mdiddy

Hello, The sword in the link to the auction is not a Kai Gunto. We would need better photos, but from a distance it kind of looks Chinese in origin. While you search for a good sword I would recommend picking up a book for the time being. If you are interested in military swords, try Military Swords of Japan, 1868-1945 by Fuller and Gregory. It will have info that will help you identify Kai Gunto or Shin Gunto vs. potential fakes. Matt

Ludolf, Wow - thanks for sharing these. This is much more than I could have hoped for. It seems shishi was maybe a popular theme for him. I wonder if shishi were as prevalent in the work of Tsunekatsu. Do you see this school's work come along often? Matt

Thanks everyone for your input. Ludolf - this is a great mei analysis - thank you. Would you have any examples of his workmanship in your database you would be able to share? Matt

Chris, Thanks for the prompt reply. Maybe Kikuchi Tsunesada Kao? Matt

Hello, I am looking for help understanding the mei on the Fuchi of this set. I struggle with the first two kanji, maybe the 2nd is tada? The third maybe nobu or hiro? The fourth looks like sada and then a kao. So '_ _ Nobusada kao' or '_ _ Hirosada kao' are my best estimates so far, but I have been unable to locate any fittings artists by those names. The F/K are shibuichi with shishi in keibori. Very detailed. Any feedback on the mei or the set would be greatly appreciated. This will not be used for commercial purposes any time soon. Thanks! Matt

I would recommend mailing the sword to him, letting him inspect it in hand, and then let him tell you what he thinks. That's the best way he, or anybody for that matter, can give you a qualified opinion on whether it can be restored. If the polisher is stateside (assuming so because of the cost per inch quote) then you could probably get it to him and then back to you if it does not work out for ~$40 which is paltry in comparison to the total cost of restoration. From a purely monetary perspective, probably not. Total cost of polish ~$1600. Add a shirasaya, $400. New copper habaki, $400. You are looking at $2k or so total. Look at auction results at Christies and Bonhams recently for some guide on what nice wakizashi's in polish bring. From these costs, I would imagine you will end up under water on the sword, however, since you did not buy it and it was given to you then I think you would only be slightly under water. Also, if it is meaningful then that might make up for any difference. If you choose a qualified togishi then yes, it will improve it and you won't be disappointed. But choose wisely and not cheaply. You get what you pay for. Hope that helps some. Matt Edit - just saw Grey's post and agree completely.

Definitely a copy, probably from China.

I believe you may be right, but before we write the sword off we need to see more. Can you show a picture of the whole nakago (tang)? Also, pics of the blade would help confirm. Matt

I agree. I made an assumption that the modern attribution would be more correct, but that may be unfounded. So let me rephrase - has any research been done to understand the variance between old attributions and modern attributions, particularly of the Honami?

Franco - thanks for the confirmation. This is interesting. Has any body of research ever been conducted on the overall accuracy of old attributions, particularly of the Honami?

I would expect many high-qual mumei koto are probably mumei by virture of suriage so maybe there were more signatures prior to Muromachi.

Do the rules apply to Shu-mei or Kinpun-mei (i.e. would they have to be removed if not trusted before a judgement could be rendered by Shinsa?)? I understand mischief can occur here too, but I'm curious if there is a distinction made since a lacquered-on attribution is a little different physically from a chiseled-in mei. I've heard they too have to be removed if not trusted, which to me seems intense, but would like to confirm what I've only heard second-hand before.

Would this be Kajihei you are referring to? Nihonto Koza has a good section on him with examples. Searching the board will turn up a lot on him too. I remember a post some time back that mentioned a tosho who after a sake-infused evening signed a sword the next day, grunted, and then remarked "gimei in 50 years". Something like that. Can't remember who posted it and couldn't find it to reference but I think it's an interesting take on the subject.

Would you be able to point out how these meis are "close enough"? I'm afraid I see just as much difference between the 1st and 2nd as I do difference with the 3rd. I would give bonus points if you could tell me the crtieria for determining "close enough" at Shinsa. Dude, lining pictures up like this can be very helpful in not only comparing kanji to kanji between meis, but also spacing between kanji as well as lateral/vertical placement on a nakago. Darcy illustrates here: http://www.nihontomessageboard.com/mei_exercise.html Eric uses the same analysis in a recent post, comparing to a shoshin example here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8850 If this is not helping, would you be kind enough to share scans of oshigata from your reference books for additional comparison? Edit: Just saw Roy's update. Perhaps this explains the differences between all three.

