Adrian S

G'day Christian and all, I have seen many early Yamashiro blades and I know what you are talking about, but these blades are showing stronger and bolder chikei and sunagashi in particular. It needs some more investigation I'm sure. Ichi no Seki City Museum and Sendai City Museum have between them 190 swords (not all on display), most of them Oshu. My next trip is in April I am planning to write to them and ask for special access to their Mokusa blades. Chubachi Art Museum also has examples. Iwate Museum may have to wait for my next trip. This article I wrote is actually a compendium of information and ideas I have found from Japanese sources in particular. It came about as I have been researching chemical analysis and source raw materials. I came across some interesting and strong opinions on Mokusa. The door has just opened a crack on Mokusa, when it swings open wide there will be a lot to add. This will take a few more articles and a possible re-write of this one with more information. I don't consider myself a scholar, I'm just a curious collector who put some thoughts on paper and asks some questions "where did all the Mokusa swordsmiths of the Kamakura period and their swords go to??" "why did such an old, respected and large school get little attention in the English texts?" I was finding scant information, conflicting answers and a lot that just didn't make sense. The more I found out about Mokusa , the more I felt they needed a spotlight shone onto them. Aussies have a strong ethos of the "fair go" and I felt Mokusa needed to be given the respect they deserve in Nihonto history. cheers,

G'day to all, Gentlemen, my article is an alternative theory on some aspects of the Origin's of Soshu-den and I present it as such. As no conclusive proof exists at this time then I would beg your indulgence to treat it as a theory, not a statement of fact on my part. I welcome any "new" research or information that can be forwarded to me privately to nihonto@bigpond.net.au thank you,

G'day Chrsitian, Thank you for an intelligent question. The Yoyasu shows strong Soshu characteristics. The jigane in particular is more hadatatsu and bold than what you would expect from the contemporary Yamashiro-den. The strength and size of of the chikei, and the description of the hamon is also very Soshu. My feeling, which is also an area of investigation is, that the Mokusa and Soshu used the same raw material being iron ore and so the jigane is similar. I have some opinions as to Yamashiro den source materials too as there seems to be little local supply in the Kyoto area, if you will allow me to conclude my investigation in that regard, then maybe it will become even clearer then. cheers,

G'day Ford and Jacques, Ford, I had made references to Kunzan's NBTHK articles that I used direct quotes, reference points 5 and 9. My apologies if that dosen't meet the accepted critia. The full quote was not warranted as the exerts from these quotes were referring to a point I was making only. I would consider Masamune's style outlandish, rugged, bold and manly for his time, considering the comparitively sedate style of his predecessors and those of contempory kaji of other schools. That's what makes him so attractive and unique. Just my opinion. Jacques, I think I made my point as clearly as I can. Please re-read my direct quote from Nagayama and note that I have refered you to other examples. Frankly, I am not interested in having to explain it a fourth time. If you don't accept that extant Mokusa blades dating back to the Heian exist, just because Nagayama said they don't , that's not my problem. It's 4.30 am good night gentlemen,

G'day Jacques, The section in Nagayama that the quote comes from is Entitled , "Late Heian to Early Kamakura"...He makes no reference to a time frame either on the quote, he says Jacques, as I said before, in this instance, Nagayama is wrong. The Yoyasu actually has been assigned as late Heian, or 1235, or 1293 depending on your reference. You pick, but either way it drops pretty much into the period that Nagayama is talking about. I go stylistically with 1293. The tachis signed Fusachika and Mokusa definately earlier and definately fit. There are shrine pieces that are even earlier still and are recorded as Mokusa blades. Here is an example, from Tsutsukowake Shrine located in Fukushima, it is clearly very ancient. Maybe Oshu was not Nagayama's specialty and I mean no disrespect, please. In any case I think it is strange that Nagayama only gives the topic a couple of sentences. Now let me ask you. If the Mokusa school has a 500 year history, is famed in its time for being excellent quality, lists literally hundreds of smiths. Yet we only have a few examples. Does that smell right to you?? .. As I said in my article, many of the best Mokusa swords were made osuriage and re-assigned as the work of Soshu or other Soshu influenced work for that matter. Now there can be some innocent reasons here for the osuriage. Most old Mokusa nakago are short, thin and narrow, not keeping with later trends. Also they were sensuki, the combination of these factors would have made them difficult to mount sturdily. cheers,

