Franco

Well, Jacques, actually Nagamitsu's double boshi was on a National Treasure "tachi." Chikakage made this double boshi on the imaged naginata which at present is papered by the NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon as a katana - naginata-naoshi. Mr. Tanobe agrees with that assessment. According to the sword's owner the polisher also agrees with that assessment. Real? Real? Don't be stupid. Stop digging! p.s. the original image I posted can be clicked on twice to get an enlarged image that shows a full boshi with kaeri.

First, the Nagamitsu with the same double boshi was designated a National Treasure sword. Secondly, I don't think that the aesthetics of the boshi mattered much to the samurai cutting down his opponent, nor the unfortunate person being cut down. Thirdly, Chikakage has been designated a National Treasure sword smith with more than 70 swords rated Juyo or above. I kind of get the feeling that he knew what he was doing. Don't you? Stop digging! Done here with this nonsense.

Jacques, for a scientist I find your position here to be quite closed minded. Tsk, tsk, tsk! The image I posted earlier of a naginata-naoshi that clearly, clearly, retains a bosh with a lengthy turnback, kaeri, was made by none other than Chikakage, student of Nagamitsu and forge mate of Kagemitsu, the two smiths presented in your latest post. By the way, that boshi is a double boshi. It has a double turnback. I later researched that and found only one example of a sword with a double turnback boshi almost exactly the same. A Nagamitsu. Does the fact that this sword has a double boshi have something to do with the FACT that it retained a boshi with a turnback following naoshi? Maybe. But it doesn't matter, unless you're someone attempting to recreate this example, technique. The reality is that after naoshi it still has a boshi with turnback. It is frivolous to argue and try to prove otherwise And, let me state this again. EACH NAGINATA-NAOSHI MUST BE EXAMINED INDIVIDUALLY AND INDEPENDENTLY IN ORDER TO SEE, SEE, WITH YOUR OWN EYES, EXACTLY WHAT REMAINS! What remains is reality. What remains is only evidence of what happened. Unless yakitsume is witnessed and presented in every single example, if there is even one exception, then the statement that yakitsume must be the result of every naoshi is false! t + f = f, 7th grade science. The fact that the NBTHK does not differentiate between the types of naginata when addressing this category of naginata-naoshi, instead placing all nagnata-naoshi in the same category hints to the fact that exceptions and variations are recognized. Why is this so difficult to accept. Heavy sigh ....

The one additional suggestion here is to use "strapping tape" which gives additional form, rigidity, structure.

So, this is what experiencing "Deja vu all over again is like." Here today, here tomorrow. Desire is the cause of suffering.

Jacques, there is no confusion. Naginata naoshi and naginata (zukuri) naoshi all fall under and into one category, naginata. Naginata are pole arms. Therefore, even when they have been modified they will all be recognized as naginata-naoshi. A nagamaki designation will only be given when there is documentation that a naginata was mounted as a nagamaki. Otherwise, it remains as a naginata. So, then, what is true? What is true will be determined by evaluating each piece independently. That, unless someone talks the NBTHK into redefining established definitions and terms. And as Michael has said here as well as others before, making blanket statements when it comes to nihonto should be approached with clear attention and caution. Had it been said, "naginata-naoshi (zukuri) will end in yakitsume," most likely no one would have batted an eye. Further, you used the words "real", "true", and "copies". Yes, there are indeed copies, but these words are suggestive that some of the "naginata-naoshi images and oshigata of" posted in this thread are just copies, too. No, they are not copies. The shape of these polearms evolved through time. They are not copies, they are true, and they are real! Words and language like "zukuri" are essential/critical to say what you mean and mean what you say.

Are you saying that the NBTHK is making the wrong call?

Jacques, I'll repeat. A naginata-naoshi can be modified at one end or both ends. Obviously, it is necessary to study both ends to see and figure out what has been done as time travel has yet to be invented to go back and see exactly how or why. Below is an image of a Kamakura period sword that was presented at one of our study group meetings. It was designated by the NBTHK as being a katana / naginata naoshi. While it may not be entirely clear in the image, this sword retained it's entire boshi including kaeri (tempering along the mune). It didn't take a big leap to figure out that this piece was modified at one end and perhaps not at the other, at least not much. The fact that it is tempered along the top of the mune gives some indication that whoever modified this piece tried to retain as much of the original sword as possible. Clearly that is not the case with many of these naginata-naoshi.

