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.

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.