John C

Based on the position of the last kanji, it looks as if the mei was added after the nakago-jiri was re-shaped from its original. My vote is for gimei. John C.

Difficult to see but it does look acid etched. All you can see is a line with no "activity." In addition, the blade is the wrong shape and too evenly "polished", which I believe based on the pictures is just chromed. Best advice is to use this sword as a learning tool to discover what a real sword looks like...and doesn't look like. Regards, John C.

Okay. So I think I got it partly correct. The statement I made above was in reference to the article's mention of "a subdued whitish color", which is different from what Tadayoshi was doing (at least that was my understanding). I will need to go through Markus Sesko's kantei series (which I have already started reading) to further my understanding of what these elements actually look like on a blade. Applying the verbiage to actual examples will hopefully help me visualize the differences. Thank you, John C.

It's hard to tell without seeing the rest of the blade. But keep in mind that signatures have always been faked; often times extremely well. In fact, blades are judged on the elements of the blade itself regardless of the signature. Pretend it isn't there and focus on the aspects of the blade. You may find it is a decent war relic after all. John C.

John V.: Is that an example of Hizen tetsu or maybe slag left behind in the forging process? John C.

You can see that the end of the tsunagi has straightened and does not match the curvature of the blade. That is probably what is causing it to bind. You can sand the end of the tsunagi down so that it fits, which will change the end shape or you can steam (or boiling water) bend the end back into shape (google how to do this. You will need a jig or form). But as Mark said, it's just there to hold everything in place when the blade is not there so it is up to you. For that matter, make a new one! John C.

Kyle: I think both are not original to the blade, meaning they are not factory. The mark is probably a "mon" (family crest) carved into the tang by the owner when he was bored...or after it was surrendered. The signature is fake as well, though this is quite common. John C.

At this stage of my development, I should have picked a gentler task! It seems Tadayoshi's style was similar to that of the masters he copied; e.g., Shizu Kaneuji. One of his “trademarks” was to use a “dense” ko-mokume hada known as konuka-hada. I have also seen this described as “tight” or “fine.” (https://nihonto.com/shodai-hizen-tadayoshi-初代肥前忠吉/). Another was his chu-suguha with deep ko-nie and ashi. Of note, early on Shodai Tadayoshi had a coarse, unrefined Koto style hada called Hizen tetsu (blackish steel with ko-mokume hada typical of Koto work). This would be different than what would be seen in a typical Naoe-Shizu blade. In terms of Naoe-Shizu, the style was similar to that of Mino shizu with less curvature and somewhat lighter blades. (http://www.sho-shin.com/naoe.htm). In addition, they favored a wide mihaba and O-kissaki (https://new.uniquejapan.com/a-naoe-shizu-school-juyo-katana/). Moreover, the typical Naoe “signature” was no signature (mumei). I know this does not answer the question directly, however I think the first step in identifying an utsushi blade would be to understand the styles of 1) the individual purporting to have made the blade, or 2) the school to which it was attributed. I will study the elements of kantei over the next few months and re-visit this topic at a later date...and hopefully be able to provide more cogent response. Oh, well. I gave it a shot. John C.

Jay: Personally, I would not use gun oil as it may "open" the pores of the steel, which it is designed to do. Choji oil (sword oil) is 90-99 percent mineral oil. So if you have some food grade mineral oil (it's lighter than standard mineral oil) you can use that. A VERY thin layer is all you need using a clean cloth, preferably microfiber. Grey Doffin recommends sewing machine oil, which is also good. As for the scabbard, you may consider a very thin layer of wax. But really, you don't need to do much to it. Another consideration is whatever your goals are for the blade. Some folks here restore their blades and scabbards (by painting them) because they want to display them and are not concerned with intrinsic value. Your blade; your choice. John C.

STEFd: If you bought it knowing what it was, then I think you still have an interesting piece of history that tells a story of the opening of the East to the West. And in a separate way, an historical piece on the history of commercialism and tourism. John C.

