YourBabyBjornBorg

Hi, sorry to add on this already perfectly discussed and finished topic. Hope what I say can help a little bit. First, I think this Mei is a very badly made Gimei, almost the work of an amateur. (It says Awataguchi Ominokami Tadatsuna/粟田口近江守忠綱, and the 1st gen of this name is an early to mid edo smith, so definitely not Momoyama.) Better pictures will be needed for a more in-depth look at this sword, but it's not necessary, for this is just not a very good sword. The Horimono also doesn't look very promising. And Osuriage is only when there is no Mei left on the sword, while Suriage is Machiokuri with the Nakago cut and shortened also. Yes, the Habaki is damaged and should be replaced to prevent making scratches on the blade.

This is 昭和卅壱年(Showa 31 years). 壱 is a deliberately complicated way of writing the number one (一), so it's harder to be tampered with on paper, say a check or something. 卅 is three 十 put together, there for 30. Also just FYI, 弍 or 貳 is two, 弎 is three, and 廿 is 20. There is also the classic way of writing four like a crosshair turned 45°, because 四 and 死 (die/death) have the same pronunciation.

Not that I can see, no. There are only the three characters "正阿弥" going from up to down between the Kozuka-Ana and the Nakago-Ana.

The right one also says Shoami (正阿弥).

Yes, Nijuba are very common features in Nihonto, and kind of easy to be confused with Tsuchiochi's result. From my very poor understanding of it, one way to tell is to look for signs of lack of control of the Hamon, for example, Mura (ムラ/叢) or Kuzure(崩れ), Also, the rim of Hamon with Tsuchiochi tends to be jagged and irregular in an unappealing fashion, from my limited experience, indicating an unintentional mistake. Still, many great Nie-Deki Nihonto have very irregular Hataraki (I prefer to call them Syosa/所作, though), so I would lean heavily on the separated, jagged, and unappealing part, not the irregular part, to tell a Tsuchiochi from Nijuba. In this particular case, I still get a strong feeling that this is a traditionally forged sword, retempered and oil-quenched, probably in China, resulting in very poor control of Hamon with a thin, uncannily stiff and consistent Nioguchi, like many other poorly made Chinese Japanese-style swords I have seen.

Oh, the two Hamon lines are because the clay applied on the blade before tempering fell off during quenching (Tsuchiochi/土落ち). They are defects somewhat common on poorly made Nihonto and Nihonto-style swords. [Irrelevant rumbling] The method of applying clay is called Tsuchioki(土置き), it is to create a controlled Hamon. [Even more irrelevant rumbling] One can create glorious Hamon without Tsuchioki, for example, the Japanese Designated National Treasure sold for close to 4 million dollars, Sanchomo. The modern Nihonto smith Sugita Yoshiaki San is also famous for his rediscovering this ancient technique called Hadaka-Yaki(naked tempering).

Sorry for the confusion, in short, I believe this is to be a genuine traditionally made Japanese sword (Nihonto), but re-hardened (Saiba-ed). Re-hardened Nihonto generally have little value, so is this poorly re-hardened one. some parts of the mounting are fine, but the handle wrapping is especially bad. It's likely because it was burned once so the "Hamon" (not really, though) was annealed and gone, and the sword became a burnt blade (Yakimi/焼身). (It could also be the tip of the sword was broken so a re-hardening is required.) burnt blades are surprisingly more common than people would expect in the low-end Nihonto market. A side note is that the Hamon is quite clearly off to any trained eyes, and it's not just because of the poor and acid-enhanced polishing. So it leaves questions about whether the collector who sold you this blade is a trusting-worthing person or not, when it comes to Nihonto trading.

Unfortunately, this kind of registration document (銃砲刀剣登録証 or even NBTHK papers)can be easily forged where I come from. It's important to see the handwriting on it for Japanese Kanji have distinct differences from Chinese characters when handwritten. If it's not shown, there is something to speculate about it. Also IMHO, the blade itself IS genuine, from the Kitaeware on Shinogiji. That's a definite sign of traditional Nihonto smithing there. But the Yakiba is really bad, way too stiff(as too consistent in a bad way), and has way too much Mura（ムラ or 叢） and Kuzure（崩れ）. Combined with the very weird and uncalled-for Yakiotoshi(焼き落とし) and vaguely visible Yakidashi Uturi (焼出移, some would say Mizukage, 水影, but Nakahara Nobuo Sensei would argue they are not the same thing), this a Saiba（再刃）-ed Nihonto no doubt, probably done in China by a not traditionally trained person (there's none anyway, one person comes very close, though). Most Saiba-ed Nihonto are considered with little artistic and market value, except for those historically significant museum collections. I am terribly sorry for my long-winded and Japanese-word-dropping reply, Saiba is just an incredibly difficult topic and takes tremendous effort to explain even most slightly. I hope someone more knowledgeable would kindly correct me on this one.

