John C

Ray: Okay. I see it now. I assumed there were three kanji at the top rather than two. Not sure I was looking that far back either. Thank you very much. John C.

Hello valued translators: I have been trying to work out this date on my own using available reference materials, however the first two kanji (era?) have me stumped. I believe it says: [the era] go ni nen hachi gatsu = the 7th year of [era]; month of August. I realize the picture is not that great. This is from an auction site. I'm not interested in the blade, just attempting to translate the date and learn. I have noticed the stylized dates on the nakago do not always match the way kanji are printed. Thank you, John C. P.S. This will NOT be a regular request. Just can't figure this one out.

Jacques: According to the Token Society of Great Britain, the Kanbun Shinto swords followed this same pattern; namely: "Swords were Adapted to a new dueling style. Blades had less sori and marked taper towards the kissaki. This shape was believed to facilitate a faster and more efficient draw and slash with a sword which could be a major factor in such combat." I'm not saying this sword is anywhere near that old. But could someone have made it in that style thereby "concealing" its actual age? John C.

Folks: I was able to resize the pics to show the sugata (I hope). I too believe the signature may be gimei because it seems as if it were not done with any confidence. Like watching someone write a forged check - it's always hesitant. Thank you guys so much for the information. It all helps. John C.

Mike: I believe the flag is known as a good luck flag (yosegaki hinomaru). It would be signed by relatives and friends with good luck wishes and given to a soldier. Although not related to the sword, a translation may help you identify the original owner. John C.

Jimmy: As I stated in an earlier post, I tried to post a pic of the sugata, however the file size was too large and wouldn't load. Sorry for the inconvenience. I do realize the sword is an anomaly...that's why I'm here to get your opinion. You very well could be right on all accounts. I just don't know. I was hoping to learn from those who have been studying this for a while, so I do thank you for your assessment. I too always gave my students honest feedback; even when it was something they may not want to hear. John C.

Thank you very much, Steve. John C.

Steve: Thank you for the tip. That book is currently on Amazon for almost 1,000 dollars! I'll have to wait for a sale. In the meantime, I appreciate the advice and direction given on NMB. As someone who is new to this, learning from those who are experienced is a must. John C.

Jimmy: Thank you for the assessment. My initial thoughts were the same; that it was probably gimei and might even be made by a showa smith (reference the SE Kokura mark on the mune). The consensus however, of which you are among them, is that it is an older blade. Not sure why someone would gimei an unknown smith. Doesn't seem too productive. But then again, maybe they figured any signature would sell. John C.

Hello everyone: These are from an Ebay auction I was looking at. It appears the nakago has been cleaned, but to me, the signatures look ok. Would you all be able to assist with the translation? Much appreciated, John C.

Alex: Here's what I got for dimensions: Overall length 57.7cm; blade length 44.8cm, width at mitsukado is 18.5mm; width at hamaki is 25.46mm; between hamachi and munemachi width is 21.14mm; width at the jiri is 16.52mm. The thickness is 4.5mm at the jiri; 7mm at the munemachi; 5.36mm mid-blade; 5.27mm at the kissaki. The blade weighs in at 352g (12.6oz). The sori is 8mm measured at the blade and 1.3cm measured kissaki to jiri. Would blades be made for the boys day occasion or would the youth just be given a small wakizashi? John C.

Just to add...I cannot seem to capture the boshi very well in the pics. With the naked eye, however, it looks like ichimonji-kaeri (一文字返り). John C.

Thank you all again for your expertise. Here are some requested photos of the kissaki. The file size of the overhead shots are too large to attach. I really appreciate this, guys. (sorry for the use of an old Ipad. It's all I have right now). John C.

Another pic... the kashira.

Jussi: I endeavored to take some pics with the habaki on. File sizes are too large to include all of them. The habaki is silver clad and seems to fit very well. Probably original to the sword. The koshirae that came with the blade were probably "after market" and I do not believe original to the blade, though I could be wrong. John C.

Guys: I really do appreciate everyone's passion on this subject. It actually does help me figure this stuff out. Kind of like crowd sourcing, somewhere lies the truth about origin of this blade. I have included two additional pics (see my other threads for many other shots of this blade). One in the sun showing the hamon and one of the hamachi. Thank you all again for your efforts. John C.

John V. Will do. Thank you. Trying to learn as much as I can! John C.

Jacques: For a kazu uchi mono (mass-produced blade?), what era would we be talking about? Was it more common in certain time periods? Interesting, thank you. John C.

Alex: Thank you. Did some reading on the Sue-Takada school. Many of the elements of the blade seem to fit that style, however I'm just too new at this to call it either way. FYI, the the hamon does drop off onto the nakago just like the picture displayed in the link you provided. John C.

Again thanks to everyone for their input. Alex: In response to your question about length. The overall length is 57.6cm; the blade length is 44.7cm (the registration card lists it as 44.8); and the sori is .8cm (which matches the registration card). In addition, I measured the mekugi-ana. the "first" one tapers toward the middle from both sides, though the opening is slightly larger on the omote side of the nakago. The second ana is just slightly smaller, though it also tapers from the omote side to the ura side, however not as much as the "first" ana. I suspect the second ana could be drilled if the drill bit were wiggle a little on the omote side creating a slightly larger opening. I tried to take a pic straight on if it helps. John C.

John V. I see what you mean. I assumed the polisher had gone farther down on the nakago, however I do see an area just below the polished area that has a slight thinning or indentation. This could indicate the original location of the hamachi. Additionally, it appears the hamon does extend into the nakago about 3cm. So what does that mean? Is non-suriage machi okuri common? John C.

I agree that the blade does not seem that old to me. It seems sturdy, light, and hand forged (as opposed to machined). My early assumption was a Gendaito or other modern blade. But there are also too many inconsistencies with the mei, overall blade shape, and mune marks. As well as the possible mystery mark(s). Incidentally, that is why I came to you all on this forum. I hoped that if anyone could solve this mystery if would be the learned folks on NMB! Thank you all very much for taking the time to help out with this endeavor. John C.

...a couple more.

Here are some more pics of the blade to get an overall feel for its age and style. John C.

I think the authors' arguments are based on a single observation - the spacing of the mekugi-ana seems to be consistent - though without much empirical evidence. They also admit that NBTHK had a "heated argument" over the same issue. I agree that issues brought up by everyone here help to explain the placement of tsuka, beyond simply fashion (adding tsuba to aikuchi fittings). They also barely mentioned the notion that, for a time period, tsuka were standardized, which could explain multiple holes spaced a certain distance apart. I suspect their "imaginary line" theory for the placement of the first mekugi-ana has merit in terms of standardization. But that would also explain additional holes! For this issue at least, I believe researching original texts on sword production rather than anecdotal evidence based on personal observation would have brought the authors to a more varied conclusion. John C.