G'day Ford, I assume you mean Dr. Honma Junji, Kunzan is his common or nickname ( refers to the Japanese word for a throat clearing noise he was known for doing .. kun ..kun) and I have referred to him quite often and his references in my article, surprised YOU didn't know that! I guess I assume too much. Actually he was quite supportive of this view as I am told by someone who knew him well, but since he was from Yamagata, he may have an Oshu bias. I assure you my bibliography is indeed accurate, but as most is translations from Japanese I admit I didn't reference as precisely as what I found in English. Our Japanese readers shouldn't have any trouble finding the references though. As for the English NBTHK journals you mentioned, no I do not have copies. My collection of the English language translations are from the Florida Token Kai re-prints and I do not have those editions. I would appreciate a copy if you have the time to send them to me. My conjecture has a sound basis and the more I research the stronger it is looking. I haven't even hinted at the main part of my thesis yet, and I know it will be even more contraversial. I am going on another study trip to the Tohoku in April and will be meeting with some scholars more knowable on the subject. At the moment I am translating (actually my wife) 13 journals of research and excepts from 16 books of interest on various aspects the subject. The subject is fascinating and there is much much more to come. In the meantime, I've made my point, take it or leave it, no difference to me. My research will carry on. In the end the weight of the data will be too overwhelming to be ignored. cheers,

G'day Jacques, Thanks, yes that is it! Guess you have to agree that Nakayama was wrong. Glad you did your own research cheers,

G'day Jacques, Sorry Jacques, Nagayama in this regard is quite wrong. The Juyo Bunkuzai Yoyasu is one, to my knowledge it has been in a shrine for a long time, we would have to classify that as authenticated by any stretch. Sano Museum display on the Origin of Sori had a tachi signed Mokusa, sorry the book is at home so I will update it's designation. The earliest signed Mokusa tachi in existence, Fusachika is another one. Thats off the top of my head, I have books that show more. The Mokusa Sword Research group would have a list of known examples. I will obtain a copy for my book research. These Museums have some examples on their websites, the region has a high regard for Mokusa. I will give a full report later after my research trip and take some happy snaps while I'm there. cheers,

G'day Jaques, Yes, Nihonto Koza does say "it is said" that the Oshu Mokusa founded Ko-Bizen on pg 134 vol 3 and again on pg143 it states it is said that Masatsune was the son of Oshu Arimmasa. The Meikan lists Arimasa as a Oshu Mokusa smith working 1159 and states he is the father of Taro Masatsune. Hawley has an earlier date 1026 to 1040, and also says the same. It would be a very surprising statement considering the way the Yamato the looked on the Emishi if it were not true, it is mentioned in other publications. I am trying to find another primary source for this and some other related information. In any case, I am working on another article and this information is being investigated as part of that. cheers,

G'day Mel and all, I already have that material comming to me from the journals of the Mokusa Research Group. The problems with Yukimitsu comparing the chemical analysis is getting my hands on a genuine one in the first place. Secondly, both Tamatsukuri Yukimitsu and Soshu Yukimitsu probably used the very same source iron ore anyway. The Iwate Museum and the Chubachi Museum both have the best examples of Mokusa-to available. I'm looking forward to visiting them and discussing the latest research. My search for a comparison sample will be for an iron artifact that I can test with the HHXRF, just a nail produced from the local source would do, I think I may be able to secure something from the group. For those interested in Mokusa, look at page 134 of AFU's tranlation of Nihonto Koza Koto volume 3. It clearly states that the Ko-Bizen was founded by the Oshu Mokusa, in other words the Emishi smiths, not from Yamato people or the Kibi. Think of all the schools that followed the Ko-Bizen and the Mokusa swordsmith workshop ruins is like finding Atlantis. cheers,

