reinhard

Jean, It's like Ted said: Age doesn't necessarily dictate quality. Some of late Kamakura/Nambokucho period swords are inferior to the better works of Ise Sengo school. I was just stressing the fact, that seeing MASAMUNE and MURAMASA almost side by side (as it was in this particular exhibition) the deviation in quality is stunning. This should be considered by all people still thrilled by the popular myth of "sinister MURAMASA" and his "bloodthirsty" swords being almost equal to MASAMUNE('s). Sengo work is not even close. reinhard

That's what the better (idealistic) part of us is here for, but since we're scratching copyrights all the time and some minor subjects are taking advantage of this, I have full understanding for those providing informations only with a reserve. - Furthermore I like the idea of "no pain-no gain". "Convenience" and "getting all there is to know online" is definitely beyond understanding NihonTo. BTW: "swordsmiths along the Tokkai-do" was a minor exhibition and publishing a catalogue was probably not within financial limits anymore. reinhard

The picture is not misleading. In fact, it is quite instructive. The first kanji reads "KANE" and the last one: "SAKU", but it doesn't really matter, for yasurime and writing style give it away as a fake, probably made outside of Japan. I was just wondering, if it's written upside-down. It looks like that on the pic, but this could also be due to camera-angle. reinhard

Whatever it is. It seems to be written upside-down and not of Japanese origin. reinhard

Many of the western visitors tried to get a copy, I was told, but with all respect: This is a silly attitude. A lot of time and (professional) knowledge was put into this exhibition and its visual display. Expecting to get this highly advanced product just like that for the price of any CD/DVD-ROM is a little naive. It would have been ripped and spread all over the place by now. Japan is a hi-tec nation and the charming lady responsible for this project is by no means naive. (I had the pleasure of meeting her) As for MURAMASA: I agree with Ted and the exhibition at the Sano Bijutsukan showed it clearly: MURAMASA-smiths didn't belong to the top-league of sword-makers in Japan and their fame doesn't depend on their works so much as on the myth surrounding them. They are no match at all for Shintogo KUNIMITSU, YUKIMITSU, MASAMUNE or SADAMUNE displayed in the same room; not even for top-class Sue-Soshu masters like HIROMITSU and AKIHIRO a few yards away. reinhard

Brian, The mei "(Ichi) Dewa(no)Kami YUKIHIRO" was used by shodai YUKIHIRO and by later generations from the third one onwards. Mei put on sashi-omote of a wakizashi is not a problem here and most of the nakago's features look OK as well as the mei itself, but there is one doubtful thing about it: There was a particular treatment of the kanji "DE" in "Dewa" in this school and this mei is not showing it. The last(5th) stroke is supposed to end with a hook turning left. Maybe this sounds like hair-splitting to you, but Hizen ToKo were like this. F.e.the 2nd stroke of the kanji "Kuni" was done in exactly the same way by all nine generations of TADAYOSHI until the end of Edo-period and is an important feature for authentification. I'll provide you with some pictures for illustration. Top three examples are from shodai YUKIHIRO, bottom one is by nidai. - Nevertheless the mei in question could be by a later YUKIHIRO since they are poorly documented. In order to prevent any future "arguments": It is possible to find contradictory examples in compilations like "ShinTo Taikan" by Iimura and others. I'm refering to Fujishiro's ShinTo-Hen, which is still considered to be one of the most reliable sources of information and some other more recent reference material. reinhard

Hi Brett, Young blood and a fresh view on NihonTo are more than welcome. Enjoy your stay, feel free to ask or contribute and take all answers and reactions with reserve. reinhard

"Great balls of fire", I know, but consider this: You are little Nemo, swimming in a pool with barracudas, even here on this board. Buying a blade is much easier than getting rid of one. reinhard

Henry, "Kamakura era blade" is not a quality label per se. Percentage of great masters was very high at that time, but not every ToKo was a genius. - Focussing on Ko-Uda school, it is said to be founded by Ko-nyudo KUNIMITSU, whose work is poorly documented and remains slightly mysterious. His famous son KUNIFUSA was THE outstanding representative of Ko-Uda school. KUNIFUSA's oldest, dated blade was made in 1389 (though some of his undated works have a slightly older appearance ). Hence KUNIMITSU can be placed at the very end of Kamakura-/early Nambokucho-period. - Focussing on the sword in question: nagasa of 66+cm is at the short end when looking at an o-suriage tachi, attribution is vague and apart from KUNIFUSA, Ko-Uda is not very much sought after. After all, this is a fair offer but no bargain. reinhard

Thank you, Ludolf, for this complementary and informative post. Would you mind telling us when Ikeda's books were written/printed? I'm asking for this in order to put his analysis in relation to Tanobe-sensei's lecture. reinhard

Thanks, Ted, for saying all there is to say at the moment (and much better than I could). This example was supposed to be, amongst other things, a reminder of our limits. There are many questions on this board about "gimei or not?" and some of the answers appear quite quickly and confident. This can be accepted when a poor gimei is crushed by undisputed evidence, but all of us should be very careful when considering a famous mei for the real thing. These swords (and tosogu) have been chased for hundreds of years in Japan by wealthy men and their sometimes highly educated advisors and many of them were faked on a level beyond hobby-expertise. - It has been said before and I would like to repeat it again: NMB can be a great help, but it is no (pre-)shinsa. reinhard

