Janrudolph

Thomas, thank you! I am hoping that other forum members will chime in here, not because I doubt your kind opinion in any way, but it would do me good to hear a few words of concurrence from other sources also. On the matter of the faker, in my case the one who wrote Nobuyoshi as the smith and inscribed the 8th year of Enpo as the date, I would like to know if my hunch is correct, that those we call "fakers", those who create gimei, are not necessarily bladesmiths in their own right? Is it at all possible that someone with devious intent can take a mumei blade and inscribe smith and date on the nakago without being a smith? Would such a faker be the norm or the exception? Would any faker on the street in Kanbun era times be literate, or would our faker perhaps employ a literate henchman to do the inscribing for him? Johan

That's important information, Jacques! The machis on my katana are still nicely full-size, which tells me my sword has probably not been exposed to multiple polishing. I'll soon be posting pics of the machis in my other thread under the Nihonto board, titled "On the subject of sugata". Thank you. Johan

Thomas, to you my sincere thanks. I would wholeheartedly agree to your notion as you expressed it: "If shape/era are the only questions, you have provided us with enough information." I think it best if I confine my questions to shape/era, and get what information I can from the contribution of all you knowledgeable guys out there! So please, what can be said about the shape/era of my katana sword? (Look, I know I'm doting on this sword of mine, like a proud dad over his rather unattractive baby, but with my pensioner budget, this is the only Nihonto katana I possess. I have not even séén another nihonto katana in my 75 years, outside of pictures. That is how isolated I am here in my coastal town. I realise the energy I'm spending on this sword is wasted (in a sense). But this is the only one I have to enthuse over.) Thanks, guys. Please let your info to me be forthcoming! Johan

So, have I enough pics and measurements now to allow you guys to kindly help me out with a discussion on this blade in respect of sugata? I would be ever grateful! Johan

Sorry, the image is upside down, I had wanted it the right way up!

Christian, I am overwhelmed! You have really put me on the right track and I'm going to have to really dig in into those references! I thank you - you don't how much I am indebted to you! I'll post a pic of the shinogi as soon as possible, as well as the kissaki as you request. You further suggest kanbun shinto sugata, and on that suggestion I need now to point out that the mei, which I have agreed to assume is gimei, gives the smith as Shinano (no) kami Fujiwara rai Nobuyoshi, who was active during the years 1673-1704 (Hawley's #NOB 592). The date, probably as unreliable as the mei, dates to 1680. That's more recent than kanbun shinto 1661-1673. Logic tells me that the blade cannot be older than 1680, because why would a faker take an older mumei blade and put this smith's name and 1680 date on it??? Would it not make more sense (from a faker's point of view) to take a younger blade and try to make it look like the work of an earlier smith? Unless my logic fails me, it means I must accept that my blade is necessarily post-1680. Or must I rather think that the faker has taken an older mediocre blade (perhaps kanbun shinto age) and put a good smith's name and date on it to make it look more desireable? I need coffee now! Johan.

Thank you, Jacques. May I ask what the importance is, that is attached to the size of the machis? Johan.

Forgive me, Steve S, but your request has made me a little bit confused. I was of the opinion that in discussing sugata it's going to be all about the shape of the blade, and a number of accurate measurements is of great importance. We know the sugata or overall form is the first thing to be considered when appraising a blade. In my post #2 I photographed the blade both sides and my blade measurements are in #1 and #3. I will most readily provide extra photos if you could specify what you would like to see. If you are referring to file marks on the nakago, there are none whatsoever. And the nakagi is ubu. Please advise about extra photos! I see many ideas (in other threads) have been expressed about sugata: for instance: "The shape tells you the period". "The fact is it can only really do that if it is ubu and all it can tell you is that it wasn't made before xxxx". "The shape can't tell you how old a sword is, but it can tell you how new it is." As I indicated to Ken: I am wondering if, through sugata, we can place this blade of mine somewhere in time, or province, or smith, or school? Johan

Brian & Jean C, thank you. Concerning my question in my post #12 above, about the effect many polishes have on blade weight & dimensions, I have though it better to move to the nihonto board. I would be glad to see you there. Thanks. Johan.

