Jussi Ekholm

Seems like the issuing body for papers is 美術日本刀保存会 - Bijutsu Nihontō Hozon Kai. Unfortunately I have never heard about them before, seems like it was issued in Janurary 2019. I think I might have seen a paper or two issued by them at Japanese auction sites before but I've skipped them. With google I managed to find they probably are located in Okayama: https://www.hotfrog.jp/company/1123282600243200 I think the seller left out lot of information saying to you and that seems to be quite common with most sellers. He should have been able to tell you that Tadamitsu was dated as Steve translated to you, and that Masaie is attributed to Bingo province and not Bizen. There were many Masaie smiths in Mihara school and Muromachi period smith could be very likely. Also the fact that both blades fall under the modern wakizashi classification, which will affect the price, as well as the fact that they were most likely quite recently put together in matching koshirae. The sellers in Japan know well what they are doing and what will attract buyers. I hope you don't find this comment too negative as that was not my intention. I do believe you have 2 genuine Japanese swords from the late Muromachi period as is listed in the paper. Even though the issuing body does not hold commercial value their attribution seems to be most plausible one given one is signed and dated and other signed. If signatures are legitimate I'd guess other organizations would give the same answer.

So far I have got 23 signed tachi by Ko-Hōki Yasutsuna, 1 fumei tachi and 4 mumei katana attributed to him The second sword that Andi is asking about is owned by NBTHK and it is very often featured in Tōken Bijutsu and other publications too. So far I have it on 11 references. I think the most commonly listed length for it is 80,1 cm (even though it is 79,9 cm in your pic, there can very often be few mm differences between publications). It has 2,9 cm sori, 2,8 cm motohaba, 1,7 cm sakihaba and 20,9 cm nakago.

Posted this few days ago on another forum. Signature is 以安来鋼兼道作, smith is Kojima Kanemichi. Date is: 紀元二千六百年 Kigen nisen roppyaku nen = 2600 Imperial year which means 1940. There are plenty of folks here specializing on this period so you'll get more info. You can also google the signature and find other examples.

Thanks for posting the link Wim. Interesting results and items passed this time too. I just wish I could study all of them.

Very interesting thread Ed, and I am bit surprised about the result. Even though I don't know much about swords of this time I didn't think all were papered and legitimate (apart from 7 which I think might be better signature wise than some of the papered ones). Was a fun guessing and made me look at stuff I might skip on normally.

Hikita Tabei no Jō Kiyonobu - 疋田太兵衛尉清信

I'll give an answer like a politician. As I don't focus on swords of this period, I have bit limited resources of reference material on Masahide, at least that I can quickly access. However on the reference material I have there are examples that are very close / quite close to numbers 5,6,8, for the other examples I haven't got a reference mei that would be close to it. So I am left guessing on others.

Like Jean mentioned earlier I think 5 & 8 are of same sword and legitimate, I also think number 6 is legitimate too. I found lots of mei similar to 5 & 8 spanning from 1789 to 1815, published examples, and I think examples of mei 6 seems to be made around 1789 to 1796.

One possible categorization for swords could be geographical. You could have for example Swords of the Northern provinces (North regions of Japan) Swords of Edo area (Tokyo) Swords of Yamashiro & Settsu area (Ōsaka & Kyōto) Swords of the South (Kyūshū)

