Jussi Ekholm

What Michael says is true once you go "down" in level from Cultral assets - Tokubetsu Jūyō - Jūyō, then there are starting to be many more attributed long swords to every famous smith. Maybe it has been written that there might be only 2 signed tachi by Sa? Here is one Jūyō Bijutsuhin that can be found online as it was sold by Iida Koendo (I forgot it was named sword too but fixed that): https://web.archive.org/web/20120322134554/http:/www.iidakoendo.com:80/info/item/a369.htm I've noticed I've started to have a personal preference for Sa school swords. In general they pretty much always have the strong Nanbokuchō sugata and wide profile even having been through suriage. Perhaps I might someday have a mid-late Sa school work in my collection (at least I can dream). I think your sword would fit better to Etchū & Uda like NTHK attributed it to. There seems to be lot of activity going on in the blade, and the hada seems "rustic" to my eye. Could you post measurements for motohaba and sakihaba. Getting an idea of the width would help. I am also try to get an idea how much the sword has been shortened. If all of the original nakago has been lost it has been a long tachi.

I checked the long swords I have listed for Sa, I have 2 signed tachi both Meitō and one is Kokuhō. I have 4 mumei katana attributed to Sa, 2 of them Meitō and 1 Jūbu & 1 Jūbi.

I think it would be 2 shaku 2 sun 4 bu (4 rin if you want to be really exact but rin is rarely used when measuring nagasa) as 2 shaku 2 sun 4 bu is 67,88 cm. 二尺二寸四分 (四厘)

Can you get better pic of the smith in signature as your clear pic cuts off too early. I have the Bungo book and I can post you reference after seeing the signature on this one.

Your site is very nice Yurie.

@Jeremiah, there is the book Jūyō Tōken Tobun Rui Mokuroku which has listing of Jūyō swords from 1956 to 1999. I am not sure about more modern Jūyō listings after that. I thought about buying it for many years but decided that it does not have enough information for me to use on my own database and learning. I'm building a database on swords that are roughly from Heian to 1450. I'll give 1st prototype of it to NMB members once I pass 5000 sword mark (it will take time), I'm bit over 2500 swords at the moment (all Kokuhō, 298 JūBu, 193 JuBi etc. listed so far). That time frame is my own interest and I did have to narrow it to that as otherwise the information amount would be completely overwhelming as there are just so many swords around. Rayhan, Michael and Matt gave some insight about the Sukeyori. I know for a fact that this was listed earlier on Aoi Art too, I think it might have been for sale in 2015 (asking price 4M then), and also possibly another time too, that sword seems so familiar. Also the origin of this blade is bit uncertain for me (which is no surprise as it might be for far more experienced ones too). I put this to Ko-Bizen Sukeyori in my database. Like Michael said above the Sukeyori smiths in general seem to be not too known or highly thought of. I have listed 2 signed tachi by Ko-Aoe Sukeyori that are also Tokubetsu Hozon. While a sword like that would be a crown jewel of my own collection it is somewhat problematic sword. Still I'd rather take it over many mumei Jūyō blades.

I'm guessing Rayhan means this Japanese Gallery (Kensington and they have 2nd location too)? http://japanesegallery.com/ I met Eddy at Samurai Art Expo and he seemed really nice when I changed few words. Didn't take much of his time as he was busy being one of the organizers. Not sure what kind of swords they have in their regular inventory.

I can post the translated results when the issue with results arrives to Finland (if someone hasn't provided them before that). Here are some thoughts, these are all pretty much just theory as Jūyō is way out of my league. Hasebe - I have to backup Darcys opinion on this, looks like a spectacular sword. Hasebe Daitō are relatively rare, usually you'll encounter Wakizashi and Tanto. Enju - I am pretty sure your Enju is a nice sword. Mumei Enju tend to have decent track record going from Tokuho to Jūyō. As there was talk about signatures earlier, if you have a legitimate signed Enju I'd think it is an instant Jūyō. And while length in general might not be defining anything I can easily note that the is higher number of 70+ cm blades that passed compared to blades under 70 cm. There is also one mumei Enju JūBi at 72 cms. Niō - While it sounds harsh to say that Niō is third tier school, it is actually quite the reality. As I've been documenting the good swords from famous references, I've found out that in Niō school after Kiyotsuna there is nobody of note. Sure Kiyotsuna has couple of JūBu and JūBi and he is appraised very highly the drop after him is rough. To give an idea of Niō Jūyō rates I can put out some statistics. I have 24 Niō swords listed, 7 of those are Kiyotsuna and the 1 mumei attributed to Kiyotsuna is Jūyō 48. I have 2 mumei tachi and 13 mumei katana for Niō (yours is the longest one). Out of those 15 there are 2 Jūyō swords and both are quite short katana, 69,4 cm and 64,7 cm. And to be perfectly honest I'm remembering both of those two might have been "weak" Jūyō, not too spectacular. Wake Shigenori - While I tend to really like some obscure schools, their importance in big picture is very miniscule. There have been some Jūyō Wake swords (even mumei) and I'd think yours having hari-mei it would be on the "upper bracket" of Wake swords. In general - There is a preference for some smiths and schools and it is understandable as those smiths are important. You'll find the same thing when you browse sword books and magazines, good smiths get most space and once in a while you might find some lesser known smiths in books and having high rankings (usually when that happens the work is probably among of the best from that smith or among the few remaining signed for example). I think Tokubetsu Hozon has fallen a bit in the gap and does not get enough recognition. They are already judged to be good swords, not everyone can be on the top. And it is unfortunate fact that for many good swords Tokubetsu Hozon attribution is as far as they will go in the NBTHK ranking system.