Thank you, Jean, Steve S and Ken. Well, Ken, Steve S has kindly suggested shinto from the blade's sugata, so yes, I am most definitely interested in what the sugata can tell us about the blade's place in the Japanese historical timeline. This sugata is a new area of investigation for me, and I know little about "reading" sugata. What I can add to the measurements already given above, is that the nakago seemingly has a ubu nakago form, the sori is of the type called torii sori, the blade has two shallow grooves called futasuji, the tip of the nakago looks to me like kuri jiri, the kissaki is chu kissaki, the boshi is komaru, the hamon is suguha, and there is a kiku-mon with 16 petals above what I must assume is gimei. So, if Steve S's guess is not spot-on, what do all these measurements and extra info tell me otherwise? Can one place this blade somewhere in time, or province, or smith, or school? Your help will be of great importance in my quest for a better understanding of nihonto. Thanks, guys! Johan

Three remarks by me while waiting for your kind contributions: 1) I mistakenly called the hi on my blade "double bohi". I believe it should be "Fatasuji-hi", two parallel grooves that run alongside each other. 2) I see the one blade in my picture is longer than the other one. That is my erroneous adjustment of the pic size. Sorry! That's one blade, both sides. 3) The blade's "naked" weight is 583 gram. Thank you. Johan

Good notion, Jean. My feeling is that with every polish, a blade loses some weight. I cannot tell how many polishes this blade has gone through, but if there has been so many that the inner steel is coming through, the blade should be "light". But how light is "light"? The habaki fits very nicely, but it looks recent, and could have been fitted to suit the "light" blade. You're suggesting what could seem to some folks like a poorly forged blade could seem to others like a "tired" blade? It makes sense, to me at least. Johan

Friends, the subject of sugata has me fully engrossed at the moment. And perplexed. Other concerns aside, please allow me to give you the measurements (correctly taken, to my knowledge) of my katana blade, plus two pics taken with as much care as I can. I ask you to give me your kind thoughts concerning what these measurements tell you about the blade. Total length: 828 mm Nagasa: 629 mm Sori: 11 mm Motokasane: 6,3 mm Sakikasane: 4,2 mm Motohaba: 30,1 mm Sakihaba: 19,1 mm Hamon: suguha Hi: double bohi. I'm going to try posting the two pics correctly (point up).

That's true, Barry. Thanks. In this respect I was just yesterday reading about a papered 600 year old katana by Shikkake Norinaga which was unsigned and undated. I could only assume the mounting was done later. Do you know of any such ancient katana which could be proved to still have its original koshirae in acceptable condition? Perhaps this is more common than I presume? Just asking.

Jean (who hails from that mysterious deep valley) and Steve, thank you. I'm fortunate to have been given your thoughts on this topic. I've never stopped learning from you guys. Well, the sad fact seems to be that my katana with the very attractive MEI and exciting NENGO seems not to be one of the high-end blades. Not only Brian but other forum guys also have assured me my "Nobuyoshi" is a genuine nihonto blade dating back a few centuries and I should not fret too much about the gimei assumption. They have pointed out to me that the "islands" that I see where the hada should have been is actually the core metal coming through. And that points to poor forging. But the suguha hamon looks nice and curves back beautifully at the kissaki. The neat double bohi is also a very pleasing feature. In closing, I think this blade with its gimei and false dating is a better deal than a similar blade without any writing on it. In pursuing the life and times of this smith whose name appears on the tang, and getting to know a little better the intricacies of kanji and their meaning, I feel I have personally gotten to KNOW this man. Great fun and steep learning curve, all because this sword came my way! And to think that great collector and remarkable character, the late Gus Vollmer, had his hands on this blade in the 1990's, cleaning it up for someone to enjoy! Johan

Steve, I greatly appreciate your kind answer, which was very enlightening to me, and also thanks to Thomas. I'm going to look at your link now, Thomas. While we are on this point of a date inscription on a nakago, there are still two questions bugging me: 1) We call a signature MEI, but is there a proper/specific name we should use when we refer to the date inscription? I am assuming it can not be MEI also. 2) I have made peace with the fact that the chances of an unpapered katana being gimei, is very high indeed. But what about the date inscription? After I have assumed that a signature is gimei, how do I consider the validity of a date on that same katana? Why would the smith falsify the date on which the blade is completed? Your kind opinions please. Thanks. Johan

Friends, you might think me overly curious or even weird to even ask these questions. And we have all heard that curiosity killed the cat! But please bear with me. I have diligently searched for the answers myself, but not being Japanese and initially knowing zero about kanji, I have repeatedly come up against a brick wall. Here are the kanji describing a blade which is purported to have been made on a lucky day in August, in the eighth year of the Enpo era. That's 1680. I know that these kanji are of an outdated kind, and I suppose modern young Japanese would probably struggle to read them or understand the meaning. 延 宝 八 年 八 月 吉 辰. Looking at the first two kanji, I have found that they individually mean "prolong" or "stretching", and "treasure", "wealth" or "valuables". Put together, they are seemingly called "nobe takara". The other kanji are easier. What I would like to know, is: What will it sound like if a Japanese person who understands the kanji pronounces the date as it appears on the tang. In my own struggles, I have come up with: "nobe takara hachi nen hachi gatsu ji chen". My question is based on the assumption that every kanji has a pronunciation, and this string of eight kanji consists of eight words, each with a pronunciation in the proper context. Please, friends, how am I doing? Please don't laugh out loud. Or perhaps do! I probably deserve it? Thank you. Johan

