omidaijo

Hoping the pagination is ok.............. 3rd Gen Mutsu no kami 3rd Gen dai-mei for Nidai 2nd Gen 4th Gen Dai-mei for Nidai (angled yasurime highlighted) Gets a bit hard trying to decide whether it is dai-saku and dai-mei, or just dai-saku, or just dai-mei etc, becuse you have to start looking into the sword and using a huge amount of imagination. Scotch used to help, until you drop the blade ... worse still is when you catch it. Dope if you live in LAX. Anyway, some errors and opinion are going to creep in and I guess you can't blame the NBTHK for not going there. It helps if you can lay 3 or 4 pieces next to each other to compare, then it is a lot easier and you see what you didn't even know existed before. Used to have some great kantei sessions with Lee a few years back ... hell ... we even worked out the colour of their underwear when they forged the sword! Lee is going to hate me for this one ... discussing the merits of Tameshigiri and Seppuku in traditional kantei robes and religious regalia just like they do in Japan ! (Sorry Lee) I have been worse on occasion... a lot, lot worse! Does it really matter at the end of the day ...... I think if you have a Nidai sword that was clearly made/assisted by/ or even signed by the Sandai, you are onto a winner because the piece is going to be superb. Its gone a biit quiet out there ... are we all dumbstruck, bored to tears having heard it before, or scared we are going to put our foot in it?

Very nice. You can see the surgical precision in every detail so maybe a dai-Saku by the third ... but I wouldn't have said dai-mei. The filemarks in a 3rd gen Dai-mei are slighlty sloping (noticeably so), deep and evenly spaced, as if each one was done by machine! These don't look like they are sloping and are straight across (Nidai work), not so even and shallow? Hard to tell but have you sat the two swords down side by side and looked at just the filemarks? The mei is circa 1671 or so. If you send me/post a jpg rather than htm file, I can rotate it... saves holding my pc at 90 degrees and arms length or lying on my desk to view it! Now having said signature and filemarks in the same breath, I was taught to look for sloping filemarks to see if third gen work... but not so sure how to tell the signature other than by its precision. Does it matter? 3rd gen and 2nd gen gassaku (joint work) . Perfect. Lovely piece.

This is hard?? We haven't even started yet ..... Katana mei or tachimei?....... Look at the Masahiro and the (genuine) 4th gen swords above ... both rare and unusual katana mei. :-)

Hi Steve, The Yondai followed the greatest master of the school --- his father the 3rd Gen. His grandfather the Nidai turned a small (ish) smithy into a vast factory output with over 100 deshi, so it was all setup and the Yondai had the greatest of teachers by the time he was the boss. He was talented without doubt, and some of his swords are amazing (Jo Saku 70 Hawley point smith) , but he must have had an inferiority complex/been highly strung following in such great footsteps and I always think of him as the black sheep of the family. His work can be quite wild and outside the rather formal and traditional styles so he worked on the edge of tradition, an indication perhaps of his wild ways? He also murdered his own wife and Kikuhira when he found them having a bonk (in todays terminology). Your assumption was he was young when his father died (he was actually 18 or thereabouts so not so young in those days), and when his grandfather passed away he was 25. A young man highly trained, without doubt groomed in the secret techniques. He was skillful and highly rated. There was no need for daimei of his work until his later years (he died aged 80), and then it was by his own son, the 5th gen. 1680's in Japan ---- still great demand for swords so a thriving industry with the threat of unrest ever present. (Now the Hachidai is a different story altogether). Genuine: And I found the 1819 dated gimei --- kind of 4th gen ??...

Thanks, I stopped drinking completely 4 years ago. ... figured I had consumed more than my fair share so haven't touched a single drop since...... Coincidentally I haven't lost a phone, or cut myself on a Japanese sword, or lost my wallet in 4 years also! Amazing coincidence. If anyone has any Hizento requests please feel free to ask and don't be put off by what you have been reading. As we say often at work, there is no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer!. I should point out again that whilst there was some pretty heavy banter going on here, it is all healthy discusssion and opinion, and great to hear from everyone, especiialy Karl who raised some interesting points. I really would like to see some Hiroshige oshigata --- I haven't dug through the books in a long time,as I have a large database of images ... clearly not complete so thank you Karl for pointing that out. One of the biggest problems we face is the vast amount off corrupt data --- as time passes and more is electronically stored, and questioned, the more accurate it should ? become. Don't forget, the experts who wrote the books often were looking at gimei.... or got it wrong. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Fujishiro Nidai with a diamond... he got it wrong didn''t he!! Even the NBTHK Hizento Meikan is riddled with errors. Cheers,

