Gilles

Very nice shin-gunto, all complete with a family mon. I have never seen such markings on this kind of hanger. But, when you collect Japanese militaria and samurai swords you are always surprised. it is original for sure.

I agree with Colin. The mekugi ana is too low on the nakago and the kanji are just not right. Red light for this one.

Take care Brian. Getting old is not simple, I feel it everyday. The nakago and mei seems to be like one from the Meiji era, narrow nakago, big kanji.......

Like John said, it seems that parts from different origins have been put together. The ishizuke is a fake, the brass type on the bottom of the saya comes from a NCO sword as Rob said. The tsuka (kabutogane and fuchi) seems genuine. The nakago seems too short for the length of the tsuka....... A Frankenstein sword...............!

Overall condition is average, the blade seems to be old (before 1868) but not discernible in that condition which is not good. Price is quite high for that stuff. I will wait for a better one but it is up to you.

It's quite a conundrum, the hamon tells that it is oil quenched but the hada is visible. I agree with Jean, it seems to be a mix of traditional and modern techniques and materials but it is just my opinion.

PM sent, Thank you.

It seems to be a military shin-gunto from the end of the war. All the fittings are low grade and the blade is not traditionally made. The shark skin under the bidding of the handle is rhodoid, which was mainly used in 1944/1945. The nakago (tang) is signed but its black color is suspicious. On this tang there are two mekugi ana (holes) and the handle seems to have only one, it is possibly a sign that it is not the original blade. The scabbard was protected by a leather cover which is not here anymore. I see on the pictures 675 USD which is a bit expensive but that is my personal opinion.

This one was sold to me by the excellent Grey Doffin under the tittle Yamabushi manji tsuba. I like its simplicity.

Dear Bruce, Here are the omote and ura sides. You have here all the mei.

Dear Bruce, I do own that wakazashi. Reading the nakago is as follows : - Omote : RYUSAISHI (Ryu-sai-shi), MASASHIGE with KAO. Answer to a request by Suuyo (present Tokuyama city) Tsumori (surname) Yoshikiyo. Made by using excellent water of seventh well (place name ?) at KO-REY (Suo, present Yamaguchi-city). - Ura : My ancestor had lost a MASAMUNE sword in a fire in the Eiroku era (1558-1569), since then a long time has passed. I was sad about this past fact. Now, fortunately, Ryusaishi forged this sword instead of the sword lost in the fire. This sword was delivered by using all his techniques. Yoshikiyo with KAO (orderer) Bunka ninen ni gatsu hi (Feb, 1805). Masashige was a swordsmith in the Suishinshi Masahide kado. Hope it helps.

Thank you again Moriyama San for your help. I agree with you Piers, I consider that it is an historic object and a witness of a troubled era were the sword was the main weapon.

Thank you very much Moriyama San. It seems to be a real conundrum. Do you think that it is a counterfeit document (even if it is an old one) which was made to enhance the value of the hitai-ate or to give a special importance ?

Got it Piers, could be contemporary to the Boshin war period. Thank you very much to both of you, Piers and Uwe. Your help was decisive and help me a lot to understand and appreciate that new acquisition.

Thank you Piers, it explain why those two names are quoted and their attributions. Can we date this hitai-ate between 1864 ans 1868 ???? I can't see a date on the certificate.