John C

Bruce: If you are still collecting Mantetsu serial numbers, I have 3 more for you: 1. RA 766, Spring 1944 2. YA 710, Autumn 1942 3. Unk 125? (see pic), Winter 1939 John C

Lee: Just more food for thought. Umegane, in general if filled correctly, are not considered fatal flaws. But the question may be how many imperfections are you willing to accept? John C.

Yuliyan: This may help. A link to Richard Stein's page on origami papers. It describes how to interpret them. http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/origami.htm John C.

Dail: I'm not a sword expert at all, but here is some interesting research: "The first Tanba no Kami Yoshimichi was the 3rd son of Kanemichi in Mino. He moved to Kyoto in 1559, then received the name as “Tanba no Kami” in 1595. His swords were seen by 1634, and then passed away in 1635 or 1636. He was called as “Hokake Tanba” because one of his Kanji character 丹 (Tan) looks similar to 帆 (Ho) of 帆掛 (Hokake) which means “Sail”. Notice how the first character in the name engraved on the tang is the shape of a sail." Look at the shape of the kanji and try to compare to known examples. John C.

If anyone is using a door bell camera or CCTV, you can record the time the item was supposedly delivered and show that it wasn't. Maybe that can help with the insurance issue, at least. That has worked for me in the past. John C.

Bruce: Thank you! Looking forward to reading about your future discoveries. (Not like a groupie, or anything. Just interested in the topic). John C.

No problem, Bruce. Loved your article on the Mantetsu blade, however I am still unclear on one point. You note, very well I might add, the timeline for the mei and use of the logo stamp beginning in 1938. But did the use of the stamp continue or was it replaced by the mei? Thank you, John C.

Bruce: Not sure if you got the serial number for the above blade, so here it is... John C.

Here is another one being sold as "original" and has multiple bids. https://www.ebay.com/itm/314185427970?hash=item4926e92c02:g:d50AAOSwn-hjUbM- John C.

John: Thank you. It goes toward confirming my suspicions. This is now 7 examples of Yukihiro signing one way, while the signature on the blade in question is signed differently. Could be an anomaly, but who knows. John C.

Wow. You guys are absolutely the best. Thank you very much! I am accumulating as many known translated samples as possible for a reference file. John C.

Hello: These have me stumped due to their style. I think the second character may be tsugu. But cannot figure out the first. Am I close? John C.

Folks: (particularly those of us who are new) Here is an example of an ebay listing for a WW2 Japanese Sword. All kinds of red flags. But you will notice there are still people bidding on it. https://www.ebay.com/itm/144780901273 John C.

Thank you guys. I tried looking them up but couldn't figure it out. I envy your skills! John C.

Hello: This mei is from an auction I am interested in, however the kanji used in the signature are different than his normal signature. The smith normally signed Chikugo ju Muto Yukihiro. This mei is signed Chikugo [something] ju Yukihiro [something] saku. It's the two "somethings" I can't figure out. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, John C.

Further information: I have checked 3 other mei from nakago posted on NMB referencing this smith. All 3 mei match the sample in the book for RJT smith Yukihiro. At least 2 reference the star stamp. The blade in question on this auction uses a different style of mei. There are more kanji, two of which I cannot identify. Do you think this is the same smith? Thank you, John C.

My apologies: the name of the smith is Muto Yukihiro from Fukuoka prefecture. John C.

Vielen Dank, Chris. I will take all of that into consideration. John C. BTW: Ich hatte fur drei Jahre im Deutschland gewohnt.

Re: Here is the book page being presented for the sword above. John C.

Hello everyone: I have some concerns about the representation of a mei on a Muto Yukihiro signed blade. I am interested in this sword, which is being presented in an auction. But the signature on the blade is written in a different style than the one being presented by the seller in a book page. Could this be the same smith? I believe the date on the blade is Showa 1943, however there do not seem to be any star or other stamps to indicate RJT. Any insight you could provide would be much appreciated. Full disclosure: Seller (Hennadiy2006 on ebay) is asking 2750. John C.

Could be the camera angle, but it looks as if the tsuba were made for a tanto or wak and the seppa were made for a katana (different size nakago holes). John C.

Kirill and Jussi: Those were my thoughts as well, however I was concerned that the more famous Sukemitsu may be the one more "faked" than a lessor known Sukemitsu. I hope to someday own a sword from pre-1868 and I am trying to hone my research and interpretation skills in case I come across a decent prospect. Thank you both very much for your input. John C.

Good day everyone: I would like your opinion on the validity of the mei on a tanto. In an effort to increase my understanding of signatures and dates, I have been studying mei and nengo kanji from pictures of nakago online. Below are two samples; the one in question with the seller's hand is from an auction site I have (hopefully correctly) translated and the other one from NBTHK paperwork from the same smith. In comparing the two mei, they appear to be very similar. The issue is with the dates. The NBTHK papered tanto was dated 1442. The one from the auction is dated 1461. Information I can find on the smith was that he worked with the Bizen/Bishu school from 1398 to 1441. Does anyone have an opinion on the validity of the signature given the terrible pictures and date discrepancies? I have translated (took 3 days!) the mei as Bishu osafune Sukemitsu. Full disclosure: The mei is from an auction site, however I am not interested in purchasing the blade. Just trying to develop translation and mei interpretation skills. Thank you very much for helping me learn. Regards John C.

Jussi: The mei from my blade and the reference sample side-by-side look very different. Even the phrasing "Sadamori saku" vs. "Taira Sadamori." So, a gimei then? As for the koshirae, I can take a pic if you think it would help, however as you have heard, my pictures are not very good using my current equipment. Additionally, the tsuka and tsuba are not original to the blade. Or at least the tsuba is not. It must be at least 5 or 6 mm too large and rattles on the blade. The saya seems to fit okay and the habaki is an exact fit. John C.

Everyone: I really do appreciate all of the input. I guess it is somewhat comforting to know that my confusion over this sword is, at least in part, warranted. I think for now, I will just file this sword away as a "study" piece and look for examples of various eras that may fit the profile, etc. Thank you all very much for the interest in helping me solve this puzzle. And for the education and knowledge you all have provided. John C. p.s . I'll ditch the old Ipad and buy a better camera!