Mikaveli

Bump on this thread. 🙂 I've now found a few examples, but sold before I got there. Would consider any tanto or ko-wakizashi (c. 50cm or less). Ubu preferred, and anything papered would be ideal - but anything considered.

I bought one, purely because I wanted to look at the cross-section and composition. Obviously, without it being a known or highly skilled smith, the use of this is limited, but it was still interesting enough for me to buy. If I could ever find one of one of my favourite smiths, whilst I'd shed an inter tear for the loss, I'd be something I'd pay good money for (not sure how many would possibly fit into that category though - seems mainly mumei and arsenal blades).

No, the 1954 is specifically for curved swords, the 100 year rules is in general for offensive weapons. The "Ninja sword ban" goes after single straight cutting edge swords, between 14-24" and with a "tanto" style point. Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 currently makes available defences that can generally be applied to all the offensive weapons on the prohibited list in respect of: The weapon is antique (over 100 years old). Functions carried out on behalf of the Crown or of a visiting force. The item being of historical importance. Making the weapons available to a museum or gallery in certain circumstances. Educational purposes. Production of certain films or certain television programmes. Theatrical performances and rehearsals of such performances. 5.3. For curved swords, there are further specific defences. Made before 1954. Made at any other time according to the traditional methods of sword making by hand. Religious reasons (this includes for zombie-style knives and machetes as well). Religious ceremonies (this includes for zombie-style knives and machetes as well). Use in permitted activities (for example a historical re-enactment or sporting activity). Blunt.

From these two photos, it looks like you've removed significant detail and material from the tang: If we're talking about conservation, to me, that's a destructive operation (ironically, as you've asserted that the Japanese have no regard for originality). It doesn't appear to have given any more insight into the object, nor influenced its longevity - so I'm struggling to understand the rationale. 🤷‍♂️

With a smoothbore barrel longer than 24", that'd be on a shotgun cert. Shorter, or rifled, it'd be a firearms certificate. To own black powder, you need an explosives licence - but instead modern black powder substitutes can be used (not normal smokeless/ nitro propellants).

When it's made would largely dictate whether it's legal to own or not (typically has to be 100 years old or more). Using an antiquated ignition system (matchlock) means you don't need to worry if the calibre is considered obsolete or not. Whether it's capable of firing or not is largely irrelevant - it'd be legal to own as a curio. If you (ever) intend to shoot it, you'd need a firearms certificate (shotgun cert for smooth bores).

I think that's a huge over generalisation. In many areas, Japan evidence a lot of regard for originality etc. I'm also not really sure what your question is, you mentioned both laws and principles - but the distinction is important. Are you asking about private property, museum conservation, or specifically government and officially recognised/protected objects (Kokuho National Treasures or Juyo Bijutsu / Important Cultural Objects)?

When I first read the title of this post, I thought you were asking about things like the export process and the laws preventing export of important cultural objects etc. Instead, it seems to be alluding more to conservation and restoration practices. For nihonto, having a sword polished etc. is a generally accepted practice when properly done. But in the medal or coin collecting communities, this would be sacrilegious. However, I don't think it's correct to contrast this as a Japanese verses European practice - as the conservation approach varies by subject area. Look at how old buildings are treated (or classic cars or locomotives). It's very common, at least in the UK for 800+ year old buildings to be continuously modified. Lightning, signage, heating systems, replacement stonework, wooden frames etc. Only in very rare cases is a building just "stabilised" and left untouched. For Japanese swords, as with buildings, their utility didn't cease in one generation - so they were maintained and used for many centuries before the Haitorei etc. pushed them more towards irrelevance as functional objects. My point being, when a maintenance cycle has already been established for several centuries, if we stop (your "European principles") are we actually preserving something, or losing even more living heritage... Just as a very minor aside, when viewing objects in relic condition I think it does the original craftsmen and culture of the time a disservice. Modern eyes see junk (rusty, bent, broken etc.) rather than the technology, skill and ultimately art of the time period.

The comments here are really funny - many pointing out the kanteisho and sword don't match... My personal favourite was someone asking for a more detailed photo, only to be told they've reach their 10 photo limit - great excuse. 🙈

Both the previous two sellers said it was an Owari blade. (I thought 備州 - bishu - was Owari?)

From what I've found, this sword was sold by a reputable dealer in July 2022 (no papers, nor claim). Then, by April 2023, it was for sale again, this time claiming the papers had been lost by a previous collector... 9 months seems like a short timeframe for getting a sword through shinsha and returned with TokuHo (only to immediately lose the certificate)? The only reference to this mei, that I can find in reference books or on the net, is this sword.