Exporting ANY antique over 200K Yen legally requires an export permit. Ways around this recent procedure include putting the item in your pocket and walking out with it, and of course declaring a lower value (the most common by dealers). Clearly if you get caught, you could lose the item and made to commit seppuku next time you visit Japan. In Japan, people trust each other (that isn't going to last long), so if you declare an item for 190,000 Yen, it will pass customs unhindered. If you say 210,000 Yen, it will most likely be stopped and returned to the exporter (although some items exit untouched presumably due to less diligent customs inspectors) . I know because I just had an armour stopped, so it was declared lower and passed, and I bring items out of Japan every week or so....... The risk of loss within the Japanese postal service is incredibly remote. The risk of loss in the Western mailing system is highly likely. So you need to consider declared value for insurance purposes. Clearly you cant insure for, say, 500K and declare the value as 199K!! My advise is to mail items the fastest way, and if close to 200K, declare and insure for lower. If significantly over/unique and irreplaceable, insure and declare for the full value, and get the exporter to apply for an export license (two weeks to get one) . Most of the Dealers and bidding companies declare lower values for export.

When I find the (yes THE) Tadayoshi Katana. dated 1819 I will post it ...! NBTHK Gimei with a signature that looks remarkably like the 4th. OK big deal I hear you say. So this leads me to............. Sorry Brian/Lee... you have heard all this before.... gimei during the early 8th gen days. Now the 8th was only about 16 when the 6th died Dec 1815 and the 7th died Feb 1816. A hundred or more smiths running around the kaji and the head MAINLINE man snuffs it leaving his sick son, who then snuffs it a few months later leaving the grandson (8th Gen)who was a 'boy' ----during a sword depression and the next civil war 20 years away......Oh s**t! OK chaps we have two options .... down tools for 5 years until we train him up, cash the gold, and sell the wife,kids and concubines (to the cries of "no... not the concubines"!), and eat grass with some rice for a while .............., OR we can run off a few (err.......thousand) gimei in the meantime, sign them all Tadayoshi as "Deshi" and "Dai-Mei" on behalf of the spotty teenager, and no-one will know for a few hundred years until Bill Gates and the NMB arrive.....just dont tell anyone in the meantime. My bet is on the latter! But using up all the stock swords first.Hey presto a heap of really great gimei.... I mean a tons of them. 8th signed his own swords around 1820, but up until then there were only dai-saku dai-mei? Dang -- where is the oshigata......... Robert (that's me paying penance Karl)

Karl, Now I am humbly appologetic.... crushed. I admit defeat --- I got your name wrong. Sorry. Call me Robert!

And what say you on this little puppy: Poor images .. sorry. Yoshikawa saw it a few years ago and said "Hizen Kaji late copy of early Shodai Tadayoshi)" and pinked it! He said the Horimono was intentionally made thin to make it look older..... I would have said outright gimei ,.......

Tadakuni 1 2 body. Spot the difference...... (Note the zogan tameshimei on the sword, but not the oshigata ! Replaced gold done In Japan before I bough it. The edge lines to the gold are not crisp which is a dead giveaway)

Munetsugu (Eguchi postulates he became Tosa no Kami)

Tosa No Kami (Sorry about the poor pictures)

2nd favorite. Early 2nd Gen within a month of taking over the Masahiro School --- 3 body.