For me it is thinking about the romantic history behind them. My own interest in Japanese swords mostly spans from Heian until mid-Muromachi. Bit similarily my interest in European swords mostly spans from Migration period until end of Renaissance. Can't really explain why shortly but I just think for example viking age is interesting as is the Nanbokuchō period and so on. Just the time and history that is fascinating to me. Unfortunately I don't think there is too much researched data in English about steel analysis regarding regional changes in Japanese history. We have had few threads about it over the years, here is one: http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/23184-steel-analysis-of-different-regional-schools/ As I know I cannot afford the fine quality top tier old swords and partly because living here up north, I've been really fascinated about bit lesser known rural schools. Some time ago I also encountered an article by Yoshikawa Kentaro about swords in Northern Japan and it had greatly informative bit where he mentioned that somewhat rough hada "hadatatsu" "hadamono" that often is prominent in swords of Northern region actually improves the performance in cold climate and hadamono swords offer good flexibility and strength. Living here in cold north myself I find stuff like this really fascinating. I don't consider myself as an art connoisseur who goes after top quality (as it is way beyond my means) but kinda low/mid tier collector going after what I consider to be interesting items. Hōju or Gassan tachi from up north would be right up my alley where as most of the serious collectors would not find item like that too interesting. Historical preference is also one thing that will push people towards certain great makers. If those swords were highly regarded at the time when they were actually used, you can take it that they really were and are great swords. This is just a personal opinion and may very well be wrong but I'd think late Kamakura and Nanbokuchō period swords might be softer and more durable than Edo period swords. Therefore in general they performed very well in battle and were well rounded swords. Also I think modern Japanese swordsmiths are very modest in general. I believe many of the modern makers make excellent swords that would have been cherished in historical period. I think warriors of old would have been proud to carry swords that some modern smiths are producing.

This is a quote from NBTHK kantei for ubu Masamitsu tachi of 66 cm. Here are some dated short tachi (ubu or very near it) that I have recorded that show that it was indeed bit typical for some certain late Nanbokuchō Bizen smiths to make these small slender tachi. This trend was particulary strong in Kozori school. Of course these smiths also produced longer tachi of over 70 cm during the exactly same time. But the sudden emergence of these small tachi in large numbers supports the above quote. Masamitsu - 1390 - 66,8 cm Masamitsu - 1391 - 66,4 cm Masamitsu - 1382 - 66,1 cm Masamitsu - 1389 - 63,2 cm Hidemitsu - 1383 - 65,0 cm Hidemitsu - 1371 - 63,3 cm Hidemitsu - 1386 - 62,8 cm Nariie - 1381 - 66,6 cm Nariie - 1381 - 60,4 cm Sukeyoshi - 1391 - 62,4 cm Moromitsu - 1401 - 67,0 cm Moromitsu - 1394 - 67,0 cm Moromitsu - 1394 - 66,3 cm Moromitsu - 1392 - 65,6 cm Moromitsu - 1387 - 65,5 cm Moromitsu - 1399 - 62,6 cm Moromitsu - 1381 - 61,3 cm Moromitsu - 1385 - 60,3 cm Yorimitsu - 1382 - 58,3 cm Sadasue - 1381 - 65,4 cm Iemori - 1404 - 63,4 cm Iemori - 1377 - 62,0 cm Ieshige - 1399 - 60,7 cm Here is a link to a Kozori group tachi of 64,8 cm signed but not dated: https://www.e-sword.jp/katana/1910-1012.htm Hidemitsu of 63,8 cm (not dated): https://www.aoijapan.net/katanabisyu-osa%e2%96%a1-hidemitsu/ Now to be clear I am not saying Kozori and the approx. age are correct but given the signature & size and shape that would be my first potential guess. I'd try to get into a meeting of UK based sword group where some people could see it in hand. Unfortunately condition is what it is. Depending on what the experienced folks think you might get it professionally restored.

Ray beat me to it, I was thinking the last one could be shige 重 couldn't figure out the 4th one but Sada seem very plausible.

While it is a guessing game I think I am seeing lower portion of the second last kanji as 儿 , which would make me guess Mitsuhisa 光久 or Motohisa 元久 and sword being potentially late Nanbokuchō - early Muromachi. I thought it was longer by looking at the pictures and estimating, it is a small and slender sword then, must be very light in hand?

Could you perhaps get bit more focused pictures of the sword as well as numerical data like length of blade from start of tang to the tip, width of blade near the tang and at the tip, curvature between the tip and start of tang? Do not do any cleaning by yourself. Looks like very interesting tachi, signature seems to be 備州長 Bishū Osa (rest is unreadable to me) and I'd assume it would be Bishū Osafune (insert smith here) by looking at the length of signature I am seeing.

