Mikaveli

It's not 100% clear, as the polish and photos don't allow me to state definitively, but I'd be suspicious of this one as a reproduction - copying key features of a real sword.

That's got both the kaeri and and ubu tang - so very much likely to be in its original configuration (made as a companion sword). For me, the grey area is around suriage naginata-style blades - where it's not clear what the original style / form was. Jacques posted one example with a very distinct mune-machi and orikaeshi mei. In other cases, we've seen less clear examples. Jacques statement was something along the lines of a blade would have had to have lost its kaeri, to be a true naoshi (starting life as a polearm). Anything else could just be a blade made in a naginata style. The counter was basically, the NBTHK says so - but that's only an appeal to authority.

Where things go in circles is that whilst the NBTHK assert that it was a naginata, no proof is offered. We all can see / accept it's made in the style of a naginata, and (at least to me) I can see some evidence of suriage - although the position / depth of the mei is interesting. Edit: actually I see the description acknowledges kiritsuke now. But, to Jacques' point, could the NBTHK prove that it was ever mounted / used / made as an actual polearm (rather than just a non-shinogi-zukuri long sword)? A non ubu nakago actually makes it more ambiguous.

This (pictured) example is really interesting. I've never seen an example with such a deep mune-machi (and with the orikaeshi-mei too). What book is that from?

Yes, I agree with you there. That's why I've wanted to see any examples where any evidence of rework (aside from a lack of kaeri) is visible. It's not clear to me that the (naoshi) examples in this discussion were previously naginata. The answers suggest how they would / could have been modified - and it all seems logical, but obviously with no true before and after (understandably). It's not even particularly clear why. Sure, the "fewer battles" argument is logical - but would it have been purely an economic decision? As we've seen, naginata were still being produced in the early Edo period and beyond - so there was still some new demand?

Yes, ish. In direct translation it can also mean repair or correction - but in sword parlance, that's the implication.

Not really relevant - the example holds (unless there are no signed koto blades...). Not really, usage of the term, following convention doesn't suggest the meaning of the term is lost. When (here) we talk about naoshi, the suriage is generally implied. If it wasn't suriage, most would still consider it a naginata (or even nagamaki) and wouldn't notice any reshaping.

For any of those (conceptual) reshaping profiles, are there any examples where we can see evidence of the rework? Particularly (for me) on the mune?

Universal / absolute rules are few, but I'd like to find a good example. For example, my naginata (Terukado) is signed tachi-mei, whereas for katana etc. he used a conventional katana-mei. The next difference is that his signature is generally much lower on extant naginata, but not so low that all the signature would be lost, if a conventional naginata naoshi were to be created / reworked from one of his blades. So, what I'd assume, is that if a genuine naginata naoshi were made, there'd be at least 3-4 characters left on the tang on the "wrong" side. The only problem is I don't know of any example that follows this logic. But, I'd assume this should be the case for one smith or another (a partial signature remaining, on the opposite side from made-as wakizashi etc). Anyone know of any?

My understanding was that Nagamaki is really just a koshirae choice, and that the absence of a deep curvature wouldn't necessarily mean that's how it would have been fitted (though it would seem more unlikely in the other direction). Seeing the original tang may have been a better clue? Some of the naginata I've seen are relatively narrow in comparison (inserted into a pole, rather than wider tsukamaki wrapped around).

Noshu / Mino now forms the southern part of Gifu, but Gifu also incorporates Hida province. I'm not sure if the exact borders of the two former provinces were maintained, but modern Gifu is much larger (than Mino province was).

Out of interest, where the kaeri is lost during naoshi, how obvious is the shaping on the mune? For example, for a deeply curved naginata to wakizashi, does it expose core steel etc? How is this dealt with?

I saw a good presentation (on this site I think), that showed the different styles of naginata across different time periods. One thing that was clear as there was a time period where more shallow naginata was preferred and then later on with a much deeper curvature that we all tend to associate with it now. At least three distinct styles as far as I can recall. Does anyone know the source?

It also depends on your country's definition of antique. In the UK, "antiques" only have to pay 5% on import, but that only applies if the item is over 100 years old. A 1943 sword would attract 20% on import.

Nothing indicates that for me. From the large habaki, and the position of the mune-machi, it doesn't seem like the tang was ever substantially shortened (they've moved the tsuba back, essentially).

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?)