I'm on a topic here which seems not to enjoy much interest from nihonto enthusiasts. But let me tell of one more (to me) interesting discovery related to Japanese swords. The Spanish galleon San Diego succumbed during a sea battle and sank near Manila in 1600. Various artifacts recovered included about 30 Japanese sword parts. See the pic I am posting. So nihonto swords were being taken away from Japan since very early days. Johan

Classic remark, Jon, and I think many agree with you! I'm interested to know how frequently many of us, sitting with a beautiful katana on their lap, sipping a drink, also lapse into thought in wonderment about Japanese history and where a favourite blade one possesses fits into the picture. When I questioned how samurai/nihonto swords first got into South Africa, the question naturally expands into when the first Japanese swords might have left their home country and taken away to foreign places? It is documented that "a trading ship was blown off course and landed in 1543 on the Japanese island of Tanegashima, just south of Kyushu. The three Portuguese traders on board were the first Europeans to set foot in Japan." These Portuguese and those after them were allowed to trade, and so I must assume from that, that swords were also on the ship inventories of goods taken from Japan. The first ever? I might be grossly mistaken! Johan

Friends, I don't have nihonto of great value or importance, but my interest and my ongoing research into nihonto has put me onto a number of interesting sidelines. When thinking about my swords, I often wonder: how did samurai/nihonto swords first get into South Africa? When did the very first nihonto katana reach our shores? The question is easier to answer in the case of shin-gunto, because of the surrender of the Japanese and the practice of servicemen taking home swords as a curiosity. Granted, a few ancient blades are amongst this group. But I'm thinking earlier. Shipping since the earliest clippers must have brought many swords belonging to passengers immigrating, or just to sell. Early auction houses in SA might also have brought in numbers of nihonto. Antique shops throughout the country, as well as big collectors, probably acquired their swords mostly from such sources. But the very first genuine samurai sword? We will never know. Regarding my own nihonto katana, I have decided to pester the previous owner until his patience with me breaks into little pieces. He admitted he bought it from an antique shop in the 1990's. It was missing the menuki, and the leather ito was falling apart. He had someone re-do the scabbard, duplicating the petal design, and rewrap the handle with cord. Made a new menuki set, copying an original he had. The blade must have been badly stored for many years, as the pitting attests. Amateur polishing was done by a person commissioned by him, and my katana is now what it is. That's my story. But the saving grace of my sword is that it is the real deal and is a genuine antique samurai blade. What would it be able to tell me, if it could talk, recalling where it spent its years through centuries since 1680 till it arrived in SA.... when? Pondering on that keeps me going. Johan.

Thank you so much, Brian, for all this info! I am greatly impressed by this sparkling character. What a life! To you I also want to express my concern for your Covid thing and hope you will shrug it off soon! Strength & blessings. Johan

Goodday friends. This is my request for info from whoever of the South African collectors can kindly help. In previous posts by myself I wrote that I love to research my genuine nihonto katana fully & also compile a provenance for it. In discussions on this katana Brian mentioned that it was most likely one of the restored swords by "Adrian & Gus". I have found out that Adrian is Adrian Collopy, member of the SA Arms & Armour Society. But I cannot find out who "Gus" is. I just know he passed away. The pre-previous owner of my katana said that Gus polished the blade sometime after 1990. What is the last name of Gus, when did he pass away & what was the nature of his katana enthusiasm and activity? Did he have a business name and where did he work? Please understand my inquiries into Gus is a result of my researching my katana, there's no ulterior motive behind it; it is just my way of acting out my interest and staying active in my collecting hobby. This is like a sideline into the area of biography. Please can Brian or whoever knows something about Gus respond? Johan.

Dave, I watched James Miller's videos and was fascinated by them. Not too much info on the Boy's sword he showed, most probably I was feeling a bit sullen because my tanto was of inferior quality compared to his! (A good point of my sword is that all fittings seem to be original to the blade. Nothing seems to have been re-fitted.) So what is strange, to me at least, is that a "rare" thing like a Boy's tanto could have been produced in both high & low quality. Differences in quality come to the fore once mass-production is begun, is that not a fair statement? Could a Boy's sword ever have been mass-produced? And another thing I have been wondering about: should a lower-quality Boy's sword like this tanto be expected to be found in Edo times or rather later as in Meiji? Johan