Here is a small summary of first 50. Some info is missing from this like beginnings of many of the first 15 as I don't know the correct names of people except Katō Kiyomasa. Probably an error of two in the mix but I hope it helps. 1. Katakama-yari - Spear of Katō Kiyomasa - mumei 2. Ōmi-yari - Spear of Katō Kiyomasa – mei: Bishū Osafune Sukesada (1504) 3. Su-yari – mei: Tagami saku? 4. Jūmonji-yari – mei: Jakushū kore jū Munenaga 5. Yari – mei: long mei… 6. Su-yari – mei: Monju Kanehisa saku 7. Nihongō – (one of three great spears) mumei (attribution to Kanabo not mentioned here) 8. Yari – Nagayoshi saku 9. Yari – Tonbogiri (one of three great spears) – mei: Fujiwara Masazane saku 10. Yari – mei: Sanjō Yoshihiro 11. Ōmi-su-yari 12. Yari – mei: Nanto Kanabō Hyōe no Jō Masatsugu 13. Yari – mei: Hiromitsu 14. Jūmonji-yari – mei: Kanewaka 15. Jūmonji-yari – mei: Kanabō Saemon no Jō Masasada 16. Hirasankaku-yari – mumei Yamato Kanenaga 17. Yari – mei: Bishū Osafune Norimitsu (1477) 18. Yari – mei: Bishū Osafune Tadamitsu (1484) 19. Yari – mei: Bishū Osafune Tadamitsu (1489) 20. Yari – mei: Tadamitsu 21. Yari – mei: Bizen no Kuni jū Osafune Hikozaemon Yoshimitsu (1483) 22. Ōmi-yari – mei: Bishū Osafune Norimitsu (1488) 23. Yari – mei: Bishū Osafune Koremitsu (1495) 24. Ōmi-yari – mei: Fujishima Tomoshige 25. Yari – mei: Uda Kunitsugu saku (1485) 26. Yari – mei: Muramasa 27. Yari – mei: Muramasa 28. Ōmi-yari – mei: Nagayoshi saku 29. Ōmi-yari – mei: Yoshisuke 30. Ōmi-yari – mei: Sōshū-jū Sukehiro 31. Jūmonji-yari – mei: Kanabō Masazane 32. Kama-yari – mei: Nōshū Seki jū Kanesaki 33. Yari – mei: Nōshū Gifu jū Daidō (1585) 34. Yari – mei: Jōshū Umetada saku (1593) 35. Yari – mei: Sagami no Kami Fujiwara Masatsune Nyūdō 36. Yari – mei: Masatsune 37. Yari – mei: Hizen no Kuni Tadayoshi 38. Yari – mei: Hizen no Kuni jū Musashi no Daijō Fujiwara Tadahiro 39. Ōmi-yari: Heianjo jū Kunimichi saku (1612) 40. Yari – mei: Nagasone Okimasa 41. Jūmonji-yari – mei: Yamashiro no kuni Shimosaka saku 42. Sasaho-yari – mei: Yoshū jū Yasuyoshi saku 43. Ōmi-yari – mei: Minamoto Masayuki (1845) 44. Kawarimi-yari 45. Kikuchi-yari - mumei 46. Kama-yari – mei: Biyō Osafune jū Yokoyama Sukekane saku kore (1867) 47. Ka-yari (Kago-yari?) – mei: Sasshū jū Oku Motohira saku 48. ??? Tsukikama-yari 49. Fukuro-yari – mei: Nobukuni 50. ???

