reinhard

Tliston, the sword is signed on the sashi-omote. This should also be mentioned in accompagning paper(s). I suspect it to be a niji-mei (two-character signature) probably starting with "KUNI", but deterioration and quality of pics make it difficult to see. Better ones might help. For those wanting to join in I post a compilation of your pics, if you don't mind. Searching for pics on linked pages everytime you need them is circumstantial. Well then, any ideas? reinhard

Like Guido I'm waiting for an explanation why this expertise is supposed to be a Chinese fake. You haven't answered this question yet. The paper looks perfectly alright to me. As long as you don't present us with any kind of proof for your theory, all your doubts concerning this tsuba's qualities are meaningless. - There's no way back to the "wild frontier" when amateurs made their own rules. reinhard

Before this is getting out of hand one more time I wonder what Ted has to say about this matter. Telling from my very limited polishing-experience I realized great difficulties in telling earlier, deeper marks from later, finer ones when moving a blade over various stones without changing the angle of movement. This is how Kissaki-section is polished traditionally. Apart from theoretical armchair-philosophy, I'm really curious to get some feedback from practitioners. - And for the record: my few polishing attempts were limited to blades of no real importance during my early years of enthusiasm. No important katana was harmed during the making of this film. It was an important lesson for me nevertheless. reinhard

Proper polishing of NihonTo basically consists of replacing coarser marks by finer ones. By doing so the angle of the sword is slightly changed in relation to the stone from stage to stage. Proceeding like this helps the polisher in wiping out coarser traces from previous stones. He can tell by the angle of the scratches. Polishing Kissaki is different though. All stages are performed within the same 90 degree angle. This makes it very difficult to see wether all of the rougher scratches are really eliminated. Using abrasive Uchiko for sword-care for a long period of time, some of the finer stages will partially disappear and reveal some of the coarser, overlooked scratches one more time. - This feature is not uncommon to be seen on blades in very old polish. reinhard

Don't get me wrong on this one. There might be some nice parts here nobody can tell by now. All I'm saying is: With the Mekugi plugged in (as shown in Thomas' pic) the Fuchi was definitely added later for it takes more than one Seppa to fill the gap. The same goes for the space between Habaki and Tsuba. The Habaki seems to fit the blade quite well though, but Tsuka and Tsuba are wrong in proportion to the blade. I've come across an awful number of loosely fitting Koshirae pretending to be what they are not. The practice of changing parts or even entire fittings for commercial reasons started 150 years ago and as long as taste and craftsmanship are involved there's nothing to say against it. Things got worse however when Westerners started to change Koshirae according to their "refined" taste or what they held for it. The worst examples are still to be sold as "Satsuma rebellion swords". This seems to be (in Western terms) the equivalent of "anything goes". reinhard

This koshirae is an assembly of parts not fitting the blade properly. Nevertheless it is a textbook example representing Western attempts of quickly reassembling Koshirae with any kind of stuff at hand. - There is empty space between Fuchi and Same/Tsuka-Ito as well as between Habaki and Tsuba. Furthermore Habaki (and blade) are way off the centre of the Tsuba/Tsuka. Japanese craftsmen never worked like this, not even in "cases of emergency" such as the Satsuma rebellion. You better focus on the blade and forget about Koshirae. reinhard

It is quite difficult to do this on the basis of poor two-dimensional pictures and I agree with Mike on this matter, but I would like to try nevertheless. Comparing the Fuchi/Kashira in question with a genuine example might illustrate some of the things discussed before. - What struck me in the first place was the the very poor treatment of the surface ("nanakoish"), the lack of quality in details and the uninspired design. I second Franco and Ford here. Goto Ichijo was one of the greatest artists of all time in the history of sword-fittings. Works carrying his mei should be analyzed with utmost care. He was an artist in the true sense of the word, remaining always original and keeping his level of craftsmanship at all times. Have a look. reinhard

I guess Ian (and Ford) have very important points here. Baleen-wrappings, or what is held for it, look quite different occasionally and I've always wondered wether they are made from the same material or not. "Baleen"-wrappings seem to be a phenomenon dating from late Edo, early Meiji period and are not uncommon. I suspect true baleen wrapping to be quite popular for swords never meant to be used for frequent practice nor fighting but for representation in the first place. Leather, silk, uncovered ray-skin are much more resilient to permanent stress factors than "whale-bone". During late Edo-period true "baleen wrappings" were made for swords never meant to be used for a practical purpose. However during early Meiji period western demand for highly decorative features like "baleen-wrapping" increased and Japanese craftsmen eventually filled this gap with other materials than baleen. I add some examples for illustration without commenting their value. All of them ended up in Western shops finally. - BTW I saw some of the swords belonging to these mountings in hand and none of them was worth any further investigation. The whole thing is about koshirae and western taste. reinhard

Mariusz, I didn't intend to pick up this (silly) thread one more time, but since there seems to be a deeper misunderstanding I will. It is not only that YOUR judgement doesn't matter. Neither yours nor mine nor Ted's nor Darcy's judgements really matter when it comes to authentification, for neither of us is an expert in the true sense of the word. For my part I never claimed to be one. At least I can tell who is. What bothers me is that some people feel competent enough to make final statements about unpapered blades/tosogu within their very limited range of knowledge. Nobody and I do mean NOBODY on this board is/was ever competent enough to finally attribute blade/tosugu to a particular artist, neither with the object in hand nor on the basis of pictures. There's no real expert here nor was there one in the past. This might be disappointing for some of you. All we can do here (good infos provided) is to seclude obvious fakes from possible genuine examples. - By claiming to possess an "Owari"-tsuba or a "Kamakura"-tanto ("Kamakura"what? time? location?) without serious expertise you are undermining your own credibility. reinhard

