sc72

I would appreciate the opinions of anyone who wants to comment on this

So clarified that in your opinion it is not tamahagane (No with water but finished with oil) ...it is a WWII gunto or worse a Chinese sword? ...now I see this discussion and Ray Singer post inside (with fotos) Stefano

tamahagane

or 40' years for officers private purchase

No papers, no Mei no marks on it, it described as "gendaito" 30' years non industrial (no "gunto").

hamon îs not very "active"

From Stefano

Sorry for fotos but this is the best I can

Gendaito blade purchased as "tamahagane", non-industrial production. I would be grateful for your opinion.

ok

while others say that being a mumei sword could also be possible for swords from the 30s-40s period

I read somewhere (I don't remember where ....on the internet) the statement of a guy who said that the "non-industrial" mumei gendaito sword would only be "unsigned" only if they had forging defects.

I think I understand that non industrial nihonto swords made by craftsmen from 1960s to the present day are always signed, but does being "mumei" imply anything to those swords gendaito that are presumed to be from 30s-50s years ?

I bought a book on modern Japanese swords and in the meantime that it will reach me I ask you in general: assuming that we find ourselves in front of a "gendaito" katana (...here meaning by this term a "non-industrial" Japanese sword, but a real nihonto handcrafted sword by tamahagane) can the fact that it is "ubu nagako-mumei" (and without any mark or hallmark) make us lean or say something more? ...for example the production period, pre or post 2 GM (es.. sword from 30s or from 50s?) or something else? I think the koshirae is irrelevant as it is replaceable on blade (it could be military gusto or Edo period, raplaced/changed). I have read everything and the opposite of everything on the internet Thank you

OK

thank you very much to all

How should modern Shinto swords be evaluated but with suriage and no more mei but only "Attributed" by the Hozon to someone?

First: thanks to all Yes I understand. But I was wondering this: if a "shinto" sword (or later "shinshinto") was born already short (compared to a long old sword or a "tachi") why do a suriage on it? I've seen things like this with Hozon paper

I would like to ask a question to those who know more than me about Japanese swords. I understood the concept of the sword born "mumei" and of "suriage" and "o-suriage". The shortening was used to shorten swords that had become too long for the fighting style on foot and no longer on horseback and therefore (if I am not mistaken) it is seen on "tachi" type swords or on "old swords" ("koto"). What I would like to know is what sense a "suriage" or "o-suriage" makes on new ("shinto") or later swords. Could there have been and if so why? To perhaps adapt the sword to the smaller stature of a new samurai owner? Or for a breakage (but then only if the blade was damaged not at the tip but at the back). Please explain to me, I would like to know how to relate to a "Shinto" / "mumei" sword with "suriage", they are not valid as they are considered if it is with "Hozon" certificate?

Ste is my first name (Stefano)