OK, here's the solution: The oshigata on the left is depicting KOTETSU's shoshin-mei. The pic on the right shows a "KOTETSU"-gimei by Kajibei. According to Tanobe-san, it is a tiny detail in the kanji "OKI" that makes the difference. Its last (16th) stroke has to be either straight or slightly curving upwards to be genuine KOTETSU. If it is "hanging down", it is Kajibei's gimei. The pic attached shows a shoshin example. You can forget all the rest. - This comparison is a text-book example for superb forgery and a good reminder of our limited knowledge. A library, no matter how extensive and carefully studied, is not the key to all questions. Anyway, thank you all for playing. reinhard

(Naga)SONE is in no way related to SONY . reinhard

Not as tricky as Kajibei. All guesses missed the important spot so far, but you are all in good company. Kajibei became a legend for a reason. - Again, scanning libraries can be part of the game, but they are not always at hand. What do you do, when suddenly confronted with one of the two examples? And don't tell me about workmanship in this particular case. Even KOTETSU's genuine works oscillate between top-class and....not so top-class. reinhard

Since the topic of gi-mei raised some interest lately, I would like to give you another example to sharpen your claws on. You may have heard of Kajibei before, the "lazy genius", as he was called by Darcy. Capable of copying workmanship of top-class ShinTo masters, he often left a tiny "catch me if you can"-mark within his mei. Again, this is a pic from Menome magazine (please don't spoil the fun, if you know the answer) and it is not a question of workmanship. Kajibei was able to fool experts and scholars at his time. Nagasone KOTETSU was one of his favourite "victims". reinhard

This is not about poor fakes. Kajibei was able to copy works of top-class ShinTo masters like KOTETSU, Tsuta SUKEHIRO and others on a supreme level. reinhard

Well done my dear forumites, The left mei is shoshin, the right one is gi. As Brian and others pointed out: This gi-mei is extremely well done. We're looking at an enlarged pic of it side by side to a waterproof reference mei. TADATSUNA's mei varied slightly during his long career and after all, he was no machine. Again, imagine yourselves in a situation with not much time, poor lighting conditions or even worse: a low-res pic posted on a site. You are free to rely on gut-feeling, of course, but in doing so, you are walking on very thin ice. This gi-mei is quite fluently written and rather well-placed. There are some hesitating moments though and what is most important (and cannot be seen properly in a pic): the depth of chisel-marks remains approximately the same in shoshin-mei, but usually varies in gi-mei. reinhard

Either Reinhard got more evilish then Guido's twin *or* something doesn't work in your answer... I'm still Dr.Jekyll at the moment and therefore I will try to explain what I'm doing here. First of all, imagine yourselves at a sword-fair or in a row before an auction. You're into Osaka-ShinTo, but all you have at hand is your knowledge and maybe a little handbook. You are looking at one of the above mentioned swords and it might be made by TADATSUNA. Workmanship seems to be OK, but condition is not what it should be and its mei seems to be the most reliable source of information. I confess: I could hardly tell the difference at a moment like this. Gumanthon is absolutely right: "they are both good signatures". There are very few experts capable of telling the difference immediately without checking their library. Tanobe-san is one of them. - Going back to the examples posted: One is shoshin, one is gimei. No tricks, no games. Now I'll go down to the lab and get me some medicine. reinhard

This left stroke starts a little higher sometimes. For comparison a wakizashi-mei which is definitely shoshin. reinhard

There's a great lecture by Tanobe-san about shoshin-/gimei and mei in general in Menome antiques magazine 2/2009, including infos about (in)famous Kajibei. Strongly recommended: http://www.ribun.co.jp The following teaser (from the article mentioned above) is for investigative minds: Two nakago inscribed: Awataguchi Omi-no-Kami TADATSUNA. One is shoshin-mei, the other is gi-mei. Which one is which? and more important: why? - This is not supposed to be a lecture, just a kick for those who like it and a reminder of the difficulties jurors/collectors are sometimes confronted with. Those already familiar with the article are asked not to spoil fun for the others. reinhard

It's a very thin line between mere craftsmanship and true art. For consideration: reinhard

Barry, Mei reads: Heian (no) Ju Unsenshi SADAHIDE saku Genji gannen roku gatsu kichi jitsu "Unsenshi SADAHIDE, resident of Heian (Kyoto) made this a lucky day in 6th month of first year Genji (1864)" This SADAHIDE worked in Kyoto as well as in some other places during the end of Edo-period. He was originally from Dewa province, later he belonged to the school of Gassan SADAYOSHI in Osaka (Settsu province) and finally settled in Kyoto. reinhard

Nengo is: Showa 18th year 7th month (=1943) reinhard

Agree with Ford, The tsuba with several panels has a good chance of being genuine. (BTW, the others weren't mentioned in Ogawa Morihiro's book, for good reasons, I guess). The "screaming monkey" tries to meet western expectations during early Meiji-period and is lacking NATSUO's grace and dignity. The copper tsuba is an uninspired display of mere craftsmanship, slightly out of proportions and without NATSUO's unique view on a subject. This can be said of the Kwannon-design tsuba even more. reinhard

Hi Jon, The kanji in the right column you are looking for read: EI-WA: (-era, 1375 - 1379) I: prefix KO, o(riru) : (declining, later) in the left column: Ha-Nagasa: (length of cutting edge) 7 sun: (7 x 3.03cm) I can't read the rest because of low resolution of the pic. reinhard