G'day all, Thank you Brian, Peter B, Keith G, Barry H. and Paul B for your support. Barry has asked me for permission to print into the JSSUS journal which I am happy to support. Brian has also asked to post to the articles section of this board. This article was part of a thesis and a book, I now feel I may serialize the book into articles and publish later. Peter, here is something for you. The Mokusa swordsmith school remains are undisturbed and still exist in the grounds of the Mokusa Jinja shrine. take a look at some photos. Photo jinja1. this is the old road leading to the Mokusa swordsmith workshop site Photo jinja2 . excavated iron stone still litters the site! Photo jinja3. site of a swordsmith's house Photo jinja4 . site of the Mokusa swordsmith factory ruins! Peter, thought you may like these photos. The Mokusa have a 500 year history of working in this one spot and they were sitting right on top of their raw material resources, literally. If there is a Heian smelter to be found, look no further. Want to organize a dig? I'm in! I think the Mokusa Sword Research group would be in too. It's a matter of getting enough support and knowing the right people. I'm planning a research trip (again) for the New Year, at that time I will visit the site. I wonder if they will let me wonder around with a metal detector! :lol: cheers,

G'day Paul and all, Your observations are sharp! The Mokusa smiths also display two types of jigane. The earlier type Warabite-to has a soft whitish fine itame hada which is indistint and shows "pools" of darker jigane that look muji. The later style Warabite-to has Ohada. The Sano Museum has published a chemical analysis of these two types and finds them to be two completely different steels. The correlantion with Awataguchi is clear, it may also be explained by using two different steels. I will post this data here, its part of my research anyway which, when complete, I will put up on my site. I have some ideas about this and the technical difficulty of working with iron ore as a raw material as opposed to iron sand, but the details will have to wait until my research is complete before I post it to my website. As I stated in my article. At the end of the Heian there was an emigration of Emishi to south and west Japan ( or they were forced to move). Some Mokusa smiths at that time moved south basically looking for work as the Kanto was now peaceful. They adapted to the Kinai style sword easily, did you know that the earliest "signed" Heian tachi is Fusachika, a Mokusa smith. The sugata and jiba reminds me of Munechika. The most well known example of this emigration is Oshu Masatsune who is considered the founder of the Ko-Bizen school, most connosseurs would not realise that this meant he was from Emishi stock. I am currently researching this emigration and it's impact. I have found some evidence of connections to Hoki Yasutsuna, Bungo Yukihira , the Sanjo school , the Chikuzen school and Miike school. I am also finding some very interesting cultural and iconographical evidence. cheers,

G'day Christian and all, Mamiya speculates that this blade is 3rd generation Yoyasu and so late Heian. The Meikan actually lists this exact blade as 6th generation circa 1293. Yamashiro blades of this era have much tighter and smaller jihada, have some koshisori and fumbari keeping with earlier traditions. Here is my article, hope you enjoy it. http://www.sydneytokenkai.com/research-articles.htm I'm am happy to field questions here on this forum. Please don't recite the standard English language texts mirroring the standard Japanese texts. I assure you I have read them all over the last 22 years quite thoroughly. cheers,

G'day Stephen and all, There is no doubt that the Sukashi Hocho Masamune is very similar to this one from Tsuguhira's oshigata. But it is definately not the same sword. This sword has Bonji and what looks to be a Kinpun mei, the Sukashi Masamune does not. Tsuguhira's oshigata are actually very accurate. Stephen, I know you have this book, look at the Sadamune on page 135, I have seen this sword recently and it is shown in the Sano Museum catalouge "MEIBUTSU - treasured Japanese swords ". Tsuguhira's oshigata is identical and perfect in every small detail. Tsuguhira was a swordsmith and the clarity of the lines on his oshigata show me he had an eye for detail as all good swordsmiths have. Over the holidays I will been spend some time studying Tsuguhira's oshigata and comparing them the surviving swords, so far I've found him accurate, but will give you a full report later. STOP THE PRESSES!! Looking at some more of the known swords, some are indeed different in some details, others like Fudo for example are perfect! Looking at Kogarasumaru in Tsuguhira shows a mei, with a date! The question is why? The easy answer is that some of the swords Tsuguhira had in his hands, first hand, others may well be re-drawn from older book. This is a possibility, I do remember saying that the Kamakura Showa date for Masamune could be in doubt as we only have an old oshigata to verify it. On the flip side, the insidious answer is, someone switched the blades! Thinking about War era Japan, that may not be as absurd as it sounds, like hidding the family jewels. cheers for now,

G'day to all, I've been working on a research article which is now nearly complete. I will post it to my website and with Brian's permission also add it to the Articles section of this Message Board shortly. Before I do that, I though you guys may want to see an interesting sword. This tachi is ubu and is designated Juyo Bunkazai. It is torii-sore, wide mihaba, thin kasane, chu kissaki. The jigane is o-itame with prominent chikei and ji-nie. The hamon is ko-nie with plentiful sunagashi, bold kinsuji and inazuma. First class Soshu-den right? .... Wrong, it is from the late Heian, too early for Soshu, mei is Yoyasu. cheers,

