reinhard

This mei might read: Mutsu Aizu TO-SHI-RO (early ShinTo-period in Iwashiro) reinhard

Jean, The blade you are showing was originally made as a naginata. Most of the nakago was cut off and the point-section reshaped. As you probably know, naginata exist in various lengths since very early times. Therefore it is no contradiction to the afore-said statements. reinhard

Hi Doug, The idea of wakizashi existed only rudimentary before early Muromachi (Oei) period and certainly not before Nanbokucho period. During Nanbokucho period tanto became exaggerated in measures, slightly exceeding one Shaku (30.3cm) in length at the beginning. Technically they must be named (ko-)wakizashi nowadays, but they were actually made in the shape of very big tanto in hira-tsukuri shape. During middle and late Nanbokucho period, when extremely huge o-dachi were made, the size was sometimes extended again and these (few) blades can't be called oversized tanto anymore. There is a hira-tsukuri wakizashi (juyo token) by Yoshii KAGENORI, unshortened, signed and dated Joji third year (1364) with a nagasa of 49.2cm. The difference to your blade is the sugata. The KAGENORI blade is still made in a shape reminding of tanto, whereas your wakizashi clearly shows the idea of wakizashi. I'm afraid I can't explain this in short terms. J&J de France are both right: Condition of nakago and mei suggest a date of manufacture not before later Muromachi period and true wakizashi dating from Kamakura period just don't exist. To your question about sori: It is quite tricky to tell from amateur pics, but the sori of your blade seems definitely to be saki-sori. The center of curvature seems to be at least in the middle of the blade and the curvature towards the point is very strong. This is more obvious on the lower pic. reinhard

Hi Doug, What I can tell from your pictures and infos: A hira-tsukuri wakizashi of 44cm+ with a mei > hardly shortened or ubu > not older than later Nambokucho period Obvious saki-sori > not older than later Muromachi period (Tenmon to Tensho period) Hamon seems to be a mixture of notare and gunome midare with togari > Soshu and Mino roots The mei "SUKEMUNE" (associated with Suruga Shimada-school) fits in quite well there and the mei looks quite similar to some reference material I found, but there is one irritating thing: The Kanji for "SUKE" is missing the very first stroke to begin with and I can't find any genuine example parallel to this. Eventually someone else can. reinhard

It's no secret: The images are an assembly of reduced and rearranged screenshots from the Ginza Choshuya site. This particular page is online for the public for some years now. My idea was basically to create a stable point of reference somewhere on this forum without posting a link, that will become more and more difficult to find in the future, to a page, that will eventually disappear some day. This doesn't have to be necessarily the collage from Choshuya. It just seemed to be a good starter. Moriyama-san is correct, of course, when pointing to the copyright here. On the other side: If copyrights for every single picture taken from books or web-pages are to be taken 100% seriously, half of all posts on this forum needed to be deleted. Sorry for stepping on toes here. reinhard

It might be useful to have a reference point for checking terminology within this forum. Feel free to correct/ add to this first suggestion. reinhard

Thank you Morita-san, For those unfamiliar with Kanji, the mei reads: Kato (family name) JUMYO (artist name) reinhard

The third year of Meiji era was a kanoe-uma year, but not knowing how to write the name of your emperor properly is more than suspicious. reinhard

Just guessing: Unless of extremely high value, they were probably transformed into implements of every-day use. Problem is: One cannot separate softer (and cheaper) Shingane from harder Kawagane after fusing them into one blade. I just cannot imagine a samurai buying a blade on which his status (and, in extremis, his life) depended, made of mixed and recycled softer and harder steel for discount reasons. The only exception I can imagine, are some of the mass-produced kazu-uchi mono handed to Ashigaru during Muromachi period. Maybe some of our Japanese friends come up with more profound information. reinhard

It was invented by famous philosopher and philantropist Mr.Hugh Hefner. reinhard

Rust on forged steel is quite difficult to interprete. I've seen blades with tiny spots like freckles, which turned out to be rotten to the core and others with a thick, ugly layer, but turned out to be still healthy. Illustrating what I mean, I would like to show you an example from Royal Ontario Museum, taken by Mr.David Pepper. reinhard

Jacques wrote: "light never plays with lines it always follows them" Sounds nice, but is a classic mistake by someone not familiar with photographical principles. Highlights CAN distort lines, especially on highly reflective surfaces like steel. reinhard

Frank, What I was trying to show you was: After the dispersal of the Mino smiths at the end of Muromachi period, the name KANESAKI went to the provinces Bizen, Kaga, Etchu, Omi, Tango, Tanshu and one LINEAGE was working in Mimasaka around Keicho era. Obviously their mei are not very uniform. This could mean, your blade might fit in there as well. If you want to be sure, you better check the blade first. Does it have Keicho ShinTo sugata and characteristics of Mino heritage? If yes, you can still hand it in for papers to make sure. Not even oracle JdF can do this for you. If you are seriously interested in the subject, I recommend the book about Mino Toko during Muromachi period and their lineage .It contains a small but informative section about KANESAKI and his followers in Mimasaka. (Japanese without translation). ISBN number is: ISBN4-89806-250-4 reinhard