Thanks Gianluca

Noshū Shimizu Jumyō - 濃州清水寿命

I've been bumping into lot of really nice ones lately. Here is a historical copy Atagi Sadamune (now missing meibutsu) by shodai Yasutsugu And here is a modern copy of Kokuhō Heshigiri Hasebe http://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords5/NT329704.htm

I think you are asking really important question JP and that is one important aspect of kantei that you try to use your knowledge to try to "see" the sword in original form. The sword (bare blade as whole) is called tōshin that includes the blade & nakago. While sori is used for curvature between munemachi and tip of kissaki there is also nakago-sori that can be measured. I wish I would be good at drawing it would be easier to explain than with words. But at least I tried to make a few pictures. Of course the scale of those is bit off. Different sori and nakago-sori will have a huge effect on the overall sugata of the sword. When you calculate blade curvature you can take two measurements. Regular sori and also from the butt of nakago to the tip of kissaki. With swords of very large nakago curvature this will of course produce large overall curvature to the sword even if the sori is small and vice versa swords with very big sori but small to none nakago curvature will not produce a pronounced difference when measured like that. The name for measurement from nakago butt to tip of kissaki is called zencho 全長 but I am not aware what the full length curvature measurement is called. But here is a picture showing how shortening will also affect sori as measurement point moves upward and it affects the overall curvature even more. I tried to fit in my drawing that when shortened enough neither of the holes remaining is the original one as it has been lost with the signature. One thing that I feel is important when it comes to shortened swords that you search information how are the surviving swords in original or near original length made by that smith/school. Yes for some there are very few if any references left but it is very valuable information. Also you can find examples that vary a lot within the works of the same smith. I have so many things about this subject running in my mind I can't really type it out as an easy post. I've drawn just for fun some full sized sword pictures up to scale, might be fun to make 1:1 picture for example 90 cm tachi that goes through few shortenings and ends up as 65 cm katana. I know you can make up stuff like this in photoshop etc. but I think it is nice to have 100% sized picture in front of you. And of course I can spend that time studying swords while I am drawing.

Reviving an old thread as I happened to accidentally stumble to Koryū-Kagemitsu utsushi by Yoshihara Yoshindo. Woweh... Very good quality picture in the link: https://heiseimeitokai.com/blade/384_1.jpg Also last year at Samurai Art Expo there was the Kogarasu-Maru utsushi by Sadakatsu: https://japanartexpo.com/exhibition-highlights/ I can't really explain why I find these extremely fascinating.

You can find his address and number from All Japanese Swordsmith Association: http://www.tousyoukai.jp/chu_shi/(but someone like Paul would most likely be of lots of assistance) What bothers me I can't seem to find another example of his signature anywhere on the net now. Here is the same tanto at Yahoo Auctions: https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/j552837124

Some very good points thrown from both sides. Long discussion like that with examples and references and various views... that would make a heck of a Youtube (or any other platform) video too.

Yes of course I agree what you are saying Ken. I believe some years ago Kunitaro posted here in a thread how he was using his sword for cutting and had been doing so for a long time, and after he would retire the sword from cutting practice he would get an art polish done on it. I think that would be a nice way to treat a modern sword. And to note if it was not clear I have been talking about using modern swords. I wouldn't recommend using an antique as I feel those are for preservation. I know some koryu people who use antique swords for kata and I do think it is ok as they have dedication & skill. However they cut with Chinese replicas and not with their main swords that they use when practicing forms.

Unfortunately I don't have any info on him but I believe Paul Martin might be able to help you (Takaichi Tadafusa): http://www.thejapanesesword.com/services/swordsmiths/Ehime/ehime.html

I am bit surprised about the negative attitude in using modern Japanese swords for cutting and iai/kenjutsu practice. After all many of the newly made Japanese swords are perfectly suitable for use. Even though I am not a practicioner anymore I would have bought a modern sword from Giheiya at Samurai Art Expo last summer if I would have had free 3k€ lying around in my account, they had really good deals and I would have avoided the darn 24% tax we have here for modern stuff as the swords were already in EU. And I would have used that sword for occasional cutting and some form practice. There are hundreds of perfectly good modern Japanese made swords being sold in Japan for martial arts purposes in mind at any given moment. Of course I agree if you are going to do some serious hardcore cutting then get a 300$ Chinese made through hardened sword you can beat the crap out of. But traditionally made Japanese sword should be perfectly fine for regular cutting practice.