And my favourite piece....... Circa 1614

OK here we go. Got a comfy seat and some popcorn...... Better concentrate on this or you will get left behind in the class and get a "D" mark....... "I would say the waki shown by Lee Bray is not a Daimei but an earlier work of nidai Tadahiro as written on origami. " Well could be ........Yes it is possible but I think we need to consider the sword characterisitics + the mei + the meikan collectively... ..........Clearly you have studied both the sword in hand and the meikan and have the oshigata in front of you......well at least you have the oshigata which is 1/3 of the way there! You consider the Meito Zukan to be factually wrong, and the actual sword characteristics to be those of the Nidai not the Shodai (and ignored what I posted). The sword had been in my collection for 20 years and Lee's for the last year here in Hong Kong, and I was just wondering how you managed to get hold of it to study the unusual hataraki... Similarly we had better all go and rip up the meito Zukan because apparently they got that wrong as well? Absolutely correct, lets rip it all up --- papers, zukan and opinion!! And what pray tell are your thoughts on two smiths in the same kaji signing using the same name Tadahiro at the same time? Isn't the definition of a dai-mei a sword signed by the deshi for the master ....using the masters name (.... ieTadahiro!). It isn't about using Musashi Daijo or Ju or Junin, it is about the use of "Tadahiro". Why isnt it from later than 1632 ie after the death of the Shodai... because the Nidai didn't sign this way after the Shodai died. ergo----- it has to be a dai-mei for the shodai. Agreed so far? The only close contender (that I have data for) is Nidai. Backed up by the Zukan. I think the above points are enough to say a dai-mei by the Nidai, but I agree it is bordering on speculation by Fujishiro and others (me included). Lee put it rather succinctly: "Given it's educated speculation about something not well documented in a foreign language four hundred years ago, I think you'd be forgiven for a few mistakes". "This 1st is a Tadayoshi and I quote you here "The famous diamond at the top of the Hiro Kanji on a Tadayoshi (probably dai-mei due scruffy signature and Musashi Daijo mei, but....???....) NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon papers and atobori (unfortunately) dragon horimono ..." ........but OMG... you've made my day with the first comment." Great, and glad the simple things in life make your day so very happy and satisfying. We are here to please and wish for the same, unfortunately ..... For the rest of us it is worth being aware of the School ternminolgy and Queens English. "A Tadayoshi" as opposed to "THE Tadayoshi". "A Tadayoshi" is used collectively to encompass the entire Tadayoshi lineage (known as MAINLINE hizento, as opposed to WAKIHIZENTO such as Tadakuni. Remember the discussion... diamonds..... Tadakuni, Tadayoshi, and some other smith pulled out of the bag. "A Tadayoshi" clarifes which School we are talking about. Sorry, I should always write for the lowest common denominator ...my mistake, and I should have written "on a Tadayoshi SCHOOL SWORD" or even on "The Tadayoshi" or for those heading for a "D" in class, "THE Tadahiro". I do hope the explanation on Tadayoshi vs Tadahiro mei circa 1624 didn't go to waste on other readers. "Well...Your pic does not show any of the 4 characters needed for the 'Musashi Daijo' title..." Did I miss something here? The oshigata referred to clearly says "Musahi Daijo Fujiwara Tadahiro" and has a diamond in it. What did I miss? "Four?" D mate! For the others falling about the cheap seats laughing..... when talking about the Shodai (sorry Kurt, just to clarify for you, THE Shodai Hizen Tadayoshi swordsmith, a human being on Earth known as Hashimoto Shinsaemon, son of Hsahimoto Michihiro, born in 1572 in Takahise as opposed to Tosa no Kami Tadayoshi aka Munetsugu, the former using a diamond only in his Hiro Kanji) , when talking about him and using the common term ' "Musashi Daijo", this refers refers to his signature change period from 1624 to his death in 1632. That is the use of the Tadahiro mei in this period, and incidentally the reported extensive use of deshi. His signature again gets scrappy and different examples appear, so you have to look at the sword. This was a gift to forgers! I digress, but the use of "Musahi Daijo" collectively refers to Shodai Tadayoshi during his Tadahiro mei period, although you could also say "Musashi Daijo Mei" to be more specific to the actual signature....... phew.... did we follow this or have a commercial /natural break....... I guess this is why there is so much confusion about the names and terms in the Tadayoshi School, and apparently so much to get excited about. From 1630+ he (Shodai Tadayoshi, Hashimoto Shinsaemon, born in.......) signed simply "Hizen Kuni Ju Fujiwara Tadahiro" (whether he stopped signing Musashi Daijo in 1630, or