Mikaveli

Interesting, thanks. I'm still calibrating my expectations with regards to traditionally made antiques. I'm too used to working with billet aluminium and modern steels.

No, not just .22lr you can have a centre fire, semi auto handgun with a heritage (Section 7) licence, or for humane despatch, or personal protection (in NI). Also, muzzle loaded, centre fire hybrids - and well as the long barrel / extension rod "technicalities". Although, yes - anything that you intend to possess to shoot needs to be licenced, with all the background and medical checks that includes.

Bans are never complete - always just a headline grab, but in the details there's loads of caveats. Just like the "handgun ban" - there's still loads of scenarios where you can lawfully acquire a handgun in the UK (revolvers incl. 44 magnums, semi-auto, percussion, flintlock etc.).

So, this comes off the back of the Offensive Weapons Bill 2019. I believe Royal Mail began a consultation at the same time. Primarily, it's because there's an age verification requirement. Knives etc. cannot (legally) be shipped to under 18s. There was talk of Royal Mail introducing a "safe" service to include that?

Thanks, much appreciated. Shinchu zogon - that's literally a brass inlay, right? Would the type of flowers have any particular meaning/ significance? Or is it just as likely to be just an aesthetic choice?

Hi all, So, I know even less about tosogu than I do about blades. I'd like to know about this tsuba. Age / era, relative quality, etc. Any relevant - as at some point, it's a field of collecting I'm interested in. To me, it doesn't appear especially high-end, but obviously there's some effort that's gone into the decorations (plum blossoms I believe).

I've got a wakizashi that passed Tokubetsu Hozon last year, but on the mune there's what looks like a hairline crack, about 2 inches above the nakago. It's not something that was directly mentioned by the seller, how normal is it / how concerned should I be?

I also couldn't find any listings for the Kanji 兼品 So, just possible suggestions, based on alternative Kanji (sharing a radical or visually similar), not looking at the blade: 兼印 Kaneaki - 15th century Seki smith. 兼昭 Kaneaki - 20th century Gifu smith. 兼円 Kanemaru - 15the century Seki (2 generations) 兼昌 Kanemasa - at least two generations 兼命 Kanenaga - multiple possibilities. 兼里 Kanesato - various. 兼知 Kanetomo - various. 兼角 Kanezumi - various. 兼嘉 or 兼賀 Kaneyoshi etc. Not sure it's any of the above, but all are worth looking at how similar their signatures appear, perhaps?

Hi all, looking for an ubu Tanto by Tanba no Kami Fujiwara Terukado. I've never actually seen one, but apparently they exist: https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-2367631 So, if that was your winning auction in 1970, and 50 years later you're bored of it... 😉 More seriously, genuinely interested - prefer papered (TH), but anything considered.

The Samurai Museum Shop, from my experience, doesn't misdescribe anything - but like most businesses, they're not going to find reasons for you not to buy it. They acknowledge the older paper, state that the blade has flaws - and provide good pictures of the condition. Now, their prices are usually at what I'd describe as "retail premium" - but it's a fairly safe place for beginners. The modern / gifts / novelty stock is just volume sales to make the business viable (accompanying the museum etc.). For you (and this specific sword), I'd recommend against it. The fittings you like, won't be from the date of the blade - unless stated explicitly, assume they're modern. I'd also recommend you get a blade with modern, NBTHK Hozon or preferably, Tokubetsu Hozon papers. $16k is a a lot of money, and you'll be able to get something very, very nice in that price range.

Don't feel too bad - even with the showa stamp, the sori still looks massively pronounced in the first picture. Doesn't look normal to me. Is it bent, or just perspective?

I thought that too. Along with the relatively small sakihaba, I'd guess it's a suriage koto blade - not sure beyond that yet.

For Bijutsu Antiques, I can see the tsuka has the issue with the fit (at the kashira). They seem to believe you were trying to squeeze a 40% discount after COVID. I can see they eventually refunded $1300. It isn't clear why this amount is so low (if they sold the sword _and_ had payment from you). You haven't really explained why you didn't take receipt in Japan (and pay at that time too). The company seemed to state they offered to deal with customs etc. for you on departure? The jury is out on Bijutsu Antiques. What is clear, is that you're a difficult person to deal with.

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.