reinhard

No. I'm saying that the tsuba presented on the forum and the tsuba shown in the 1966 catalogue are probably the same objects. And yes, both tsuba, dai and sho, were made for export and are not the work of the HISANORI trained by Omori TERUHIDE. reinhard

Don't waste your time, Ford. I'm sitting on tons of exhibition- and auction-catalogues from the 60ties, 70ties and 80ties. They don't count much anymore. Big names of collectors and "experts" were cut down to size in the meantime. There was a HISANORI trained in the school of Omori TERUHIDE, but he was in all probability not the maker of the pair in question. (see attachment) reinhard

the (katana-)mei reads: Ohara SANEMORI This is a very big name dating from late Heian/early Kamakura period in Hoki province. The signature is false (gimei). reinhard

i.e. delete and empty trash reinhard

That's correct and that's about all there is to say. The usual suspects will try and bring this silly topic up again and again, but it won't change a thing: Japanese swords were considered works of art TOO for many centuries and the art-factor defines the price. Silly attempts of reducing NihonTo to mere weapons have been made before. They are not worth discussing. Western pinheads trying to break down a intellectually demanding topic to their limited capacities. reinhard

Don't apologize. It's not irrelevant and some clearences on NMB are overdue. reinhard

Thanks Jean. That's about it. There's not much we can learn from discussing swords like these in detail. What we can learn however: There are many serious looking papers out there, written in proper Japanese and with nice seals on them. Some of them count for nothing. Some of you might wonder what makes me so sure this is not the work of Magoroku KANEMOTO. It's a compilation of "wrong" features. Seeing a sword like this, I don't start my check-list with sanbonsugi-hamon. Sugata is the first thing to look at. As Jacques pointed out, a nagasa of 71+cm and o-suriage hardly go together with a work by Magoroku. There are some prolonged works however, but even those were made in uchigatana-style with pronounced saki-sori. Furthermore the hira-ji of all of Magoroku's blades display flat niku and a rather straight fukura. The blade in question is representing quite the opposite. I could add many more points, but this must do for the moment. One more thing: You should not start appreciation or kantei with a one-track notion. In English Token Bijutsu magazine No.4 (p.22) is a comment about wrong nyusatsu on a Magoroku blade: "This blade is a good example of the basic rule that in kantei the final decision should be based on the comprehensive evaluation of various factors giving priority to the most pertinent characteristics. Additionally, this example as most of Kanemoto's works usually are, also happens to be a good specimen of the importance of actually holding the blade in the hands in identification. Kanemoto's works are so nicely proportioned in terms of balance among weigth, length and curvature that they fit perfectly and most comfortably into holder's hands." reinhard

Are we slowly drifting into the arena of the unwell again? reinhard

Quite right. The origami says: katana / kin-zogan-mei / Magoroku Kanemoto/ Daiei(era) / Mino(province) This leaves no room for interpretation. Since it is quite clear this is NOT Seki-no-Magoroku's work, I was wondering where these papers come from (thanks for the link, Thierry). Many of the possible objections against a Magoroku-attribution have been mentioned. Good job. Additionally I would like you to focus on the qualities of kin-zogan-mei more. This one seems to be of bad quality and was made no earlier than Meiji times, probably even later. Kin-zogan-mei are easy to apply, but they are also revealing much about the maker and the time when they were made. Unfortunately many people (especially Westerners) are loosing their cool when seeing gold, even if it's just a tiny amount on a nakago. "Where there is gold there must be something precious". Fraudsters knew and know about this. Selling worthless claims by presenting gold-covered pieces of lead as real nuggets worked the same. Anyway, nidai KANEMOTO is a legend. From the days of warfare in Muromachi times to Yukio Mishima's seppuku in 20th century: Every samurai in the past wanted and every would-be samurai at present would like to possess a saijo-o-wazamono by Seki-no-Magoroku. Forgeries in his name and false attributions are countless. reinhard

Show us the opposite side of this obscure certificate, if you please. reinhard

These menuki were shown during a special exhibition in Atsuta Jingu in 1994 together with some of the finest examples of Tosogu. Like I said: The pics in the catalogue are not very good and cropping didn't do them a favour. Pic is just to illustrate there are peacock menuki. It was a common design especially in the Ishiguro school. Here's the original comment: reinhard

