Bryce

G'day Jacques, The majority of Showa era blades by Sadakatsu have this style of habaki. This includes blades housed in their original boxes. At the very least, this suggests that Sadakatsu preferred to sell his blades with this style of habaki. It is a commonly held opinion that he made these habaki himself, but I don't know of any definitive source. Why would he be so attached to this one style of habaki? The logical explanation is that he made them himself and they are one of his trademarks. Andrew, do you know for sure that Japanese craftsmen used the fire gilding method which used mercury to make gold plate? I have read that Asian craftsmen may have used a different method which didn't use mercury. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Andrew, I would estimate that probably only about 50% of the Sadakatsu katana and tanto blades I have seen have a solid silver habaki. Here are some examples of foiled examples. Cheers, Bryce

The earliest example I have seen to date was on a blade dated Taisho 3. If anybody knows of any earlier examples please post them. Another question I have is why are some examples silver or gold foiled, rather than solid silver? I don't think it can be because of cost, as I imagine the price of the habaki is insignificant compared to the cost of commissioning the blade. Is it because a brass or copper habaki is more durable than a silver one? Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, Below are some examples showing the variation in Gassan Sadakatsu habaki. Left - 1940 solid silver gilt. Middle - 1940 solid silver Right - 1943 silver foil. Cheers, Bryce

Thanks Jacques. Cheers, Bryce

Thanks very much Koichi san. Suken and Goma hashi. Definitely symbolic rather than just decorative. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, The combination of a ken on one side and futasuji hi on the other seems to be reasonably common on tanto and even katana blades. Does this combination of horimono have any symbolism attached to it or is it just considered attractive/fashionable? Cheers, Bryce

G'day Frank, Thank you for posting the additional photos. My point with the ito is that most of the folds go the same way, rather than alternating as is normal. The kabutogane doesn't look to have any dimpling on the back edge which is very unusual. The blade is something different from the gendaito or showato ones you normally find. The nakago is pretty rough looking and the fact that it has two holes suggests it wasn't originally in this koshirae set. All in all it is a long way from the usual type 98 gunto. This doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a genuine world war 2 sword, but I don't have the expertise to distinguish it from an aged replica or fake. Hopefully someone else here does. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Frank, As Bruce said it is very important to see the nakago of the blade. Circled in red below are the things that make me pause. It may be that I am used to looking at high end examples and your example while not high end is still authentic, but it has enough unusual features that it needs a closer look. In summary, the kabutogane is unusual, the way the ito is tied is unusual, the chuso button is unusual, it is unusual to see a solid tsuba with a central chuso opening like this, the placement of the mekugi is unusual, the seppas don't fit together very well and the casting of the brass tsuba is very rough. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Frank, I hate to say this, but there are a number of things that look "off" about this sword. We really need to see some better photos of all the components to be sure of what it is. Cheers, Bryce

G'day David, Yes I agree you do see changes over time, both different ways of writing the same character and using different characters. In the case of Sadakazu though you see completely different ways of writing the same character at the same date and sometimes on the same blade. I also agree that authenticating the mei is only part of the process and you also need to assess the work in the blade. Unfortunately most images on the net aren't good enough to get a good look at the work in the blade. Cheers, Bryce

Thanks for that David, The example I posted is the same one from the book. It is dated one month later than yours. The date is written in the same style for both of these blades, and maybe derives from the grass script that Sadakazu used to date some of his earlier blades. It is interesting that it looks very similar to the style used on the mei of the number 3 kokuin tanto's discussed earlier. I think this supports the NBTHK's view that these tanto are shoshin. Why Sadakazu varied the way he signed so much and also the kokuin he used is still a mystery to me. I suppose the simplest explanation is that there was at least one other person (before Sadakatsu) who sometimes signed his blades. This sounds a little crazy, but maybe this other person sometimes dated the blade after Sadakazu had carved his mei. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, I found some photos of a similar katana to the one David posted with the Kikusui mon on the nakago. This one is dated Meji 18. Many of Sadakazu's earlier works have the date written in grass script. This one seems to have a variation of that. For comparison I have added shots of another Sadakazu katana with the same date. This shows some of the variation you see in Sadakazu's mei. David, any chance of you posting the date side of your blade? Cheers, Bryce