continued to 1632 I haven't studied because I never though about it before. off the top of my head I think I have seen late dated Musahi Daijo tilte. Does it matter.... yes because if he stopped signing Musashi Daijo,after 1630, it adds weight to the dai-mei theory we are all getting excited about. According to Meitô Zukan Vol. 7, Masahiro signed dai-mei for the Shodai around 1624, and again around 1631-32. The Nidai probably only signed dai-mei around 1632 due to his young age, and very little is known of Yoshinobu dai-mei (if any). One area of concern is that there is no definitive work attributed to deshi so it is all speculation....Its not like the deshi signed "Hizen Kuni ....xxxxx....Deshi" ! Meito Zukan by Fujishiro goes there a bit on dai-mei, as does Egushi and some other work I read somewhere. I have never heard of Hiroshige signing dai-mei in any of my previous research (doesn't mean it didnt happen of course, and I think it unlikely for reasons given before, and I am getting more senile by the day). So we need to see some references and some oshigata of Shodai Hiroshige, and preferably look at his work in the flesh.... all a bit difficult here. What is really significant for the common collector in the West is that there is that grey area--- a KNOWN grey area. This opens the door wide open for the forgers, and they get a crow bar right in there followed by a hydraulic jack, and prize open a wide crevace, using blades that are really close by other Hizen swordsmiths, and changing the mei. Was there dai-mei. Yes, for sure. Were there forgeries within the School itself, Yes, for sure . Have we all seen them---yup, and I have a few good ones (not all on purpose!!) in my colection and I like to look at them because the blades whisper to you after a loooooong time studying them. If you sit quietly, long enough, an listen closely with your ear just near the monouchi, and your eyes focused on the bottom two kanji , you can just hear a faint whisper that says.......... "Fool" ! Seriously, they are gimei because something is wrong -- you just have to spot it and the bottom two kanji are the best help. I believe I said I only have ONE Hiroshige example. Yes you are correct Kurt there were reportedly more than one generation... reportedly. Lets not forget a lot of the work was written in the old days looking at gimei without the luxury of a dual core microprocessor! The one I posted I have listed in my records as 1st Gen , which clearly could be a mistake. Maybe you could post examples of each gen side by side as I am sure we would all like to be enlightened.... I would for sure and would save digging through the thousands of Hizen oshigata littering my "I love me room". Did my drivel on why it is unlikely to be Hiroshige as a deshi signing for the Shodai go to waste...... or was Shodai Tadayoshi on his last few Tadahiro mei swords before he died using the bottle washer to sign his swords, casting the high ranking Masahiro and Nidai Tadahiro into the canal in favour of Hiroshige --- Hiroshige who? It is worth stating here again .....it is all opinion, I think we can all look at the Zukan signautures and Lee's, and see they are pretty much identical, but I really would like to see a confirmed, papered example of Shodai Hiroshige's work to compare... Now we have some fairly heavy banter going on here with some even heavier logic and 'soupson' of specualtion and humour. It is healthy as long as we do not start slinging the mud around. But you still get a "D" and not a "four" ... haha. Enough on all this to and fro...... Now a few other additions to enlighten the voyeaurs amongst us..... Steve, since you are starting out on Hizento, be careful on understanding the signatures for the mainline (Tadayoshi) Shodai Tadyoshi changed his name to Tadahiro in 1624 Speculated it was done to give Munetsugu the head priest the now famous Name Tadayoshi, so Munetsugu signs Tosa no Kami Tadayoshi. Shodai Tadayoshi signs Tadahiro, gives the name to his illegitimate son as Nidai Tadahiro. Tadahiro has a son, and he signs ONLY Tadayoshi as the 3rd Gen.since his father (2nd Gen) runs the school signing Tadahiro 3rd gen dies young whilst thee Nidai is still alive. 3rd Gen has a son, the 4th Gen who signs dai-mei Tadahiro for his grandfather the Nidai, then Tadayosh when he takes over the school. The scene is now set for the younger subsequent smiths to sign Tadahiro until their father dies and they then uses Tadayoshi. excpet 8th Gen who ONLY signed Tadayoshi because he took over the , School aged 8. Clear as mud? Tadayoshi/Tadahiro = same school = same line, except Tosa. Only one Shodai Tadayoshi who also signed Tadahiro. Its all good stuff for the Hizento addict, and bloody mindboggling for the heathens who aren't. Of all the oshigata I see, around 95% are gimei. Either that or swords are slowly crossing over from a parrallel universe. Light relief and a reward for reading to here..... Atobori according to Tabnobe (sob)