G'day to all, Here is a scan of number "#4 Hocho Masamune" from Tsuguhira's oshigatas. Has anybody got any more info on this one, anything will help. Eric, nice recent info on the Musashi Masamune, looks like I'm not the only one who thought it looked later :D . I'll scan Tsuguhira's oshigata tonight, did that NBTHK article come with an oshigata? Does anyone have it? Reinhard, can you clarify that comment please? cheers,

G'day to all, Never heard of "Tokubetsu" Juyo Bijutsuhin before, am I missing something? I wonder if it is the same kodachi as the Sano "Masamune" exhibition sword #20 which doesn't list a designation. The Sano exhibit kodachi has been passed down in the Kii Tokugawa family. I have an old book at home that shows a very small photo of another Masamune kodachi but scant information. I have an oshigata of the Musashi Masamune, I thought it looked closer to Sadamune in sugata, but can't tell much else without seeing it. cheers,

G'day Ford, Ok, let's leave Honma alone, old news anyway, my apologies to anyone with a sensitive nature. The point of my research is not to take Honma apart anyway. cheers,

G'day Ford, I assure you I don't have any imaginary sources in Japan. Currently I have a working thesis concerning the origin and influences of the Soshu school. It's quite complicated and deserves more than passing comments. As you can understand, this research is a mammoth undertaking as my thesis is quite involved. Quite right, most of the information is already being hotly debated in Japan. Actually I was unaware of some of the Japanese scholarship along similar lines until recently ( and delighted ) which has added and subtracted from my original working thesis. In due time I will publish to my website then you can all analyses to your heart's content. Now concerning Junji Honma, I have a lot of respect for Kunzan's research and scholarship, I already stated that, even though you did not quote it. I also have a lot of respect for the work he did in saving the Japanese Sword from oblivion. But, after the war the science of the Japanese sword , its relationship with the Asian sword , the reality of its development, the historic use ( or non-use) of Tamehagane and other known facts of the Japanese Sword were swept under the carpet to create the "Japanese Art Sword Culture" . It was swept under the carpet to convince the American's of the vital and unique cultural significance of the Japanese sword, and Honma was holding the broom. I can understand the motivation back in the 1950's, and I applaud it, but it is 2011 and time to clean house and dust the carpet. Honma can not be cited as the ultimate authority when his public opinions needed to be within the context of the Art Sword Culture creation. Realities should be faced and some old scholarship, myths and distortions will need to be re-written. It's going to happen whether we like it or not. As a friend of mine says "some people just don't want to see the magic go away" Now as far as Kunzan the man is concerned, if the cap fits wear it. He was the captain of the NBTHK ship and it sank with all hands in 1981. The best that can be said is that he was asleep at the rudder. It's a tarnish on Kunzan's career, like it or not. I'm not the one who was stooping low here, what happened happened on Kunzan's watch. It's just more information that many would like to see swept under the carpet...again....and again. As for the Borax debate, the fat lady hasn't sung yet matey! I'll keep you updated, don't you worry! cheers,