Oh my, that was a big oopsie. I meant 天明七年八月日(August 1 "7" 87). This is so embarrassing, I am very sorry.

This could also be hriiH, the character for Amitābha (who has a pure land in the west called Sukhāvatī, heavily worshiped in Greater China and Japan) and Sahasrabhuja(one of the Manifestations of the most compassionate Avalokiteśvara).

突然のコメント失礼致します。そうですね、わたくしも五か七か大変悩んでいましたが、確かに五のほうに見えてきました。ご訂正ありがとうございます。 To Nguyen San: Yes, a second look at this and it's more of a 5 to me now, sorry for the confusion.

Oh, there's a date on the back! That will be 天明七年八月日(August 1987).

The Mei says 水心子正秀(Suishinshi Masahide) with a Kao, and the Sayagaki says 出羽山形住水心子藤原正秀(Dewa Yamagata-Jyu Suishinshi Fujiwara Masahide), 長貳尺三寸(69.69cm).

This is 兼光（Kanemitsu） and 皇紀二千六百年（1940）. My rice cooker just went off, I will have to check on that before I provide more information.

One bowl of braised beef after and I still have no clue on this. This really is a toughie. Maybe someone else with more understanding of Gunto could shed their light on this. I hope you can find the answer very soon.

Thank you for trying, rubbing is indeed very hard and takes much practice to get results. The first character is 兼(Kane), not very sure about the second one, but it somewhat resembles a 次(Tsugu). I am completely ignorant about Gunto for lack of interest, but I will try to see what I can find about this particular one after I finish my soy sauce braised beef.

Wow, this is hard. Accurate translation will need a charcoal or pencil rubbing of the Nakago, but if I were a gambling person, I would say this is 昭和十（八年？）something, so an early Showa one. The maker's signature might be at the back.

Yes, and thank you kindly! This is such a nice place to learn about Nihonto, I wish I had joined here sooner.

A Ken in late Edo and in this length! This is such a rare and intriguing piece, thank you for sharing its pictures. It definitely looks like Shinshinto IMHO. The current polishing is already good enough albeit a little old, but I'm very excited to see how Mr. Benson would work his magic to awaken this Ken with a new polishing. Thank you again for letting me see this marvelous Ken!

Hi, I would like to answer this if I may. This Mei reads 越前住明珍勝治作(Echizen-Jyu Myouchin Katsuharu Saku). the 珍 is written in an old way so it's kind of hard to read. Haru and Ji are both how the character 治 is pronounced. According to Seiyudo San, (sometimes?, maybe from Kamakura) before Edo, the family of Myouchin was making both Katchu and Tsuba, so their Tsubas were the rare and old Katchushi style. Of the many places they practiced Kanagu making, the Echizen Myouchin was the Kakaekou, smiths work only for one family, of the Echizen Matsudaira family for ten generations from 1664 to 1863. I am completely ignorant about Kanagu, so I'm afraid I can't help you with the motif. Thank you for your time reading my long and impolite reply. I hope you have a very pleasant day.

Hi, sorry for my abrupt comment, but this looks a little weird. Both the mid to high-class Handachi Koshirae (it that Nanako-Ji on it? Couldn't see the pictures clearly) and the gilded double Habaki (Kinnkise Habaki) indicate a good sword. But the real sword is nothing like that, just not a very good sword over all. Nakago looks mid-Edo, of course, but Hamon is most often seen in mid to late Muromachi, on low-end Osafune swords. (Looks kind of like the Sanbonsugi of Mino-Den, but not really, I think. ) Combined with the almost outrageous Sugata, this sword was probably once with a strong Koshi-Zori, then went through a very rough Suriage in Edo just to fit into this pretty good Koshirae. Although the Kengata Nakago-Jiri usually means the Suriage process was done very carefully and well, so that's where it throws me off. Because, that Sugata! I mean... If this is indeed Edo, not a Suriage-ed late Muromachi Osafune, then it's most likely a Shinto Seki. I do strongly believe this is Suriage-ed, though. Whatever this might be, the ideal price of this whole package should be around 15k Yens on Yahuoku, mostly due to its poor polishing state and less than ideally made (is this even a right expression?) sword itself. I have no idea how much it should be in the States, though, but it shouldn't be very off. Thank you for your time reading this impolite nonsense reply, please have a good day.