Ray Singer

山城國伏見住金家 Yamashiro (no) kuni Fushimi (no) ju Kaneie

If you truly love Japanese swords then please abandon this goal to polish them yourself. There is simply no way to become a competent togishi through self education. It is heartbreaking to think of all the destroyed swords I have seen, that met their end through well-meaning amateur polishers. Ko-Senjuin, Yokoyama Sukekane, Sendai Kunikane, Heianjo Nagayoshi, etc, etc all ruined. A polishing apprenticeship takes ten years. There are no short cuts.

There is a museum I know of that received the donation of a healthy, Juyo-quality 76cm tachi with a Hon'ami kinzoganmei to Sa Hiroyuki. A beautiful sword with 8mm kasane. Sadly the blade has been allowed to rust over the past few years years. The museum does not have the budget for restoration and no longer allows individuals from outside their staff to assist with care and maintenance of the permanent collection.

The assumption being gimei (not an authentic signature). Still, as you asked about the working period here is example of different smiths and time periods where you can that mei used. http://nihontoclub.com/view/smiths/meisearch?type=All&mei_op=contains&mei=%E5%82%99%E5%B7%9E%E9%95%B7%E8%88%B9%E7%A5%90%E5%AE%9A

Bishu Osafune Sukesada. Not a well executed mei.

Your wakizashi is signed Soshu ju Tsunahiro. Best regards, Ray

Photo attached. Itame/mokume in the ji with masame along the edge is, among others, a trait of some Yamato blades (specifically Shikkake). Your sword does not look like a Shikkake though. Can we see a more complete photo? Best regards, Ray

I will take a shot. Yoshichika___ or Yoshinobu___. 吉近__ or 吉延__, possibly followed by 作. Best regards, Ray

Appears to be Kii (no) Kuni Junin Yasuhiro 紀伊國住人安廣 Best regards, Ray

An example of an early tsuka. http://www.nihonto.us/HIDARI%20KANEYASU%20KATANA.htm And a Shinkai signed with the Kunisada mei. http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-izumi-kami-kunisada-the-2nd-generation-inoue-shinkai Best regards, Ray

For reference, when the links expire.

For anyone who enjoys Bingo Ko-Mihara work (as I do), there are a large number of examples for sale at Aoi Bijyutsu at the moment. Two have been attributed specifically to Mihara Masahiro and the others have simply been papered to Ko-Mihara. Most exhibit some amount of utsuri (shirake utsuri is typical for this school), except for the two which only received Hozon. The Masahiro examples' jitetsu seems one-level tighter, I do not know if they received the smith-specific attribution due to that point. It is also interesting to see that three have Kanzan sayagaki, two of which place the swords with other schools (Tegai and Aoe). Ko-Mihara http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-ko-mihara-3 (67.4 cm Hozon) http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-attributed-ko-mihara (69.5 cm Hozon) http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-ko-mihara-4 (69.69 cm Tokubetsu Hozon) http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-unsigned-attributed-to-komihara (71.2 cm Tokubetsu Hozon) http://www.aoijapan.com/16181 (71.8 cm Tokubetsu Hozon) Mihara Masahiro http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-attributed-as-mihara-masahiro (63.6 cm Tokubetsu Hozon) http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-mihara-masahiro24th-nbthk-juyo-paper (72.72 cm Juyo) Best regards, Ray

Chikuzen (no) Kami Kurihara Nobuhide was an important smith and a 74cm Nobuhide could be considered an important find if it were authentic. Best regards, Ray

Perhaps I am the only one here, but I do not keep any of my collection at home for exactly the reason of security and potential theft. I had my collection wiped out in a robbery (targeted theft) when I was a graduate student. It's devastating, and I now keep my swords at a bank where a thief would need to go through an armed security guard, CBC vault and steel safe. It's sometimes inconvenient having to visit my collection during 'normal business hours', but I feel that's the most secure solution. It was actually Jim Kurrasch who gave me the idea, and who I believe also kept his better pieces in a safe deposit box. Best regards, Ray

Interesting, I would not have thought that blade was a Sanchomo utushimono. The sugata and hamon do not appear correct. Perhaps what was meant is that this sword has a koshirae which the same type of Tensho koshirae as that of the Sanchomo. Regards, Ray

No Stephen, it went to someone else. Best regards, Ray

Is this the same sword which Aoi said they would not guarantee? I recall a shodai & nidai Tadayoshi/Tadahiro and Sendai Kunikane listed at the same time, all with the same 'no guarantee' comment. Best regards, Ray

Hi Paul, As far as the way that organizations will place attribution, I believe that it is primarily based on when they believe that a sword was made. If the sword were clearly a product of the mid-15th century or later, the attribution would be Sue-Tegai, even if it exhibited some characteristics more consistent with earlier work. I own a sword which in quality and characteristics of the kitae and hamon is very consistent with Ko-Mihara. The shape however indicates early Muromachi/Oei and for that reason the sword received an attribution to Mihara (rather than Ko-Mihara). I believe it is likewise for other situations where indicators point with reasonable confidence to a specific date. Best regards, Ray

Thank you both. I have heard the line drawn in different places (start of Muromachi or later into Muromachi period) in different references. It would be wonderful if there was an additional notation of jidai on the kanteisho, such as Tegai (late Nambokucho), but their attributions seem to be always restricted to Tegai or Sue-Tegai. Best regards, Ray

Hi, can anyone confirm where the NBTHK shifts from Tegai to Sue-Tegai? I am specifically wanting to know whether the NBTHK will paper a sword to Tegai if it is Oei/early Muromachi, or if any sword from Oei on will be referred to as Sue-Tegai in their kanteisho. Greatly appreciate any help on this topic. Best regards, Ray

There are several tanto for sale at Aoi Art by mukansa smiths, two of whom were elevated to ningen kokuho. http://www.aoijapan.com/tanto-ho-kiyomaro-chikushu-sano-so-tsutomu-chosoku-kaneyoshi-gassakuheisei-ju-8-nen-8-gatsu-kichijistu http://www.aoijapan.com/tanto-sanryu-masamine-saku-heisei-2-nen-8-gatsu-hi-august-1990-2 http://www.aoijapan.com/tanto-toshihiratame-ushikomi-kyoko-ningen-kokuho Also, here: http://www.seiyudo.com/tanto.htm http://www.e-sword.jp/tantou.html Best regards, Ray

JSSUS Volume 27, No 2 - March - April, 1995 "The Ichimonji Hamon" Includes discussion on Sanchomo and the utushimono done by Ohno Yoshimitsu. Best regards, Ray

One theory is that the Ichimonji smiths did this type of wild juka choji-ba without clay. There was an article on the JSSUS where Yoshindo Yoshihara demonstrated how he could produce an Ichimonji type hamon with no clay. There was another gendai smith who recently passed away (I don't recall his name) who did so exclusively, successfully reproducing this hamon and creating works which also exhibited midare utsuri. Best regards, Ray

I believe that the owner is supposed to give the government an opportunity to purchase the item first. If I recall correctly that was the process which happened with O-Kanehira. Separately, there is another Ichimonji mei-to for sale, which resides here in the states. http://nihonto.com/AraIchi.html Best regards, Ray

Appreciate it, thanks Greg. Look forward to sharing pictures if that does happen. Best regards, Ray