CORRECTION: I did say this: "NOT REALLY: Tadayoshi was Tosa no Kami at this time. (1624-1632 OR 33???) This Tadahiro was the original Shodai (1598-1632) so he/the Nidai/deshi?? signed this sword Tadahiro around 1632." Shodai DID NOT sign this sword because he would have used the diamond!! So signed by the Nidai or other deshi. And you are going to say why wasnt it signed after the Shodai died in 1632 ... I am going off Meito Zukan ...no idea !

I think we are going to lose some readers here........ "....... (...as no-one was allowed to sign Tadayoshi for the 1st Gen. whilst he was alive) .." Technically WRONG: Shuho the priest? But I see where you are going. Got to be really careful using Tadayoshi and Tadahiro ". hence Tadahiro being on the blade." NOT REALLY: Tadayoshi was Tosa no Kami at this time. (1624-1632 OR 33???) This Tadahiro was the original Shodai (1598-1632) so he/the Nidai/deshi?? signed this sword Tadahiro around 1632. The reason Tadahiro is on the blade is because Tosa no Kami didn't make it, and Shodai probably did (albeit during his Nidai mei period). "+DAI-MEI – student smith signing his teacher's name. (So the cert is saying it definitely not a 1st Gen Tadayoshi signature) as it was signed on his behalf" Yup assuming you mean "not a 1st Gen Tadayoshi SIGNATURE" It is attributing the sword to the Nidai from the SIGNATURE . It is on a Shodai Tadayoshi made sword ( I think --- I used to own it so have studied it -- full of chikei) when he used the name Tadahiro. There is only ONE Shodai Tadayoshi and only ONE Tosa no Kami Tadayoshi, and it is on a 1st Gen Tadayoshi sword, when he signed Tadahiro. Are we all confused yet.... haha It is common to refer to Sodai Tadayoshi as having a Tadayoshi Mei period and a Tadahiro Mei period. When someone refers to "Tadayoshi Mei", probably best to specify "Tosa no Kami" or "Shodai Tadayoshi" . "So this is basically one sword from the factory "(School/Kaji sounds better!) that a student has signed right? Clarify that exactly for me." That is correct. *It looks like an eldest son Hiroshige blade to me ... who does an up and down chisel mark above the FUJI of FUJIWARA and single chisel marks (one being a moon) either side of the hanging 'J'... where-as the Omi alway has 4 a bit like this '=J='. That's a mighty leap. Sanoma Mitsuru Hiroshige C1656? Eldest son?......... Shodai had one illegitimate son according to all the references I have seen-- the Nidai, and he also had an earlier adopted Yohinobu (who got the boot... I bet he was pissed off). Hiroshige was student of the Shodai, not son. Nidai Tadahiro would have been the senior smith being the son. SO it is more likely that the Nidai would have signed than Hiroshige. Looking at the Hiroshige mei I have the following: Unfortunately only a 5 kanji mei , and the only one I have. Now, I like where you were heading with this as it is always fun trying to Sherlock Holmes the past .... so I cut out Hiroshige's mei (on the left) and pasted it into a composite of Lee's sword (2nd from Left) , and those in Meito Zukan (two on the right). Unfortunately I see nothing close enough to call Hiroshige as someone signing this particular mei. Some similarities, but not enough --- Unless of course you hold the view that they are ALL by Hiroshige ....in which case you should send your research to the NBTHK !!! But they arent that similar so cant be all by the same guy ..... arrgggggjhhhhh. "When comparing 2 suspects... look at swords signed after one has died. It rules out this 'speculation'." Almost impossible as few were dated. And where is the fun in ruling out speculation..... we wouldnt be having this fine discussion. :-)

Tsunobi tanto (oversize at 1 Shaku 2 sun). More diamonds: Fudo Myo horimono: Equally scruffy signature ... NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon and the usual atobori attribtion (sob sob)

With regards to Lee's sword... It was made in 1632 whilst the Shodai was still alive. Meito Zukan shows examples the same as this saying Nidai Dai-mei for the Shodai. The signature is for the Shodai (not the Nidai) since it has Fujiwara Tadahiro ? As such it is technically a Dai-mei for the Shodai. I think the NBTHK didn't make this distinction, and went the simple route of Nidai in their appraisal. If you check the sword, it confirms who made it, being more Shodai than Nidai! Question to lose sleep over: If the Shodai made it why would the Nidai sign it? Speculation: Being groomed for the imminent takeover of the School with the impending death of the 1st Gen.??. Meito Zukan:

The famous diamond at the top of the Hiro Kanji on a Tadayoshi (probably dai-mei due scruffy signature and Musashi Daijo mei, but....???....) NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon papers and atobori (unfortunately) dragon horimono ... Also a Tadakuni with similar 'diamond ' on the top of the Ma kanji in 'Harima' Daijo. (NBTHK Hozon papers): Both diamonds are unique to the shodai in each case, and the forgers knew this!

