Leatherdog

Reinhard, No hard feelings... The rust seems consistent with other "natural" rust I've seen. Perhaps it's the photos? It doesn't appear to be flaking off anywhere, and I am inclined to believe the red rust on the nakago is a product of the last 60 years. Do you think additional photos in different lighting might help?

I hardly think Darcy Brockbank posts "nonsense" on his website. I was able to find where I'd originally read this theory, and copied it below. It is in reference to a shinshinto daisho. The original can be seen on his site. "The katana is unsigned, as is the wakizashi. This is something that one encounters every now and then in the Shinshinto period. It is theorized that with growing unrest towards the end of the Edo period that some smiths did not sign their work if it was going to the "other side" from where they stood. That is, should the owner be captured or killed, the work could not easily be traced back to them and so by not signing they could avoid potential punishment. I do not know how much weight this theory holds, I do know that mumei Shinshinto pieces are not uncommon and so there must be some reason behind it." I said before that I wasn't sure how accurate this idea was, but it is quite logical. Are you implying that the samurai and swordsmiths were stupid? I'm quite sure that, though dedicated and aggressive, the samurai and smiths calculated risks. I've probably read more about samurai culture than you think...but this is off topic and quite ridiculous. Yes, well I've seen antique pistols that laid "neglected" in a drawer for decades that looked brand new...I've also seen some that were put away in wet holsters...they looked a bit rougher. It's foolish to say that because one sword recieved no attention and happened to be stored in fairer conditions, that all neglected swords should look a certain way. We can argue back and forth all day, and it won't help me learn anything about my blade. I'm trying not to be overly defensive, but I detect a slightly hostile tone, and I'm not sure why. I'm open to the possibilities, as I bought the sword relatively cheap, and like it as a display piece if nothing else. I just want to learn as much as possible about it from those with more knowledge and experience - not to have it picked apart when it doesn't seem to warrant it. If my blade is of "average quality", fine. If it is really good, better...but I know enough to state with conviction that it is not junk. What makes you believe the nakago was altered at all? I can't see any evidence of re-shaping or a signature being removed. With one mekugi-ana, I don't think it has been shortened, as that would put the original length of the nakago at over 8.5" ...

I have read that during some of the political turmoil during the shinshinto times, that smiths sometimes feared that blades they signed would show up in the hands of the "losing team" and they would face consequences from the those who came to power...whether that's accurate or not, I don't know. I have, however limited my experience might be, seen several swords made within "the last 150 years" that were of at least decent quality, and were ubu and mumei. Also, as I've already stated, (more than once, I believe) the red rust in the pictures is on top of a darker, smoother patina. It doesn't "flake off to reveal clean steel." Again, wouldn't one expect to see "fresh" rust on the nakago of a sword exposed to a humid environment (attic, maybe...) for some period over the last 60 years? The blade, after all, has minor damage from rust as well. To me, it seems rather obvious that this is no attempt to "fake" a koto blade, and I've never asserted that it was older than shinshinto... There seems to be no real effort to "pretend" to be anything other than what it is - and that is a shinshinto piece (at least loosely) styled after a koto one. My original question was aimed at determining the school that produced this COPY of an earlier sword - Not wondering if it was 600 years old. I hope that clears up a thing or two...

Franco, I can only hope it's a juyo waiting to be papered! :D Thanks for being more specific... The darkness of the steel and hamon is an effect of my photography. Tons of nie and readily apparent hada with the blade in hand. The condition of the polish is not so good...someone used something coarse to remove some areas of "spider rust" on the blade. Lots of uchiko later, the activities are becoming visible, but the sword really needs a fresh polish. The tsuka-ito is old, just clean. As for the nakago, it is well shaped, and the nakago-jiri is carefully finished. There is red rust on top of an older, darker patina. I think the sword was exposed to excessive humidity at one point, which would explain the fresh rust on the nakago and the rusted areas on the blade. The menuki look fine, but I'm no expert. I appreciate the input!

F/K & Tsuba pics. The photo of the menuki I already posted shows pretty much everything there is to see about the material under the ito. The tsuba doesn't give the impression of being very old, but the F/K and menuki look like they are. Interestingly, the saya has about a 4in "boot" where the toe of a leather combat cover is attached. Don't know why the rest of the cover was removed and this was left, but it's there. Seems to pretty conclusively show that the blade was carried during the war, whichi seems odd considering its size. Must have been a pretty tall guy!