I'm a little confused here too, as this explanation differs from the (Western) usage of the terms I've encountered. It says 磨上げ茎 is "suriage" when the tang is modified at the polishing stage. Whereas, I'd always used the term for when the tang is cut down, later in the blades life. By "cap" it sounded like they were describing when the blade is polished, if the end of the nakago is left altered (shaved) as part of the polishing process, it may be cut down to prevent the blade becoming brittle. Exposed grain / inner steel leading to corrosion perhaps?

Do you have a picture of the nakago / Tang? I don't know how common the smith is, but maybe someone is more likely to recognise a picture of the sword or its tang (matching the cert).

I'll have a dig around my books - not sure when the latest smith was - but I'll see if I can find out.

Does anyone know (or are there any good references) how the usage of the Naginata changed over time? For example pre, during and post the Sengoku period - and likewise after the Meiji restoration. When did the school gender separation begin etc?

Interested in seeing examples of Kanesada - typical and atypical works - and any related detail you might have, including good books, prices realised etc.

Are you proposing some kind of caste system... 🤔😅 "Firearms expert" well, that's a broad topic. You're not going to find someone who knows everything about matchlocks, shotguns, military / service weapons and modern handguns all to the Nth degree. It's very possible (and common) for a collector to know more about a specific area (say variants of Enfield service rifles) than a professional with a different (or broader) focus. As a side note, I've been to the doctor and said "Doctor, I have this and I need this treatment" - albeit phrased a little more humbly, including an apology for the self-diagnosis. He told me I was absolutely correct, and that was exactly what was needed. Conversely, I've had friends overuled by teams of experts, only to have their lay opinion proved correct much later. Including more than one occasion with tragic consequences. Again, there is no human involved process that's infallible. Qualifications and positions of authority do not hold any monopoly on correctness. One reason why doctors sometimes misdiagnose is many combinations of symptoms fit many illnesses. And sometimes the way they present is atypical. Most of the arguments I've heard about attributions for swords eventually spiral into a circular argument - matching existing known works to be attributed as such. Disallowing exceptions - or the possibility that the existing reference information may itself contain inaccuracies.

Ouch, more than half of the signed failed as gimei! 🙈 I've got a blade going in to the June shinsa (which will be a first for me 😅). I'm happy with the condition etc. but I'm only 60% confident on the mei... It's not one of the obvious gimei, but neither is it a perfect match for the examples I've seen. Fingers crossed, but I have to be prepared for it to come back as a fake.

Similar to Alex, I've got respect for the NBTHK shinsa team - but questioning doesn't equate to criticism, as Jacques seems to assert. Any process involving people is fallible - and appealing to authority isn't enough for me. Just look at the number of misdiagnosis from medical doctors - and then the education and qualifications required to perform in those roles. I don't know what credentials / qualifications are required to appraise a sword and signature as genuine - but I'd imagine it crosses into quite a few fields; sword and political history, forging / smithing, Japanese language knowledge (including old / archaic writing), signature analysis, materials analysis (corrosion, aging, composition etc.) and so on. I work with a few PhDs, and whilst they're clever guys, their field of expertise narrows as the depth of their knowledge increases. They certainly don't know everything and make mistakes like anyone else. It'd be the height of hubris to assume there's nothing they could learn from less qualified or experienced people. So, yeah, I'd view the NBTHK as a highly respected authority, and I'd want a fairly high body of evidence to challenge their opinion. That's still not criticism though - as their appraisal should hold up to scrutiny - and, as in any scientific process, be prepared to change if evidence is later presented that might suggest otherwise.

I like the idea of a drunken master signing his work 😂 I wonder whether there's any value in the NBTHK publishing "confidence ratings" on their attributions 🤔 maybe a minefield... But I'd assume they must encounter some definite gimei, and some where is more of a maybe / probably / almost certainly etc.

And compare the above with these two apparent gimei:

That's very much how I think too. Consider these two mei One has very obvious multiple-strike strokes in the Kanji, the other is much smoother (both are NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon). For this smith, he's know for his tang file marks becoming finer with age - and his mei aren't as deeply cut, but it's still quite a style change.

I was interested in the "Kan", as I hadn't come across it before. When would the sayagaki have been done? When / where would that unit have been used rather than yen etc?

Funnily enough, the Tadayoshi gimei was one of the main areas of my concern. There's a reference gimei (in the Nihonto koza?) that is a very close copy to the authentic mei. With the differences laid out side by side, I can see the delta - but being honest, I wouldn't have drawn the conclusion of gimei. So, I've seen a few obvious gimei, and I'm confident enough to identify them as such - but once things get "close enough" - the blade is plausible, the mei is very similar - I don't know enough to say with any certainty that it's genuine.

Just a guess, but if the intention was to hide the crack, they could have carved more material out. Instead, to me it looks like a crack formed along the horimono, not the other way round.