sc72

However, now in other photos I have noticed other horizontal scratches also in the upper part of the blade and therefore your saya thesis is plausible. It must have had some sandpaper in it

BUNGO, tenbun era I don't want to involve the seller's site and I don't know well the rules of the forum here... well, but post my photos when it arrives if I put the Smith's name here they will find it immediately.

Nagasa 67,4 cm, yes NBTHK

Hi, I believe that after this discussion I will not have materials to post here for a long time ...as I have run out of money. I'm waiting for the arrival of my latest purchase: a "poor man's" NBTHK certified Muromachi (koto) katana (about from half 1500), I say "poor man" because it's a "suriage sword" and I know from this forum that for "late sword" is not a good thing... I have some questions, but I can post a few photos for now. 1) Is the sword "suriage" or "o-suriage"? ...for sure the signature is removed and the cut-off the "nakago-Jiri" is clean ...so it should be a "keicho-suriage"... but I'm waiting for your opinion. The sign is totally missed.... so it could be an bigger "o-suriage"? 2) I see a long horizontal line (parallel to the cutting edge) walking about 1 cm from it: is it a "kizu" or a "tired blade" or another type of scratch? 3) your precious observations Thanks for anyone who wants to talk and when it arrives I will send more photos

thank you very much for your opinion

Sorry

The work marks on the nagako struck me as being identical to the herringbone (diagonals) in both swords

But Showa-to it is not Gendaito (not with tamahagane)

I am not an expert and this is why I asked for your opinion and help, but to an eye like mine the two swords seem to have the same workmanship and production. This might mean nothing if in the other forum they were wrong to consider it a showa-to from the WW2 period, but if that's the case at least mine wouldn't be Chinese either, but as someone said here a showa-to with mei and stamp missing or removed

As you seen other sword had the same signs (of mine) on nagako but (not in this foto) Mei and Seki stamp

What do you think? If it is not forbidden I could post another forum discussion here

It looks identical to mine, with "less expressive steel" and wire with the same "design" (oil not water). even the sign on the nagako are identical, although in the other sword there is the mei and the seki mark (absent or canceled in mine)

I don't know if the forum rules here prohibit posting references to threads in other forums. If in doubt I don't but I found a discussion with photos in which they talk about a sword (taken from a Japanese officer by the America GI in WW2 with military koshirae). the blade ihave Seki stamp and it is signed on the nagako (unlike my blade where it may have been removed or absent) but the blade is almost identical to mine. In the discussion they say it's a Showa-to. Some think it is not tamahagane. But not a Chinese blade. This is the blade

Sorry for big writing

I see that you too are doubtful between (nice) gunto and chinese copy.

Are we at least sure that we are excluding Chinese production? Thank to all

ok and EDO koshirae (not seen in fotos here)

I have these photos of the previously unseen points, the koshirae is useless for the purposes of evaluating the blade as it has been changed. is this a pre or WWII gunto? or worse?

Now I can't but I will do