I must say it is really exciting in my opinion. I did not understand the original purpose of the thread as the picture in Yumoto's book just seemed black but now that you revealed the answer it got me extremely curious. What did the NBTHK answer to you? Did you try to put this tachi on shinsa by some organization? 1 tachi & 1 naginata by Yoshioka Sukemitsu are National treasures of Japan (for those intrested about the smith).

According to Ohmura's site it is the acceptance mark of 関刃物工業組合 http://ohmura-study.net/211.html

I tried to look for an answer from the Uchigatana-koshirae book by Tokyo National Museum. Uniformedly mounted daishō started being a trend around mid Muromachi. However even before that multiple swords were often carried to battlefield for practical reasons. As worn garments started to shift from the Ōnin wars onwards, development of matching uchigatana & wakizashi started. It is said that it became popular norm somewhere between Eiroku and Tenshō. I believe the oldest matching daishō koshirae in the book that can be accurately dated is Inu-chiyo-goshirae (36. in book), it was worn by Maeda Toshiie at the battle of Okehazama in 1560. For the oldest pair of swords actually produced as a pair of daishō blades by swordsmith, I have no clue about that...

Congrats Rayhan and Dwain for the Ko-Naminohira guess, well done. I’ll try to give a little write up on things and about guesses that came. The sword was judged by NBTHK to be of Naminohira school and they added extra information in the brackets dating the sword to the early part of Muromachi period. I think personally that the size and shape of the sword can easily guide the thinking towards late Kamakura. Like Michael said earlier, shift of sori more towards the middle could point out to Nanbokuchō & early Muromachi, however it can be seen on Kamakura era too, so I will write a quote from Hinohara Dai that was on May issue of Tōken Bijutsu. Which can shed a light on how difficult it is sometimes to identify swords shape. I think Nakago is one giveaway towards early Muromachi. While it is old it still does not seem to be very old. The feeling you can get on very old nakago is not present on this one. I did not provide nakago picture on this guessing game, the bit rectangularish ana is original and other one later add on. The oshigata was made by Aoi-Art, I am not sure if it is Tsuruta himself who does them or someone else? I am seeing that there is a small (weak) spot in the middle of bōshi that he has probably tried to add to the oshigata. Which might make it bit blurry on that part. As the sword is mumei there is no absolute answer in this case. I think Kyūshū-mono is already an excellent answer. The hada would be one thing that is common in Kyūshū-mono. Muromachi era Naminohira school is not generally highly regarded and unfortunately this sword is not of high quality, so it makes identification more difficult. Ko-Naminohira is usually well regarded and more cherished. Most of the common sword books will tell you that Naminohira quality went down a lot going into Muromachi period. Muddy, hazy etc. terms I’ve often seen in nioiguchi descriptions of Naminohira swords. Enju is also an excellent guess, while I was trying to figure out what common terms are used to separate Kyūshū schools from each other, there was great tip-list at the end of Kyūshū portion of Nihontō Kōza. The traits of Naminohira and Enju are overlapping a lot, and I think that higher quality sword might get Enju attributions and lesser quality swords could go more towards Naminohira. Miike is another guess that fits this sword very well, going by the written features in the blade. And only by hands on look it could most likely be evident that this is not at Miike level quality wise. I have seen few swords in bad condition that have Miike attributions, but they are quite rare at lower tier. Bingo guesses Ko-Mihara and Hokke are again very understandable. Itame & hint of masame is often described and bōshi could easily fit in too. And shirake is often listed too in description on some Mihara swords. In Nihontō Kōza for example nioiguchi of Hokke is described sometimes becoming misty. For Yamato-Shizu many of the features also match, same thing with Ryōkai too. Like Paul said well, the differences are so small in many cases and the details are overlapping. My written description is not at the level of NBTHKs monthly kantei. I might have misworded some details and a more experienced person might see something differently and word it better. There can be also lots of differing opinions from different organizations. There is one sword for sale that has NBTHK attribution to Naminohira & beginning of Muromachi and JASMK attribution to Hōju & late Nanbokuchō. While the difference in locations might seem dramatical schools being in the opposite ends of Japan, well surprise they share many common features so small details might turn the cup towards one or other. I hope everyone had a fun time guessing.