Finally we get a picture of Guido's evil twin. reinhard

Have a look at this one more time. reinhard

You may speak on behalf of yourself, but believe it or not: There are many "discriminating gaijin" in the west trying to make a difference, i.e. trying to learn about quality levels and not just accepting any Japanese blade as some kind of miracle. Statements like yours (and Gabriel's) are setting the learning process on this board back to field 1. Gimei were put there for a reason and these blades never live up to the expectations their false mei rise. Serious Japanese judges have good reasons to ignore gimei swords and these are the reasons why these blades should be avoided by collectors. All gimei blades I've come across during the last 20 years or so were not worth any further investigation. - I know, some of you get excited about any ugly cluster of mura-nie somewhere on a blade, hollering "nice hataraki!" and so on, but this is actually far from serious appreciation of NihonTo. As long as you let the gimei stay and will not put it to Shinsa, it's just a blade, neither Kamakura nor anything else, for your judgement just doesn't matter. reinhard

I can read a date of Showa 11th year (1936) reinhard

The mei eventually reads: Minamoto (no) SHIGETORA A ToKo by this name worked in Osaka during late 17th century. I couldn't find any reference material though. reinhard

Hi Mariusz, Thank you for sharing your collection. It seems I've got the twin brother of your Owari tsuba. Did you get any expertise for yours? Mine was never put to Shinsa and I neglected it for some time. Your post made me pick it up once more. reinhard

Soshin, Design, craftsmanship, surface and color of steel, shape of seppa-dai and so on are pointing towards a later date of manufacture: Very late Edo period or later. reinhard

It is not (at all) Every sharpened screwdriver does as well. reinhard

Signed on the sashi-omote, so you better not get too excited. reinhard

Matt, 12th year of Tenpo era is 1841. First year of Tenpo is the equivalent of 1830 and must be counted as 1 not zero. I'm mentionning this, because it is a common mistake. Apart from that you are right. Koyama MUNETSUGU was awarded with the "Bizen-no-Suke" title in 1845. A genuine mei including this title dating from 1841 cannot exist. reinhard

Hi Charlie, For someone with a general interest in Japanese swords at the very beginning of his search I recommend : - "The connaisseur's book of Japanese swords" by Nagayama Kokan - "The Japanese sword" by Sato Kanzan - "The craft of the Japanese sword" by Yoshihara Yoshindo, Leon and Hiroko Kapp Having read those I'd suggest: - "Nihon-To art swords of Japan" by W.A.Compton, Homma Junji, Sato Kanichi and Ogawa Morihiro - "Japanese swords and sword furniture in the museum of fine arts Boston" by Ogawa Morihiro - "Selected fine Japanese swords" published by NBTHK's European branch, Solingen, 2002 - "The influence of MASAMUNE" by NBTHK's American branch in 2003 - "Meito and Yagyu tsuba" by NBTHK's American branch in 2005 If you have a particular interest in army swords (GunTo): - "Military swords of Japan" by Richard Fuller and Ron Gregory If you have a particular interest in polearms: - "Japanese polearms" by Roald M. Knudsen Last but not least there are some books I advice NOT to buy/read, for they are completely outdated and/or contain many mistakes: - "The Samurai sword" by John Yumoto - "The arts of the Japanese sword" by B.W.Robinson - "The Japanese sword" by Inami Hakusui A word about Hawley's compilations: Willis M. Hawley collected an enormous amount of information during his lifetime and we owe him gratitude for this achievement alone, but his ratings are still quoted nowadays by many sword dealers and collectors even on this board and this is nonsense, of course. He never really managed to organize the wealth of information he collected in a reasonable way. His books are good points to start a search from. Infos about some long forgotten smiths can be found, but they represent the beginning of a search, never its end. From there on only Japanese literature will help you any further reinhard

I agree with Ludolf’s guess. Probably the other way round. TOSHIHIDE made the blade and YOSHINAO carved the horimono. At least that's what the saya-gaki says. BTW, it dates from Showa Kinoto-I (10th year, which is the equivalent of 1935 AD). Obviously it belongs to this blade. Nagasa of this wakizashi should be: 1 shaku 4 sun 7 bu. reinhard

The addition of tsuchinoe-uma makes it Kansei 10th year for sure. reinhard

Interesting enough, the two katana blades on the sites provided by Moriyama-san (Aoi and "auction.women.excite") are the same sword. Same measurements and many other details are proving it. The kinpun-mei look slightly different though. On Aoi's site the kanji for "TSUNA" is partially erased and looks more real, whereas on the "auction.women.excite" page, it looks perfectly intact at first sight, but not quite as reliable considering the picture's quality. - It doesn't really matter in this particular case, for kinpun-mei from Meiji times are not of real importance, but this is a good example for showing the importance of staying cautious when buying online. Many times you don't get what you see when buying on the basis of pics and descriptions. Nihon-To is about most subtle details and nowadays most people are just not used to this kind of perception anymore. My advice would be: Check as carefully as you can, then check again and after a while: check again. Collecting NihonTo is not about being quick. It is about looking carefully at the real thing. Dealers may have other priorities though. reinhard

Hamon is said to be "gunome midare ha". The name of the expert is Mr. Kobayashi Yukinobu. reinhard

No, they didn't. But it was said before that some mei were deliberately removed (mostly for commercial reasons). - There is a magnificent naginata (juyo token) in Europe, obviously made by Bizen MOTOSHIGE and with full-length nakago, but the mei (including the maker's name) was removed a long time ago. The traces of the removal can still be seen. All that's left is a nengo dating from 1343. Unfortunately this practice started a long time ago and some very precious informations are lost forever by now. reinhard