used examples of his own collection for it but in general it does not show early naginata like they should be featured.

I think you got a good blade there Brano, I like that one too. It has nice wide shape. And seemed to be good package in overall. Here is a bit more to continue: 大磨上無銘也雄勁ナル延文貞治 - ō-suriage mumei XXX Enbun Jōji Unfortunately I am limited to phone now and long sayagaki like this surpass my current abilities.