One thing to keep in mind when entering into the Edo period, Shinto in particular, is that many of the pieces we see will be copies of shortened and modified blades from earlier time periods. The question then becomes "is it live or is it Memorex?" That's where kantei comes in. There will almost always be clues that give the sword away. But sometimes copies will be so good that they fool even the experienced. It's only after the answer is revealed and discussed where participants will be kicking themselves for having overlooked some detail.

Nope. Naginata can be modified at one end or both ends. Each piece must be evaluated independently. A yakitsume boshi can and will be evidence that the sword was modified at both ends. There will be examples where the turn back is fully retained. You can call it an exception if it makes you feel better.

I could agree with a Ko-Bizen call here based upon these images. Nioi-guchi is what I would expect for a Ko-Bizen blade, but not for a Rai sword. Shape is a bit off for Rai as well. This sword looks tired to these eyes. Which might explain blank patches of hada. Bad reputation? Hmm. Opinions are opinions. They can be correct. They can be close. They can be incorrect. The sword confirms the mei and not the other way around. The sword confirms the origami/opinion and not the other way around. Going by these principles will generally keep you from getting into trouble. Buy the sword, not the paper/opinion. Desire is the cause of suffering. https://markussesko.com/2018/05/02/honami-koson/ https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/8660-honami-koson/

Have you checked to see if it is a lefthanded screw? Or perhaps a compression fitting?

"Bad swords hurt your eyes!"

Looks like a WWI era sword. Koto ... hmm, perhaps in someone's dreams.

Something to be aware of and keep in mind about cutting test swords. Arnold Frenzel would talk about the fact that cutting tests were often performed to test the integrity of the sword in addition to its cutting ability. Even then, flaws may not show up until later when the sword is put to polish. Ouch!

I don't know of anyone here in the States more knowledgeable about cutting test signatures than Brian Tschernega. Who can even restore missing cutting test inlay. It is almost for certain Brian will be in attendance in Chicago as well as all the other major Japanese sword shows. Regards,

This goose looks cooked. Dry, scaly, = fire damage. A polisher could/will confirm to be certain.

If you haven't read Yamanaka on the subject of utsuri vs utsuri like effect then you're missing something. And if you have read it, read it again. Although Yamanaka has a section on utsuri, you'll find other tidbits scattered about. Some of the information will only become clear when and after you actually see an example of what he's talking about. So that's what he meant! I've already mentioned the words intentional and incidental. In my experience utsuri can be both. Intentional utsuri becomes obvious. It has a definite pattern. It has uniformity. There's no mistaking it when you see it. Incidental utsuri will be more like an afterthought, it will have a randomness to it. An utsuri like effect will be dull and lifeless in comparison to real utsuri. The nioi and nie (if it can even be called that) will not be defined. It will lack reflectiveness, brightness, whiteness. Bizen nioi utsuri will be like looking at a surface covered in diamond dust. Rai and Soshu nie utsuri will appear like individual specs of diamonds clustered together. These descriptions are my own. On top quality A+ utsuri works, the steel begins to have that wet look that is only seen on top quality swords. Form follows function. Form follows function. Form follows function. One advantage of early swords were that swordsmiths had direct feedback. The teacher student relationship was chained and unbroken by disruption.

If you know how to look at utsuri why are you asking me? But, since you asked, utsuri? No, perhaps an utsuri like effect. Which is not the same. Saiha gives an utsuri like effect, but it's not utsuri according to Yamanaka. Effect is not the same as what my eyes are seeing. Even when you do see utsuri, it becomes apparent that certain types of utsuri are quite intentional. While other types are more incidental.

Normally it is done after the foundation polish is finished. Which allows the polisher to polish the hi that has been cut while finishing the rest of the sword. You can try asking Brian Tschernega.

Understood. Still, it needs to be made clear that there is a world of difference. Even between old swords there are significant differences between the types of utsuri. p.s. looking at your image again I would describe this utsuri as being more like a second hamon than genuine utsuri, a shadow of the hamon, a reflection of the hamon.

While this appears to be utsuri, and this smith may have discovered a technique for producing this utsuri, sorry to say that it is no where near the level, quality, and control of utsuri seen and produced on earlier Koto period swords. If only it were easy.

The name of this smith? Images of his work? Or even verbal descriptions? Type of utsuri he's producing? Thanks.

"Fell out of fashion." Hmm. I believe Albert Yamanaka would not agree.

Cannot speak to the genuineness or authenticity here. However, it is not unusual to see the same design with slight differences and variation by the same artist or even across schools. Over the years it was always of interest to run across drawings of fittings including tsuba, and then at some point actually running across and seeing the actual exact piece made.