John C

Thomas: Thank you for that confirmation. The research I have done on kanji and katakana had me confused somewhat. It seemed as if the first kanji could be Pei, Minamoto, Hira, bei, or Taira depending on the obscured marks. In truth, I do not have much understanding of syllabary languages, though I know they are highly nuanced depending on context. Thanks again, John C.

Collin: There is a thread called Dai Inspection Mark that I started that has some pics of the nakago and blade on it. Hopefully, that helps as well. John C.

Jimmy: My thoughts as well. Could it be a military blade that someone tried to alter and make look older? The consensus is that it looks like an older blade, so I am not sure. Charles: Not sure how big the star stamp was, however that spot there is only about 3mm wide. The spot I identified is about 6mm wide, if that helps. John C.

I have taken an updated picture of the mune that shows the marks more clearly. The first I suspect is still the dai/tai/O kanji. The second now appears to be a SE katakana mark. Could the dai kanji (big, bigness, large) actually mean size? I still can't figure out why these two marks would be together. Thank you for looking again at this. I appreciate everyone's efforts. Regards, John C.

I was looking at my wak under a loop and noticed this "spot" on the ura side of the blade. Maybe I'm just seeing things, however it looks like someone tried to remove a mark of some sort. I am unsure since I am unfamiliar with typical nakago condition. Any thoughts? Regards, John C.

Steve: Yes - the very same. I am new to collecting swords and not very well versed on determining age, smith, etc. In reference to the mekugi-ana, the second ana obscures part of the mei. And unfortunately, the registration card and the mei seem to contradict without being able to know what the kanji should look like. I was therefore attempting to look at style, shape, the nakago, etc., to determine at least the age. John C.

Thank you all for the responses. Thank you Alex for the link to the article. It was interesting. I was hoping the positioning or number of mekugi-ana could give me some indication as to the era my wak was made. I believe it is probably showa; possibly Taisho. It seems, however, there are too many variables for mekugi-ana to be used as a reliable age indicator. Back to the drawing board... John C.

Alex: As a woodworker, I agree that it would be far easier to drill through wood than through steel, in essence making a new hole in a new handle. The difficulty is lining up the existing hole in the nakago. I guess the real question is whether or not we find two mekugi-ana on gendaito and showa-era swords. If so, the argument about fashion in the Edo period seems less salient. John C.

Sorry everyone. The font color and style look fine on my end (I use a Mac pro) so I was unaware of the problem. I will figure it out for future posts. Thank you for letting me know. John C.

Fellow enthusiasts: In an effort to find out as much as possible about my wakizashi, I started to research the reasons for two mekugi-ana, one of which was drilled/punched through the mei. After reading multiple threads on NMB, I came across an article by Tanner and Coutinho that I thought presented an interesting theory on the topic. I was hoping to get your collective input as to the validity of the theory they present. In reference to the placement and number of mekugi-ana, Tanner and Coutinho (2019) contend there were factors related to fashion and style, rather than suriage or tsuka length, that precipitated adding another mekugi-ana. They note that: “In the kanagu of the latter part of the Muromachi and Momoyama periods, short fuchi with low koshi are conspicuous and thin tsuba are more prevalent. On the other hand, in the beginning of the Edo era, the koshi of the fuchi became long and the thickness of the tsuba increased. Therefore, the position of the mekugi ana was moved away from the imaginary line connecting the ha-machi to the mune-machi.” At least some of their conclusions were drawn because of the consistency in distance between the original mekugi-ana and the later addition in the swords they sampled. Specifically, they found the two mekugi-ana were 1cm apart on tanto and 2cm apart on wakizashi and katana. Additionally, Tanner and Coutinho (2019) suggest the ana added at a later date is most often the one incidentally put through the mei. I suspect most of you have read this article before, however I have included the address below for those who haven’t and would like to. https://to-ken.uk/onewebmedia/Article%20about%20the%20position%20of%20the%20mekugi%20%2016%2005%202019.pdf Thank you for your input. Regards, John C.

Sorry for being late on this...I just came across it. But for anyone affected by this, the local police or postal service may not help much because of jurisdiction or the manner in which the crime was committed. You can, however, contact the FBI or Office of Enforcement Operations if the value of goods is 5,000 USD or more. Mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341) or transporting stolen goods across state lines (18 U.S.C. § 2314) are federal offenses. The federal government has more teeth than local law enforcement. "This is because, like online activity, the federal government considers the mail to be an “interstate” activity no matter where a letter or package may travel." Hope this helps if anyone needs to recover stolen items. Regards, John C.

Ah yes, Bruce. I stand corrected. I meant to say "Hi". There was a book page posted on another thread that listed marks used by swordsmiths. Q-13 on that chart shows a very similar mark. Thank you for catching that. Regards, John C.

Trystan: Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately, the blade did not come with original fittings. Could the "shichi" be the word Na or a principal inspection mark? My feeling is it was a civilian sword donated to the military. Possibly a crew sword? Thank you again, John C.

Thank you very much, Jussi. I could not find any character for Minamoto that matched the first kanji. And indeed, the only Minamoto Sadamori I could find were five hundred years ago and I do not think the sword could be that old. I very much appreciate your efforts. I will do more research into Taira Sadamori. John C.

Hello everyone: I am having doubts about the translation of the mei on the registration card of this wakazashi. The card reads Minamoto Sadamori as the mei translation. After looking at numerous kanji (I do not speak Japanese), I think the last two kanji do say Sada - Mori, however I cannot see Minamoto in the first kanji. Indeed, what is written on the registration card vaguely represents what is on the nakago. Does anyone recognize the first kanji on the nakago? I have more pictures posted on another thread of the sword Thank you very much. I appreciate any assistance you can provide. Regards, John C.

Thank you Steve. I had the same thoughts. Could be any number of reasons there for a gimei; student signature, presentation piece, or just attempted fraud. That's why I was focusing on this being a Showa era sword with those mune marks. I guess another explanation would be a civilian donated sword during WWII. Either way, I wasn't convinced by the signature, however I thought the blade looked like it was hand forged - possibly a gendaito? There is a blob on the uru side of the nakago that could have once been some sort of stamp...or maybe I'm just seeing things. Thank you again, John C.

Steve: I have 2 more pics for you...the nakago and the registration card. Much appreciated. John C.

Thank you Bruce and Steve for the input. As for other marks, the tsuka, saya, and other fittings were not military and I could not find any other marks on them. I found one reference that suggested the Dai (or O, or Tai, or Y as in Yamato) was used at the Tokyo Arsenal 2nd factory in Kokura at least on the Nambu pistol. Additionally, I found another reference that listed the second mark as a principal inspection mark at the same factory (that may have been from a page posted by you, Bruce). Here are some further pictures of the sword, which may help in identifying it. Its overall length is 57.5cm with a 44.1cm cutting edge. The registration card indicated it was registered in Okayama Prefecture in 1965. And thank you all again for the assistance.

Hello everyone: I am new to this site and, as you may have guessed, this is my first post. So please let me know if this post should be part of some other topic. I have a question about a Dai mark on the mune of what I believe to be a Showa era Wakazashi. The mark is just above what I think is the kanji for the number 7. There is a space then 4 diagonal tick marks. The research I have done suggests that both marks were used as inspection marks at one point by the Kokura arsenal. What I can't figure out is 1) why both marks would be on the same sword; 2) what the tick marks mean; 3) the time frame; and 4) were wakazashis even made there? There is a mei on the sword that may not be genuine (Minamoto Sadamori kami(?). There are no other marks or stamps that I can find. Any assistance you all could provide would be greatly appreciated. Regards, John C. .