Franco, Not trying to react too defensively, but what in the world is suspect? We're not trying to argue that this is some Koto masterpiece...shoot, it's not even signed. In fact, no one has even made a statement as to what it is...so what doesn't "look right"? I can assure you, it is Japanese. It is probably shinshinto. It is almost certainly no older than that. Beyond it being a long blade, probably from the 1800s, no other "claims" have yet been made. Please, if you see something that doesn't look "right", be more detailed in what you see that makes you feel the way you do. I'm all ears. AZPhil, I'm still guessing at what is under the tsuka-ito. It looks to be lacquer with something in it...but I don't know what. All of the little "inserts" are roughly circular, and an off-white. I haven't seen one like this before, but then again I'm not widely traveled. S/F

What looks suspect to you?

$1400 (!) at the big show in Tulsa, OK last October. I remember going as a kid, maybe ten years ago and seeing tons of swords (way before I had the budget to buy any...) The last time I was there, I saw maybe 50-75 in the whole event (4000 tables), including gunto. I, of course, bought the two bargains.

This probably should have been posted under "Nihonto" instead of the general forum...sorry.

More pics

Bought this one at a gun show from a military antiques dealer...got a good deal, but the question is "how good?" Any help placing the school and value range would be much appreciated. I don't know much about it, but the dimensions are impressive, and it would be gorgeous in full polish. Nagasa: 30.0in Sori: 2.3cm Motokasane: 8mm Sakikasane: 5mm Motohaba: 3.3cm Sakihaba: 2.8cm Kissaki: 11.4cm

Closeups of the mei as requested...

Jacques, Now that you mention it, I haven't seen an oshigata for a katana that wasn't signed katana-mei... The information I've dug up on Naokatsu states that he lived in Edo as well, which doesn't support the signature being genuine. With the blade in hand, I agree that it is inscribed "Oite Echizen Mizuhara" (Thanks "Nobody") The question is, if Naokatsu didn't forge this blade, who did? If it was Kajihei, would he not have signed it appropriately and likely dated it as was common on Naokatsu's work? He certainly would have known how a Naokatsu should look. The "Nao" character on my blade is also missing the common ascending strike on the left, but I seen a couple of papered swords that used the same character I have. It seems that if the blade was faked, the faker (whoever they were) would have used the more common signature and style of mei, and would have done so because that's what would look familiar to a potential buyer. What are the odds that it's just an un-characteristic work actually done by Naokatsu - I've read that it was quite common for him (and other smiths of the time) to work outside of his style dependent upon what the customer wanted...Do you think he traveled from Edo to do a "house call" for a customer in Echizen Of course, even then, why would he change his signature? The yasurimei are also faded, and the nakago looks older than shinshinto to me...this raises the question of "older than Naokatsu, or made to look older by Naokatsu?" I don't have anywhere near the experience or knowledge to make claims...just enough to ask a few questions and play devil's advocate...and get myself progressively more confused. Please keep the opinions coming!

Stephen, It was at one of the big gun shows in Tulsa OK last October...I was at the Field Artillery school at Ft Sill for about five months, and drove up to the Tulsa shows whenever I could. That particular trip was productive...I bought this blade and a spectacular 30" (!) Shinshinto Katana (mumei) with a 4" kissaki from the same guy. You don't want know how much the 30" blade was... :D As for the "Naokatsu" (I hope I can remove the " " one of these days It is in Kai-Gunto mounts, with a tassel in great condition. Leather-covered plain wooden saya.

More pics

Hello, This is my first post here...Great site! I've translated this mei as "Shoji Jiro Taro Fujiwara Naokatsu." I haven't had any luck on the inscription on the opposite side of the nakago. Can anyone else read it? I hope it will provide some insight as to whether the signature is genuine or suspect. I bought this sword from a militaria dealer at a gun show who made no claims about the signature, and I didn't recognize it myself until I got home and began to research the blade. I'd love to hear everyone's opinion as to whether they think it is really a Naokatsu or not. I can post additional photos and information if it'll help. I saw the other post about Naokatsu blades, and, while very interesting, it didn't help me reach a conclusion about my sword. Nagasa: 27.5 in Sori: 2.1cm Motokasane: 7mm Sakikasane: 5mm Motohaba: 3.2cm Sakihaba: 2.2cm Kissaki: 4cm I'm a pretty low-level student, so please be patient with me if I use the wrong terminology. Thanks in advance!