Mikaveli

I don't understand why you think I came in "guns blazing". You've posted a lot, and it's quite hard to follow. I just tried to summarise in a succinct way - leaving it open for correction or confirmation.

Thank you again. So, for example, on your reply that shows "proof of payment", it isn't clear who you paid and how much. I can't see the agent's name or company name mentioned? If I missed it apologies, but does that really merit being insulted?

Can't you just explain, rather than throwing insults? How much did Bijutsu Antiques ask for initially, what did you eventually pay and when?

Is there a succinct summary of the core issue? From what I've seen: 1. Sword sent for restoration (polish, habaki, shirasaya and a tsuka re-wrap). 2. No price agreed. 3. Delayed return because of COVID. 2 years added to a three year process. 4. Seller unhappy with both the restoration and price? 5. Invoice unpaid as a result. 6. Sword sold (with owner permission) to cover the costs. From a price point of view, it's unwise not to have this quoted and / or agreed in advance. Difficult to complain later otherwise? As for the quality of the restoration, there's degrees of acceptability. Just "not that good" doesn't get you off the bill. Significant issues, is cause for a dispute, but I haven't seen this clearly demonstrated (have we seen the pictures, pre and post?). Surely, pay the bill, get the sword back and then (with evidence) seek either a discount or refund - would have been the best course of action. If you can evidence damage to the sword / its value, you can go to small claims. Instead, with the sword sold, you've effectively accepted that as a resolution? 🤷

Even then, by who? Anonymous t'interweb appraisals aren't something I'd rely upon. If it turns up with an NBTHK kanteisho, I'll accept it. 👍

The video examines a genuine Munechika (for comparison)

I bought the Terukado wakizashi from these guys. 😃

Just got the 美濃刀大鑑 (Mino-to taikan) for Christmas. 😀 It's a bit of a goldmine, lots of oshigata, pictures of blades, signs, family trees and historical documents (registrations of smiths and titles etc.). What's nice is that all the mei and cursive Japanese is repeated in print, so it's really good practice for reading handwriting/ obscure/ corroded signatures.

Thanks for the links. Yes, I'd read the Sesko link, between that and the books, that's why I'm puzzled. If we're in the post 1637, 1 shaku 8 sun period - or the latter 1 shaku 5 sun (ko wakizashi) limits, it's too long as a companion sword (for commoners or samurai) - but it's also very short as a katana... From (albeit modern literature), even for someone 5' tall / 150cm, the recommended length for that height starts around 2 shaku, 2 sun (from c. 66cm). I can't see any evidence of suriage or modification around the machi - I'll post some photos when I get it out to be cleaned. Maybe off topic, but in this case the reverse of the nakago states the blade was made in Kuwana (away from the smith's usual residence in Mino). Do "travel works" usually indicate merchant commissions?

So, I'm on my second read-through of The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords. I've read about the length restrictions from other sources before - as Nagayama tells us (it's a shame the book doesn't give the prescribed lengths in shaku etc., as it's less intuitive in metric) So, I have a blade from c. 1660 that has a nagasa of 59cm, so it fits the modern definition of a wakizashi (and this is echoed on the NBTHK certificate), but I'm left wondering: 1. Would this have been worn as a companion sword at the time - or perhaps it just had a shorter owner? 2. Were the length restrictions actually enforced? Could a commoner buy an "over-sized" blade from a reputable smith? Would samurai-class have their blades measured? 3. Any recommendations for documentation sources / further reading about the restrictions, their enforcement and effectiveness (English or Japanese is fine)?

So, I think it's mainly the smith factor (several juyo from him), so his blades get the nod. Remember, the NBTHK criteria states (translated): ^ to me that implies mid-grade examples by more famous smiths may get Tokubetsu Hozon. Has that happened here?

I'll be interested to see the outcome. I do think the mei is different - whether it's a second generation, or just a variation I have no comparison to. Looks like the nakago has been cleaned at the least? It's quite bright in that area.