Hi All, Photos ? Good gosh... you will be asking for blood next! Can't you use your imagination like the rest of us? ..... someone just email me the easy way to do it please and I will gladly share some photos. Hopefully Lee will post the Nidai Tadahiro dai-mei. Cant seem to insert a photo easily ..... Brian?? The diamond was not used by anyone in the mainline Tadayoshi other than Shodai.... lets get that one straight. Yes Tadakuni used it but he isn't mainline (if you subscribe to the concept that the mainline were only the Tadayoshi, and all others were Waki-Hizen). Now, you could go a stage further because the Shodai Tadahiro mei are often dai-mei (according to Eguchi --- using the Musashi Daijo title off the top of my head) and they had the diamond trade mark. Lets not go there ......for reasons of sanity. "As for pictures... me publishing pics over someone else's work would be distasteful... as it's bad enough having to point out amendments... " Feel free. don't want you feeling so horribly bad and losing sleep over it... :-) And yes, I have often wondered what happened in 1632 as there seems to have been quite a few smiths snuffing it around the same time in the Hizen forge. Fistycuffs in the Kaji, Swords at dawn in OK corral over a geisha, or a jilted lover with a flint and some tinder? Cheers, Roger

Hi Everyone, Sitting here in LAX airport, bored to tears and rambling on ........... First of all the mei in question is clearly gimei and way off. 200% sure. Don't even go there on a dai-mei. A lot of the gimei kind of look like Tosa signatures, but as I have said before, ever seen two Tosa signatures that are the same? Secondly any talk of dai-mei is pure speculation when it comes to waki-hizen smiths like Hirosada etc, signing for the mainline, and incredibly hard to prove. I am sure they did it, but I kind of gave up going that route as it is impossible to stay on top of it, to research it (a lot of the old scholars were looking at gimei half the time I am sure), and drives you mad trying to work it all out. Father son is a bit easier (eg 3rd for the 2nd, 4th for the 2nd etc) but still a minefield and an area not trod by the NBTHK as far as I know --- ever seen a Tadayoshi sword with recent NBTHK papers saying Dai-mei xxxxx? I do not recall ever seeing a paper saying as much, so the NBTHK don't even go there as far as I know. Eguchi postulates that Tosa no Kami was actually Munetsugu, the head Priest, taking the then famous Tadayoshi name in 1624, forcing Shodai Tadayoshi to take the name Tadahiro. Tosa was unlikely related to Shodai Tadayoshi considering the evolution of the School and the fact the Shodai was orphaned at an early age, and adopted into the forges by the Nabeshima. Maybe Tosa was related, but there are just some things that you can't prove, and you end up beating your head against a wall just to relieve the stress ! The scruffy "Masahiro Dai" mei in my book .... yup, after 16 years I kind of think it is probably gimei.....it sold a long time back and I think it would be unlikely to paper today (mind you, the new NBTHK is unlikely to paper anything questionable these days!).. but not sure at the end of the day. My opinion on a few areas has changed over the years ...... one thing is never say "never" because this School was throwing tons of swords/naginata/yari out every week it seems. Got to ask where they got all the steel from (black ships?? Nagasaki etc?). I managed to pick up a paperd Leaf Yari by the Shodai earlier this year, and a small yari (almost nanone size) by the 9th gen....the latter probably used for killing wild Geijin hamsters. To clarify, I have never seen a diamond chisel stroke in the top of Hiro other than those attributed to the Shodai (and Gimei). ie The Nidai didn't do it at all. Not only that, even when he made a dai-mei for the Shodai he didn't use the diamond......If I could figure out how to easily attach an oshigata, I could show you a Nidai Dai-Mei for the Shodai circa 1632.... Lee?? Now if you really want to go somewhere interesting, go to the early 8th gen days when he was 12 years old and took over the school. That's when a lot of the gimei appeared I am sure --- and from the School itself! I have a sword dated 1819 with a goji mei (failed papers of course). Yoshikawa pinked a sword I have with a Hizen kuni Tadayoshi goji mei, saying "later Hizen School copy of the earlier Shodai" .......his reasoning based on the horimono being too shallow. A word of warning .... there are still fabulous gimei coming out of Japan --- I know I bought a couple in the last year or so that failed papers ! So be careful. Once you sit down with them for a week you can kind of see why they failed, but it takes a while for the penny to drop.... one or two I still don't know why they failed papers after years of looking at them. Ok I will be arrogant and say the NBTHK got it wrong ....... :-) The only way is to line up swords by each master side by side, then see where the sword in question fits.......even then it will be hard because they made so many different pieces, and there are so many fakes out there. So if anybody wants to buy the whole School and more to try this out, let me know!! Armour .....thats the future. No-one worries about gimei or dai-mei... just appreciates the workmanship and beauty. And its easier to mail around the world :-) I will go back to my hole now. Cheers, Roger