Here you go. Plenty of variation between all three, not just Roy's example. As well, there is little info available on this smith - no papered examples online and no oshigata in references.

Nakirishimei also explains why there are different styles for the same mei. The swordsmith had his style. Student A had another style. Student B had another style. The cutting specialist had yet another style. In Seki there were many smiths working together and perhaps signing each others swords as a matter of convenience. For example, see the variations on Asano Kanezane in Slough's pg. 76-79.

I think the two specimens above are the same sword, just photos from different angles (one zoomed out). The difference in signature styles probably has to do with being nakirishimei. See Dr. Stein's site here (reference the line about Showa Era/WWII smiths): http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/promei.htm.

I agree with Harry's thoughts (especially pics of the nakago) and would add the following: First, I would want to know who performed the polish. Second, why not have it papered first and then offer it for sale. Buyers of mumei koto will surely value a reputable paper if they only have online pics to make an expensive decision. There was a US Shinsa this year and might be one next year so no excuses. Third, I would drop the "US recognized Nihonto expert" unless you are willing to state a name or specify certifications. Instead, why not suggest who made the blade and cite references (published, not people's word) to bolster the opinion. Fourth, Muromachi swords don't have the highest reputation for quality. Also, what evidence suggests Muromachi and not Nambokucho or Keicho Shinto? Maybe I would show the evidence proving Muromachi either pictorially or at least talk about it. Fifth, numerous spelling errors makes me question if I should believe the person selling this (this is only my personal opinion and criteria for buying so it may not bother others). Finally, if you really want to sell it then start it for $.99 and don't set a reserve. Hope that helps. Matt

Looks like Kunitsugu to me.

In addition to Yumoto/Kapp/Sato/Robinson, I might also add the following: 100 Masterpieces from the Collection of Dr. Walter A. Compton and Art of the Samurai: Japanese Arms and Armor, 1156-1868 (companion to last year's Met exhibit). I would add these not so much for technical insight but rather for the high-level overview essays, detailed large photographs, and to Carlo's chagrin that they are in English. I do agree with Carlo regarding fine sites online and they may be a more efficient delivery of info than something like Yumoto. For fittings, how about Lethal Elegance: The Art of Samurai Sword Fittings for overview, pictures, and in English and Masayuki Sasano's Early Japanese Sword Guards: Sukashi Tsuba for at least the pictures. I would be particularly keen to hear Ford and other's opinions on what books would be good for a new student of fittings (which I am ).

Looks like a WWII-era machine made tanto. The kanji on the blade say "Suishinshi Masahide".

First, I respect Reinhard’s opinions and I appreciate the position he offers on many topics. While disagreeable, I look at his posts as challenges to the initial poster to prove/disprove their case, thereby acting as a quality filter. While sometimes unpleasant, without filters like his, the board could quickly devolve into a celebration of all swords/fittings with no vocal filters to discern key differences and identify what separates quality from quantity. However, I want to make a recommendation. If you disagree with Reinhard’s disagreement then why not ask him to back up his opinion with facts. If he does not reply then keep asking, LOUDLY, a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time to ad nauseum. If he still does not reply then it may make his argument look weak since he avoids. But if you keep asking, and take the debate to PM if necessary, then at some point you may get his factual justification. From that justification you can learn and if you still disagree then take the opportunity to challenge his assertions with facts. And by facts, I mean post pictures, scan images from references, post links to reputable websites, cite highly regarded books verbatim, etc. It will take time to gather facts but you will probably learn something as you do. Replying with just a counter-opinion and no facts is weak, stokes a pissing match, and you know what they say about opinions – everybody’s got one… While the debate can be unpleasant, turn nasty, etc, if it sticks to facts then it is at least grounded allowing everyone to watch and learn, but more importantly when its over, there is a factual grounding for the understanding that is reached which might lead to a higher understanding than before. An example of what I am recommending can be seen here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7880. While the topic was trivial, Reinhard’s opinion was challenged, a debate ensued, facts were presented, and maybe we all learned something (at least I did). Back to the initial post, I am looking forward to seeing from Ed pictures showing clearly hada, hamon, hataraki, boshi and all under different lighting conditions if possible so we can see how his sword stands up to additional scrutiny. So far we only see mostly the fittings and I do not think that is what Reinhard is challenging.

I think that pretty well covers all the bases and is a fair conclusion for us.

Were swords purely art at the time of their creation?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artifact I agree we can not get into the mind of the smith. However, based on this previous assertion: I would estimate the smith was first making a practical weapon (though to his eye it must have been delightful and perfected art).