G'day Lucas, From these photos I can't tell if the blade was traditionally made or not, but I can see enough to know it wasn't made by the showa period smith Kanehide. It may be an optical illusion, but to me it looks like the munemachi and hamachi aren't aligned properly. If so this is a real red flag. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, This is the earliest date I have seen Sadakatsu's name on a sword. The earliest date I have seen Sadakatsu sign for his father Sadakazu is Meiji 30, so 9 years before this sword was made. I wonder if Sadakatsu was getting frustrated and wanted his name out there as well, prompting him to sign this way on this sword? Cheers, Bryce

Thanks Guys, Cheers, Bryce

Thanks guys, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, The Royal Collection Staff were kind enough to send me some photos of the nakago of this sword. On the RCT website they speculate that this blade may have been made by Sadakatsu rather than Sadakazu. It is dated Taisho 7 (1918) the year Sadakazu died and is almost certainly a daimei by Sadakatsu. I will chase them up to see if I have permission to post the photos here. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, My recent focus on Gassan Sadakazu/Sadakatsu has got me wondering about something. I come from a background in the study of British swords. In this field most people seem to focus in on specific periods of time, where they can develop a lot of expertise on the swords produced during this period. In contrast to this, the student of Japanese swords is expected to be across all swordsmiths who produced blades during the last 1000 years. I don't think it is humanly possible to develop the same level of expertise when studying all blades produced in 1000 years compared to a 50 or 100 year period. When it comes to shinsa, does the NBTHK know what blades they will be authenticating beforehand? Can they call in experts on specific smiths during shinsa or do they all need to be across all swordsmiths from all time periods? Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, I put together the kokuin progression after going thru the 80 or so Sadakazu blades I was able to find on the net. All of the examples I used in the photo were from NBTHK papered blades. Here is the number 3 kokuin example I used from AOIJapan, with it's NBTHK paper. Cheers, bryce

G'day Ian, Yes I was aware of this article. We are talking about the same number 3 kokuin. The tantos with this kokuin all have the same style of mei, filing acoss the kokuin and rougher yasurimei. The 6 or so of these I have come across are dated from Meiji 4 to Meiji 7. Half of them aren't dated, which is odd in itself. They look like Sadakazu invited a work experience student in to finish off some of his tantos, but he must have stayed for at least 3 years and never got any better! I would agree with the article you posted above and say they have to be gimei, but the NBTHK have papered at least three of them that I have seen. Cheers, Bryce

To demonstrate just how different the mei of the number 3 kokuin tantos are from the typical Sadakazu mei here are examples side by side from about the same time. The typical Sadakazu is on the left, the number 3 kokuin on the right. As I said, both have been papered by the NBTHK. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, Below are photos showing the changes in Sadakazu's kokuin. The earliest blade with a kokuin I have found so far is Keio 1 and the latest is Meiji 38. Below going left to right: 1. Found on blades dated Keio 1 to Meiji 2 2. Found on blades dated early Meiji 3. Found on blades dated early Meiji 4. Found on blades dated late Meiji, so far I believe all are Sadakatsu daimei. Number 3 is a bit of an enigma. All examples so far found on tanto which have a mei which isn't in Sadakazu's or Sadakatsu's hand. Some people have said these blades are gimei and I would have agreed, except the work in the blades does look Gassan and the NBTHK papers them. There doesn't seem any pattern as to why some blades have a kokuin and some don't. Some blades have a kao and some don't. Some have a kokuin and kao. Sadakazu doesn't seem to have been very consistent in the way he signed his blades. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, Does anyone have photos of what Sadakazu's ayasugi looks like? I am yet to find a blade done in ayasugi which I believe was actually signed by Sadakazu. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, I think I found a picture of the Juyo katana. I believe this is also a daimei by Sadakatsu. Cheers, Bryce