G'day to Ford , Eric and all, Ford, I get your point. But I don't agree with your views in this regard. Every generation of sword scholars in the past have done exactly as we are doing today, re-evaluating the knowledge inherited from the previous generation and adding to that knowledge with new research and insight that new material can bring. As I have said previously, new information that has come to light through archeology and science needs to be seriously addressed. Carlo for one is doing a great job and others in Japan are also opening new doors. It is our duty as students of this marvelous hobby to evaluate and contribute openly without prejudice. Maybe the Izakaya is a better forum for these discussions. Confining our theories and opinions to the lubricated discussions after hours at sword shows doesn't allow for active research and informed counter arguments. Also confining our opinions only to that which has been verified as reIiable in the eyes of the uninformed is again counterproductive. I understand what you mean that conversing on these subjects with the broader Nihonto community is difficult due to a lack of understanding of the topic at hand. For this reason alone maybe these discussions need to be between those more educated. But, as my wife is Japanese, has some understanding of Nihonto (she doesn't have a choice as I drag her around enough museums and exhibitions ), she is great at research and helpful with translation, I can tell you the topics and views I have put forward on this forum are not new at all. In fact books have been written by eminent scholars on all these topics in Japan. Just because you haven't read them doesn't mean they are invalid or not reliably researched. Chris, you are right, I have a big bag of tricks, full of pertinent questions which I hope to address in print. All of these questions and many more are being asked right now, in Japan by noted scholars. Are we dismissing that just so we don't appear ignorant to those who are in themselves ignorant of the latest research? Ford, with our limited resources available in English we get down to the same old re-hash of the same old information that everyone has read before. Frankly I find that tedious. So maybe I should go back to working on my thesis and my book and let the sleeping dogs lie. And Einstein was a patent office clerk who had the audacity to question the theories of Issac Newton. If it wasn't for re-evaluation of the known and unknown we would all still think that the ten great students of Masamune were literally all his students. Evaluating the known dates and work styles of these students have proven that to be incorrect. You don't need to be Japanese to be a serious scholar of Nihonto. In fact in some ways it is an advantage to not be Japanese and have to deal with the cultural and politically correct issues. For the record, my opinions on Masamune are only mere reflections of many many others more scholarly than myself who share those same opinions. I didn't make these opinions up, nothing I have mentioned here has not been said before. To father a new well presented opinion is indeed noteworthy, but alas these children are not my own. I will in time happily quote research and references in print, for now you will just have to take my word for that. As for research and knowledge of Masamune and his school, I would not consider myself a lightweight. But, for the sake of not polluting the minds of the innocent or the ignorant, I shall refrain from all contentious opinions on this subject ( for now) Eric, I agree with Adam, no-one is infallible when it comes to sword knowledge and very few are incorruptible. I don't dispute the great service done by Honma in his lifetime and his place in history for his time ( now that is a topic I could discuss over a sherry or two ). But as far as pure faith in his undisputed authority goes, wasn't Honma in charge of the NBTHK when the 1981 scandal broke, am I right? hey Brian, how do I get to be a "Heretic" like Ford? I think I deserve it! :lol: cheers,

G'day to all, Changed my mind on the Mokusa/Soshu connection thread. I think the topic needs some serious further research and a well presented article with numerous references and examples. I will get to it over the holidays and post it to the Sydney Token Kai website. cheers for now,

G'day stephen, Just got my Tsuguhira Oshigata, I was expecting a reprint and I seem to have an very old copy, how lucky am I! The sword on page 99 seems to be closer to the sukashi Masamune, not the Yasukuni Jinja example. I guess that makes 5 hocho style Masamunes, this one being lost, or not disclosed. I'm going to greatly enjoy researching the swords in this book! cheers,

G'day Eric, Ford, Chris and all, Eric, I didn't say I believed that Yukimitsu and Masamune were father and son. My point is, that " if " all Masamune signatures are ato-mei, then an accurate account of his working period from mei is also in doubt. Further, if the story of the father and son relationship is false, then for what reason was the story perpetrated in the first place? Chris is quite right, we will never know the answers for sure. For my own part, relying on a hand drawn oshigata of a lost sword for dating Masamune's work period is dubious, we no longer have the swords to examine in detail. The Showa (1312-1316) dated oshigata in particular is too early for my liking. Even making assumptions from the extant work of Masamune is questionable as some pieces have the shadow of doubt. The convention for dating a sword has been based on sugata. When you look at the body of Masamune's work ( Note: a couple of Tanto I would class as highly dubious from a sugata point of view and are probably earlier school work), his grand sugata suggest much later dates, as in early Nambokucho. Compare Masamune's work to the body of Yukimitsu's work, then Yukimitsu looks earlier and closer to Shintogo. Just my opinion folks, we will never really know. Whether they were father and son or not, I still believe Yukimitsu was earlier and Masamune later. Moving on.... all funny pictures and comments aside. I think the influence of the Mokusa smiths on the Kamakura workshop needs to be examined thoroughly. This was the point of my previous light hearted supposition that Masamune might have been a Mokusa smith. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I'll fill you in on another thread I will put up as this one was Paul's thread on Honami. Every generation of sword scholars needs to re-evaluate the opinions of the previous research in the light of new information. Archeological evidence and scientific analysis is a relatively new addition to the knowledge of Nihonto. We can not just sit back and cut and paste the old books and think we are doing the Nihonto community a service. I can highly recommend Carlo's article on the Origin of Nihonto, it is well researched, presents new information and confirms a lot of my own research into the cloud of mystery around early Nihonto development. Carlo touches on the subject of the Emishi/Mokusa/Kamakura connection and I have read some opinions in Japanese about it as well. I think it may be an interesting holiday discussion ( over an eggnog or two ) cheers,