Clive, peacocks are not uncommon a subject for menuki. First attachement shows an example by Goto TEIJO. Sorry for the bad quality. It's the scan of an illustration from a catalogue.. Thomas (Helm), you've stated that Raijin and Fujin are rare subjects for menuki. Well, they're not that rare. Second attachment shows the best pair I've seen so far. It is attributed to Yokoya SOYO. The "skull and bones"-theme lasted for a long time. It never became really popular though. Third attachment shows a tsuba from late Edo/ Meiji period. reinhard

It would take us more than one bottle of Whiskey to talk this over. reinhard

Veli, All I can say on the basis of your pics is: This is a very interesting sword. Have it checked carefully by a reliable expert IN HAND. Shape, condition and surface details look interesting. Forget about the utsuri-discussion so far. Some statements were accurate and others were just half digested theories. Utsuri is one of the most complex and demanding features of NihonTo. It cannot be appreciated or even understood on the basis of pictures; and BTW: utsuri is still just one feature among many others. Many people start focussing on Bizen province immediately when hearing of utsuri. That's the first mistake. Many people have theoretical ideas about utsuri without knowing real examples. That's the second mistake. Some people are seeing utsuri where there is none. That's the third mistake. Some people can't see utsuri even if it's just in front of their eyes. That's the fourth mistake. I can't tell you for sure, if there's utsuri on your blade or not, but there are many other features worth looking at. For the utsuri-afficionados out there: Here's a sample of a blade by Ichimonji SANETOSHI (Bizen province). Utsuri is highly irregular. It looks as if this kind of utsuri correlates to the one of Aya-no-Koji SADATOSHI (Yamashiro province). Extensive studies have been made. Ever heard of them? reinhard

Are you kidding me? This is one of the poorest (photo shop) jobs I've seen in a long time. You didn't even care about pixel sizes, shadows and proper framing (pun intended). I don't care where you got your pics from. I don't care wether this obscure object belongs to you or not. I'm just wondering why you are insisting on being the owner of TWO of these hideous objects. In your place, I'd be eager to proof I'm NOT owning junk like this. Sad enough this kind of crap is seriously discussed on a board dedicated to NihonTo. reinhard

nengo is: Tenmei san-nen.....(1783) reinhard

You got me wrong. It looks as if you posted two different pics of one and the same object. This becomes obvious when comparing them to the background. The objects have the exact same size and are placed on the exact same spot on the tissue. In fact, so exactly in the same positiion it is beyond coincidence. Actually it looks as if the same pic was just edited in completely different ways. It doesn't really matter much, for this thing is far from real Tosogu anyway. Maybe I'm wrong. I was just wondering. Could you show us the two objects in one shot, please? reinhard

You are presenting the same obscure object twice. (BTW, it was the background) reinhard

Check: Japanese Swords and Sword Fittings from the Collection of Dr. Walter Ames Compton, Part II Christies NY, 1992, Lot No. 203 reinhard

Accuracy and fidelity are not unknown in Hollywood. It's just that they don't matter much in Hollywood's business plans. Since making movies for the big screen has turned into a multi-million dollar investment, Hollywood handed over movie-making to accountants and lawyers. That's why most of Hollywood's movies are so incredibly boring and predictable from the start. It takes quite a calibre to enforce accuracy of details at least, not to speak of historical accuracy. Stanley Kubrick was quite successful with "Barry Lyndon", f.e., no matter how accurate Thackeray's novel looks like from a Historian's perspective. Martin Scorcese is trying to smuggle accuracy and fidelity of details into his pictures and is doing quite well. Ridley Scott didn't, nor will he give history lessons, but the glasses in "Gladiator" looked at least like Roman glass. I thank him for that and for two hours of good entertainment. That's what Hollywood is good for at its best. There is nothing else to expect. Definitely no history lessons. Last, but not least. See "Tasogare Seibei" ("Twilight samurai"). It will give you a feel for samurai culture like no other movie. reinhard

Barry, the NTHK paper is attributing an unsigned blade to the school of Hokke Ichijo, made during Oei era in Bingo province. This is definitely not the blade you are presenting. reinhard

The gimei is quite obvious, isn't it? Well, it should be. reinhard

deleted

deleted

Saddest picture I've seen for a long time. reinhard