Just saw this rare thing to pop up at Iida Koendo. Can't even dare to think about the price tag. http://iidakoendo.com/4947/

Well we have had lots of fun doing kantei lately. As we have discussed doing it online vs. live has plenty of setbacks but this is just supposed to fun and not too serious. At first I thought I'd just go by the format of monthly kantei in Tōken Bijutsu, providing the 2 oshigata pictures for reference but I felt generous and tried to include two pictures that you can see the hada too along with my written description. However I did not want to provide a full length picture this time, as I believe you can get really good grasp about the sugata by just the numerical data provided and with the small written description. The sword in question is unfortunately mumei so you cannot get a 100% correct guess. But it will be nice to see the guesses and compare them to the NBTHK attribution. The sword has been attributed by the NBTHK and I do personally feel that their attribution is most likely the correct one but as the sword is mumei there can be differing opinions. Here is the information for the kantei Tachi Nagasa: 77,2 cm Sori: 3,7 cm Motohaba: 3,0 cm Sakihaba: 1,9 cm Moto-kasane: 0,65 cm Saki-kasane: 0,4 cm Kissaki-nagasa: 2,8 cm Nakago-nagasa: 20,6 cm Nakago-sori: 0,2 cm Shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, quite slender mihaba, visible taper, thin kasane, very deep sori that is torii-zori. The jigane is rather standing out itame, which tends to masame-nagare on many parts, some ji-nie is also present. There is also shirake-utsuri. The hamon and boshi can be seen in the oshigata. Nioiguchi is somewhat hazy and weak. Hamon is in ko-nie deki. There is bōhi on both sides with maru-dome before the tang. The tang is ubu has a kurijiri, and two mekugi-ana. The sword is mumei. Have fun trying this out. I think I'll give the answer next weekend, so you'll have one week before that.

My is goal is collecting tachi from different provinces (Ōshū to Satsuma) and dating from Heian to mid-Muromachi. My idea is to have a lineup of periodical changes while at the same time getting a grasp of provincial differences. Granted the vast geographical span as well as time span I will have to lean towards lower end - mid tier items in order to achieve this goal even partially. Likewise I will have to include some katana (as I won't be able to afford Nanbokuchō odachi, and original length Heian & early Kamakura might be out of reach too) and some naginata-naoshi (because I like them a lot) as well. Aim is currently quantity over quality as I will never be able to achieve such collection if I focus on high quality. I will be able to enjoy quality of pieces that others have in sword gatherings.

Oliver the paper in question is for the koshirae (fittings) and not for the blade.

I agree with Paul that for example in NBTHK's monthly kantei details are presented very well. While my own eye is not really that trained I can miss a lot of details in traditional kantei that more experienced pick up in a moment. For me it takes some times a lot of time to see the small details. The good thing is that small details are explained in text form as you cannot actually see the item. So it does not matter how good your own eye is as details are already explained to you. One thing I'd really like to see is lot more measurements as it makes it much easier to understand the item without seeing it. Even though I have no background with anything that involves numbers or measurements I just really like the accurate information they give to you. While you can explain many things by adjectives, they can be understood rather vaguely. Where as if the sword has for example 3,1 cm motohaba or ubu nakago that is 14,5 cm, those are facts. Of course you could try to explain them in words but it is a lot more difficult than just measuring them. I think you can get rather decent image of how the sword actually is by just looking at the numerical data. Heck, with little worded information along to aid the numbers you could draw a possible mock up sword with that data given to you.

Jeremiah I dont think that total English translations of those issues are available anywhere. I think for example our go to translator Markus would be way to go for translation of articles (I have few in row that I need to get translated at some point). I have 599 and I can send you some info, you can PM me what you are looking for. Unfortunately article translations are way above my level.

Thanks for the tip Wim. I was little bit afraid that postage costs will be quite high from Japan as even in Europe they can get quite high as the magazines weigh a lot. I am getting bunch from Uwe and old ones from Paul B. So I am missing only 643, 644, 645 from 2010 and 648, 649 and 652 from 2011.

Seems like it was a great one Would have been really nice to be there.

PM sent.

I think you can easily think it as a double edged sword. On the other hand it is really good that there are enthusiastic people that might be collectors in the future which is a great thing. However the negative side is that similar videos often give a lot of false information. The common problem with Youtube etc. is that everyone will be able to create educational videos, and for a regular person it might be very difficult to know what is correct and what is not. I've thought about that lately as I might have watched some educational videos on various subjects that might have lots of questionable information, yet they are very well made and convincing.

It is great book, one of my favorites too.

This might be bit strange request but I am looking for certain numbers of Tōken Bijutsu (the NBTHK monthly magazine). The issues I am really looking for are 643 - 662. So issues from August 2010 to March 2012. But as I guess nobody would want to make a deal on a partial year, so I could buy years 2010, 2011 and 2012. So in total issues from 636 to 671. I am also looking for issues before 1996, so magazines up until number 468. For these I would be mostly looking for full years but would be willing to take some partial years too.

I might guess that sword is just suriage with lower ana being the original one and sword originally a bit over 60 cm in length. I just feel that bit over 60 cm's would fit the late 1400's early 1500's. However it is of course totally possible that sword was over 70 cm originally and original ana is lost due to shortening.