A daywalker I can handle garlic every now and then, but when it comes in clusters I prefer to stay in my cozy coffin. reinhard

The name KANESAKI derived from Mino province and was spread over many provinces during early Edo period. There was a toko working in Tsuyama, Mimasaka province, during Keicho era and he is quite well documented. Two mei for reference attached. reinhard

As a footnote: Those of you, who have the opportunity of visiting the exhibition about swordsmiths of the Tokaido in Sano museum, should examine closely the first sword of the Ise Sengo school by shodai MURAMASA. Nioi-gire in its hamon is quite obvious. reinhard

Should be painted red and hanged over the entrance to this board. reinhard

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about the nature of nioi-gire here. What can be seen on your pic is the white, artificial "make-up" drawn by hadori-finish. Nioi, which is a crystalline structure in the boundary area between Ji and Ha, is seldom visible on amateur pics and if so, only over a very small area of the hamon. To make nioi (and eventually disrupted parts) visible over the entire length of a blade, it takes special measures. The best photographer of Nihon-To of all, Mr.Fujishiro Okisato, gives an example of nioi-gire in Meito Zukan, vol.11. It depicts a blade by Sue-Soshu FUSAMUNE. In order to find nioi-gire, you have to check the blade under good light conditions from bottom to top on both sides. reinhard

The "chin" kanji (in "myochin") is a rare one and hardly ever used but in the context of the name "myochin". "Fujiwara" is quite obvious, but I don't intend to speculate about the other indiscernible remnants of the mei. Maybe you should focus more on the quality of the tsuba itself. reinhard

I agree with Daniel Lee. The mei reads "(Myo)chin Fujiwara (no)....(illegible)." Proportion and setting of the mei make this judgement reasonable as well. reinhard

I think you're on the right track. reinhard

Je vous salue mes petits Gaulois. Some things never change, do they? In order to tell if a mei is genuine without doubt, it is necessary to have reliable reference material. In the case of ShinTo or ShinShinTo blades there are usually enough swords surviving from every single smith to tell the difference. Going further back in time things become more and more tricky and speculative. If we're lucky, there are many signed specimen left as by Osafune NAGAMITSU or Rai KUNITOSHI f.e.. It is different however in the case of Hosho SADAMUNE. In Hosho-school there were several Toko at the end of Kamakura period working on a very high quality level, but with hardly any INDIVIDUAL traits. Among them SADAOKI and SADAYOSHI are quite well documented by several signed blades each. Unfortunately there are hardly, if any at all, signed specimen by SADAMUNE surviving. Every newly discovered blade with (Hosho-)SADAMUNE mei is put to quality test first. Here's where most of them can be excluded as gimei, for it is extremely difficult to copy top-class Hosho swords. Even shodai KUNIKANE from Sendai clearly failed. Now, when a new blade with SADAMUNE signature, made in the style of and with the qualities of Hosho-school is showing up, it cannot be attributed to SADAMUNE easily because of lack of reference material. One single mei for reference, even if it is a JuBi, is simply not enough to make judgement waterproof. As I tried to explain, this is because of missing individual traits within the Hosho-school: The blade could have been made by SADAOKI or SADAYOSHI and turned into (more prestigious) SADAMUNE later. As far as Juyo Bijutsuhin is concerned: Understanding of NihonTo has improved during the past sixty years. Pre-war standards like JuBi cannot be considered the final and undeniable truth in every matter. This goes for some (not all) of old(er) literature as well. reinhard

Thank you for your welcoming me back (I'm sure, some others don't like the idea). I'll do some further research on Hosho-school; until then, you better believe Ted. He did a great job on the subject in his post. - As a footnote: I would like you to consider: Juyo Bijutsuhin is not an undeniable truth, for the criteria back then were based on derivation more than on quality and scientific expertise. reinhard

There is still an axe to grind. Nagayama Kokan mentions Hosho SADAMUNE as the actual founder of Hosho-school. Fujishiro also names SADAMUNE without giving an example (oshigata). Both assume Hosho KUNIMITSU as the mythical founder of Hosho school without any blade surviving. Dr.Homma, who came across almost every important blade in existence, never mentioned a single example of Hosho SADAMUNE. NBTHK is not perfectly consistent. In English Token Bijutsu magazine No.40 they say:"...pinning down to SADAMUNE should be avoided, because his authentic works are quite rare...". In No.50 (1992) they say:"...Since SADAMUNE is represented by no definitely genuine specimen, it is desirable not to mention his name in kantei..." However, gimei in his name are quite frequent and Iimura's example in Koto Taikan has not been published ever since (at least as far as I know). Let's stick to "Sam the mune" from Soshu (sorry Guido, I couldn't resist), for he was a hell of a Toko. reinhard