豊州住 ? Can't make out the mei entirely (read the actual smith name)?

Indeed, that was kinda the point. What I take from that, is that the hada absolutely has a functional effect on the strength and pliability of the blade. If it was merely artistic preference, we'd potentially see more variations.

The gojuon (五十音) is the Japanese syllabary (the sounds). It's sometimes used as a synonym for the standard order, but that's 五十音順 I've never encountered the kana grid position being used to represent a number - so I'd be surprised by that. As in the gunto example above, when numbers are written, typically just the Kanji or numbers are used 九七 or 97 etc. In official / legal documents you might even encounter some specific Kanji used in that context (玖漆 etc.) but hopefully, that's out of scope 😅

Well, maybe a pertinent question: Are there any examples of masame (straight) hada that runs perpendicular to the nagasa of the blade?

Potentially - that'd certainly explain the differences in signature and workmanship. In Sesko's index, he states that some sources list two generations, because of the long period of output (Genna-Kanbun) - but I don't know enough to confirm or deny this.

The mei isn't the subject, it's just one of the many data points. And gimei or not, isn't boolean. There's the more obvious "Dremel" job, where the cited smith doesn't remotely match the presented mei, through to period mei which doesn't 100% match the style of other known works. What isn't clear to me, is what percentage of certainty is required for an NBTHK certificate - and what level of risk of potentially genuine signatures are removed as a result? If the NBTHK requires 90% to pass, I'd worry that the 60-90% range were destroyed as a result.

Well, written as 無銘 肥前 at the bottom of the second sentence from the right. Just in case the OP was trying to find those characters on the certificate. 無銘 and 無名 are both read mumei, and can mean unsigned. But 銘 specifically means inscription or signature, whereas 名 is name (無名 - literally "nameless").

Even with a mei, it's still opinion... You don't know if it signed by the smith, the apprentice, how many were involved in the blades creation. Mei added after suriage. Deliberate gimei at creation, added later etc. A mei just helps to confirm a more precise answer to who, when and where - if we didn't already know the tradition, school, era etc. how would we identify gimei? Other works? That's a circular argument. Actually, there are extant works where the blade has been suriage, and we still have the piece of the removed tang, kept together with the blade.

Possibly, but from the material I've seen, the two seem to be used interchangeably, with 守り刀 just being the more recent spelling. If you look up the reading of 守刀, you'll find "mamorigatana" for both. Happy to be proved wrong, but this fit with my expectations, as many inscriptions and mei don't use Hiragana. 守刀 were also at least "wedding swords" too at one point, and the funeral usage / talisman for the deceased is just one of the last remaining traditions. From what I understand, the short length now common (15cm or less) is too avoid their "sword" definition (avoiding the ban/ bureaucracy)? This article https://markussesko....ound-ohara-sanemori/ mentions a 守刀 as a gift to a new emperor.

I also found a Markus Sesko article about a Gassan Sadakatsu smith who made 守刀 as gifts/in celebration of notable events. So I'm wondering if this was also commissioned as a presentation gift etc?

守刀 is also written as 守り刀 Meaning "sword for self defence" or "protective sword". For example: https://www.touken-world.jp/tips/49131/

In Clive Sinclair's book, "Samurai Swords: A collectors guide" there's a reference to the Muroboku-cho period, where I'd expect the Muromachi period. Now, at first I assumed it was a typo, but then wondered if it could be an alternative way of referring to it? From what I know of the Kanji, 室町時代 (read Muromachi Jidai - period) 南北朝 (read Nanbokuchou) So plausibly: 室北朝 (Muro Northern court?) But I can't find any references to it that way, assuming I've selected the right Kanji?

The blade itself looks quite tired / out of polish - so it's difficult (for me at least) to tell. I kinda interpreted it as another red flag, obfuscating the quality of the blade. The seller knows how much a genuine blade could sell for, but won't get it polished / sent to shinsa (citing current finances). Plausible, true - but another red flag to me.