G'day to all, Stephen, the problem with "Masamune Den" is that not many smiths working with Masamune are known by their names. Of course there are the obvious famous smiths in the Soshu line, but what about the others? His so-called 10 famous students didn't work there either, he is said to have travelled around Japan training sword schools in the new techniques. With all that travelling and teaching, how many swords did he have time to make himself anyway? So what exactly is "Masamune Den" supposed to mean? My opinion, as stated earlier is that there were 2 or even 3 classes of swords produced in the Kamakura workshops at the time of Masamune. Now to classify the lesser classes as Masamune Den would be the normal practice of kantei as demonstrated with other Den classifications for other schools. My feeling is that if a sword is found to be even of exceptional quality of the highest standards and clearly a Masamune, if it is unknown or unrecorded then it will be designated "Masamune Den" (if you are lucky). If a sword falls short of known Masamune workmanship, and it is unknown, then it won't get Masamune Den at all. I'm waiting on a copy of Tsuguhira's oshigata, will let you know if it is the same mega-hocho. Paul, sorry I missed your reply. 22 recognised Masamune, 7 unrecognised. As far as mei is concerned and your point of lack of signed Masamune pieces. I have a contenious opinion about that. I had better put in my warning HYPOTHETICAL APPROACHING, ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE EVERYTHING WRITTEN IN OLD Japanese BOOKS AS GOSPEL, READ NO FURTHER!! I think all signed Masamune are ato-mei, I think he did not sign at all. Why? I have read somewhere that it was an Imperial edict at the time that swordsmiths sign their work. Anybody else read that? So why didn't he sign? Was he illiterate, I doubt it since he was capable of horimono, signing his name couldn't be that hard. Maybe because he was an outsider, not a recognised smith with a pedigree of illustrious ancestors. That may also explain the tradition of Masamune being either an "adopted son" or "illegitimate son" of Yoshimitsu. After all, if you are going to travel around the country teaching the famous smiths of the time, you need your pedigree right? Very much a feature of Japanese culture at the time. Maybe his ancestry was Emishi and he was from the line of Mokusa smiths working the area before the foundaton of the Kamakura workshop. One of the assimilated local unknown swordsmiths who did not leave signed works.(again, Connoiseurs Guide pg. 198). He could for that matter have come from the continent as a refugee from the Mongol takeover during the Yuan. Many Chinese and Korean artisans did the same. Maybe the characters in Masamune's name can tell us something because you would expect him to have a "Kuni" or at least a "Mitsu" character in his name following the usual teacher and student traditions. If he wasn't Wajin then maybe he wasn't worthy or was not allowed to sign his name? No signed Sadamunes either, right. Just a theory folks. I'm alway good for a theory or two. Anyone want to hear my theory on what type of sword Masamune wore as his personal weapon? cheers for now,

G'day to Eric and all, Meito literally refers to a sword with a name. The naming of famous swords goes right back into Japanese mythology and pre-history. Watanbe writes an excellent and detailed article on naming of swords as a foreword to the current Meibutsu Exhibition on at Sano. These days Meito are also refered to as swords that have been listed in famous old sword books like Kyoho Meibutsu Cho. Just because a sword is tired, it dosn't loose its status as a Meito. I remember seeing the Kyogoku many years ago and thought it was very tired. The hamon indeed drops very close to the edge. Considering it is one of three accepted signed pieces and is in the Imperial collection, it is still a Meito. There is nothing wrong with any of the three hocho Masamunes. What you are seeing is not Bo Utsuri as in late bizento. It is in reality yubashiri forming midare jinie utsuri. This is a defining characteristic of Masamune. I vividly remember Mishina sensei explaining that to me as we were both looking at the three hochos. Did you know there is another hocho Masamune? I call it "mega-hocho" Masamune :lol: , it is a huge hocho shaped wakizashi at the Yasukuni Jinja ( although my personal opinion is that it is in the doubtful class ) cheers,