Hello Chaps, Its genuine and circa 1644 +- 1 year. The skin steel is in surprisingly good condition considering the amount of polish it has taken -- so was probably in pretty rough shape when 'rescued' especially around the mon-uchi area, as backed up by the nakago. The yasurime are indistinct due to the nakago rusting. Kissaki looks original shape (ie not broken). The two mekugi ana aren't a problem ..... swords were plentiful and relatively easy to get, so drilling the nakago to fit another koshirae was quite acceptable. Nice to see a NBTHK Tokubetsu Kicho (1972) paper that is correct ! Polish on this and papers alone would set you back about 2K including shipping and handling. Remember the Nabeshima owned and controlled the smithy, and used it for production of high end swords as presentation pieces and gifts (bit like having your own mint). The better swords by this school had thicker skin and fell into a "man cutter battle sword" classification------ Masterpieces that are off the clock with regard to price in Japan These would therefore take quite a lot of polishes despite what you hear about "thin skin steel" on this School. Since the Nidai ran a huge operation (up to 100 deshi at any time), it would be logical to assume that there were basically 3 types of swords coming out around this time--- 1. The really great presentation pieces () with thick everything! High value works of art that were worthy as Daimyo gifts, battle swords, special order, loaded with chikei, huge nie etc etc. Magnificent swords. 2. At the other end of the scale, the 'low end' stuff (perhaps I should use the phrase "Lower quality") you sell to the masses with the thin skin steel. Cost cutting using more core steel - mass produced (but not to the standard of kazuchi-mono). Nothing really special, don't polish repeatedly very well. Run of the mill that you often see with blisters, core steel showing through, ware, neglected and the like in lower grade fittings. These were sold to help support the Kaji and were probably the more routine sales I suspect making up the mass of swords coming out (you don't employ 100 deshi and all their families etc to make a few masterpieces each month - The Nidai ran the forge as a business supplying the masses). 3. And then the swords in between --- I presume private order etc --- not quite sure how these faired with multiple polishes. But middle of the road stuff that really didn't 'knock your socks off' as much as the high end pieces, but are quite nice anyway. They are shorter and smaller in size to the best type. I guess it all depended upon you pocket of the day, and what you had to trade. I'll let you decide which category this fits into. 4. I am told there was also a black market within the Hizen forges ---- just don't get caught smuggling something out at night or its bye-bye gonads. The period 1814 -1819 also saw a huge amount of gimei coming out of the School itself (no head smith available) so you should be especially careful of good gimei (as opposed to the rubbish, made in a back street), And of course the average collector usually doesn't see too far beyond the name on the nakago and the $$ signs, assuming that everything is type 1 !! In reality, there are very few type 1 swords around as they command incredibly high prices (if katana). Cheers, Roger

Hi Bradley, Thanks for the email (email requesting info on Yopshinaga) Well done on getting a Hizen sword, and sending it for shinsa. Unfortunately the NBTHK has been pretty rubbish the last few years and is upsetting everyone with Horyu appriasals... happened after Tanobe left. I have a couple! The best bet these days is to get Tanobe to write a sayagaki ..... !! But if your sword is not in polish and shirasaya, and in Japan, and a dead cert, forget it. I would say the signature is fake as it has the 'cocked ears' to it. Little flashy arrows at the corners of the kanji that add a bit of panache --- but totally unlike the masters work. It also has a very chippy signature so done in the last 100 years or less. I see a lot of these styles and wonder if the same man was doing all of them. I took a look at my database just to be sure/out of interest, and found nothing similar that was genuine Yoshinaga. Yoshinaga 1st was a horimonoshi so his work is superb. Subsequent generations that I have (all mixed up) bear little resemblance to your sword. So I can't add anything other than my initial thoughts. Sorry but Gimei (99.9% sure). You need to get some oil on that nakago whilst you sill have one! Cheers, Roger

Thanks for the replies: I am not sure but have this late copy feeling about them. I will take them to Tokyo next month and get back to everyone. Jizai - you mean these? :D The one I saw was female, and much smaller. In a copper so dark it looks like iron.