Jacques: In an effort to learn, I'll bite. Firstly, I had to google "utsushi", which I assume means "copy." Secondly, I looked for a connection between Tadayoshi and the Naoe-Shizu school. I could not find a connection, though admittedly my resources are quite limited. I did find out there were 9 generations of Tadayoshi, with the 8th gen not receiving a title (from Nagayama). Next, I looked up the qualities of the Naoe-Shizu school. I found an article that referenced the following description about a Naoe-Shizu blade: "This blade demonstrates many of the qualities that make Naoe-Shizu stand out above the norms of the time. The sugata is grand without being excessive, the hada tight and clear with a lot of activity and the hamon is gently cultivated and complex. It skilfully [sic] avoids the excesses of the period while at the same time it resisted falling in to the contrived patterns so familiar in Mino work." As a novice, I am sure I am missing a connection here. But to give a specific answer about sugata, hamon, etc.,, I first need to know whether or not Tadayoshi is somehow connected to the Naoe-Shizu school. Any hints? John C.

You can find more of this theme from Fred Lohman, if you decide to get it and deck it out. https://www.Japanese-swords.com/pages/skull.htm John C.

Jay: Bruce is definitely the man to give you more info on the sword, but I also think you should buy it for 300. They are late models but solid pieces. And BTW, if you get it, don't do anything to it until you read the care and cleaning instructions on this forum. No need to take off the handle. There was usually nothing written on the tang on these models. John C.

Hal: I believe most were done in the 80's and 90's but are still being done today in China, India, and Poland(I think). They use a combination of real parts, if they can get them, and fake parts and the parts are artificially aged. In terms of signatures, those have been faked for hundreds of years. Best advice is to look here at real swords (or threads that talk about fake ones) and study the differences. You will eventually train your eye to pick up on those differences. John C.

Brian: As Chris said above. My initial thoughts as well. Specifically, the lack of detail in the hand guard of the type 32 and the fake tsuba (see your other post). Also the serial numbers seem off from the pictures. Marks on the type 95 are also not correctly done. John C.

Hal: You will also want to brush up on Japanese sword terminology. You may hear that the blade is O suriage mumei with two mekugi ana (shortened blade, usually at the tang that has no signature and has two holes for bamboo handle pins). Many of the folks here use that terminology regularly to describe what they are seeing. Check out the Nihonto info tab and the FAQ tab for more info on terminology and blade care. John C.

Jussi: Thanks! (But you didn't talk about any of the ones I am interested in!!) John C.

This could be the explanation when looking at David D.'s breakdown above. But it is important to remember that there were more blades made before 1868 than after. So much of what is being submitted should come from roughly the same time period. It is true, however, that there may be blades of less quality submitted over time as the "good" blades pass shinsa and "bad" ones continue to get re-submitted. I suspect, however, that would not account for much of the discrepancy. I think the answer lies elsewhere. John C.

Subegh: There is another Baba Tsugukiyo up for auction on the Sofe Design auction site. You might be able to compare the mei and other blade details with that one. John C.

Matt: Is the Mantetsu (item #215) yours? John C.

It could be. I know in terms of college class grading, there is always a certain percentage of students who get A's, B's, F's etc. If a particular teacher (let's say the shinsa judge in this case), has a higher percentage of either A's or F's than other teachers, the class is sometimes audited to find out why because these percentages are fairly consistent over time, irrespective of class size (number of swords submitted in this case). Since I know absolutely nothing about how a shinsa works, I am speaking purely hypothetically. Just speaking about how a certain percentage of passed swords may be derived. John C.

Kevin: To determine age, the folks here will need to look at the sugata, or overall shape. Another picture looking down onto the edge of the entire blade would help. Also the full nakago (tang) (make sure the end can be seen clearly). The kissaki (tip), the hamachi (where the blade edge meets the tang), and any good pictures of the hamon (to determine style). It's quite an art determining the age (period or era) of a blade, however there are some folks here that are pretty good at it (I an NOT among them!) John C.

The numbers not matching the blade assembly number is not a big deal. Koshirae were frequently changed due to damage or wear. The nice thing is the saya and fittings all match each other, which means they have been together for a while. I would not be concerned by the yellow thread. I suspect most here would tell you to just remove it if it were not an original attachment. John C.

You are most likely correct. It's hard for me to tell sometimes. John C.

Karl: FYI The yellow painted numbers (2477 I think) are assembly numbers. Do the other parts have this number stamped on them? John C.