seattle1

Hello: I am reluctant to raise a demur with Ray who is so quick to reply to questions and so helpful with information, and while I was unable to fully open the reference he gave, I believe it is going too far to say that blades are designated nagamaki only with the presence of koshirae. I have a Juyo Token signed Bishu ju Suyetsugu, and dated Eiwa 4 (1378),a prime time for nagamaki, which has had its nakago much reduced but it is called "nagamaki", it being in shirasaya and with uchi-gatana koshirae. Its designation was in Showa 46 (1971). It bears no prominent hori though there is a residual of a hi running centrally. I have another strange sword a Kunimichi, making Tokubetsu Hozon in Heisei 26 (2014). It has a very straight blade without hori with a designation reading of naga-katana by the Japanese seller. Without the extremely long nakago it would be just a very straight wakizashi. That was a new one on me and the long nakago must have gone with a mounting like a nagamaki but they didn't call it that. Markus Sesko said in that context the kanji just meant a long sword though the length, it being ubu, is a little less that katana length, 22 1/2". Very strangely it has markings at the bottom of the nakago that Markus says refers probably to it being part of a job lot for Daimyo battle. Being make circa Kanei, 1624-44 fits exactly. The most extremely odd thing is that in a catalog of the collection of Suzuki Kajo san, late President of the NBTHK there is an identical sword - almost - with similar marks on the nakago but fully adorned with hori with a long notation that he ordered such a thing. The NBTHK called it a naginata, but there is virtually no sori in either blade. I think the point of all this is that the terms nagamaki and naginata are quite elastic, the use of which is not hidebound. It may be that in recent years the NBTHK has tried to put some strictness into the terms, and that I don't know. Arnold F.

Hello: Any would be object that would not fit flatly, back and front, on a seppa ready for the koshirae cannot be considered a tsuba as it has lost any functional capacity irrespective of where it was made. Arnold F.

Hello: Those are only found on the so called working paper returned to the submitting owner. Arnold F.

Hello: Well the paper appears to be a genuine issue of the NTHK (NPO), and the reference to "kodai" indicates a later work. They do say "Yamashiro" but the pointer is to late work. After the first two or three generations it is generally held now that successive Kaneiye like examples would fall under the heading of Tetsunin who had a connection to Saga in Hizen. That being said one of the great scholars of the pre-war era, Kawaguchi Noboru, held that the true line continued about unto the 9th generation, though that is much discounted today. The paper should give you some confidence that the piece is not a fake or a reproduction, but something done late, perhaps much later, in one of the two lines mentioned above. It is not meant to fly under false colors in my opinion, and no one would take the mei for an early Kaneiye. Ohashi san is a careful and discriminating judge. How many points did it make? Arnold F.

Hello: Are you sure they are cracks, which shinae do not have, rather than abuse or kiri-komi cuts that have been reduced by polishing? Arnold F.

Hello: For anyone flying long distances I think it is wise to get a set of measured support stockings from a medical supplies store, and be sure to get up and walk on the plane as much as possible. If there is some physician on here I'm sure there is some other " fly safe" things to keep in mind. Arnold F.

Hello: Welcome to the Board. As one proverbial saying has it: "It is better to know nothing than to know what ain't so." - so now you are on your way. Buy a few good introductory books, join a collectors' group, attend some shows, and pretty soon everything will begin to fall into place. Arnold F.

Hello: I happen to be a member of the International Society of Japanese Philately and in our current issue of Japanese Philately there was an announcement of a set of publications that I thought might be of interest to collectors of blades, koshirae, etc. specific to Japan's Pacific War activities. The order of battle refers to snapshots through time of the positions of armed forces, Army and Naval, often through very thin slices of time as to their location and disposition. It represents real research utilizing postal codes derived from Japanese data and US contemporary reports. It is presented in 7 volumes of 1750 pp., Vol's I and II being in print, and the others digital. It is published by Dai Nippon and for fuller information go to secretary@dai-nippon.nl the total cost being $115.00 plus shipping. It is sort of a micro military history catching of time for the history buff who collects in our area. The extent to which it is more philately than anything useful to you I do not know. Arnold F.

Hello: The last one seems to say "mountain sword", and of course the habaki started as a flat sheet that could be easily written on. I suppose the question is why were they not written on more often and the only reason I can imagine is that the chisel "pillow" might threaten the togi. Yours in unique in my experience. Arnold F.

Hi Peter: Brian is correct, no test, and the images are not oshigata as such but reproduced pen drawings that are more or less accurate. The nice thing about it is the showing of yasurime, such an easily over looked study element, which in that publication I have found quite reliable. If you are looking for one in particular PM me. Arnold F.

Hello: Opinions of kodogu out of hand is no more reliable than swords out of hand, but for a quick look I very much doubt the carefless effects seen on the rim would be that of any Higo master. Further study of the kozuka-hitsu shows what looks like a space for a now missing insert to protect the kozuka, but how would it have been held in as only one side looks up to that? Further the strange buds or whatever they might be within the hitsu only pose a scratching threat to any kozuka slide into that space. To me it is a sort of pastiche and done very very late and not by a Higo artist. I could also be entirely wrong! Arnold F.

Hello: For those interested in the swords and armor of the Tokugawa by generation there is a book entitled: Tokugawa Fifteen Generations, Armor and Swords. (Toshogu Shrine and Museum, Showa 46, 126 pp). The armor is grouped by generation, moving from the severe to the more elaborate in later generations; the swords, mostly but not entirely top rated smiths, number 24 and as far as I can tell not necessarily linked to a Tokugawa generation as they would descend. There is a fair amount of supplementary text to boot. For the historically minded it would make for a great translation project. Check with Grey Doffin for possible copies. Arnold F.

Hello: Thank you Dave, I've never seen that laid out so clearly. Arnold F.

Hello: I saw that the first time around and it was part of the input into the guess that it is old. It could be anything from someone's finger print after having eaten Kentucky Fried Chicken, but if it is seemingly there for good it could be a bit of residual old lacquer, a good thing. Arnold F.

Hello: Well when they are faked they make it really seem old in some blatant way, whereas your's "lotus" just has that natural look to me, like an honest piece. Revival pieces are usually more a homage to the older, but clearly made in the 19th Cent. It might be a bad analogy but it is sort of like a shinshinto sword following some koto tradition, or even a fine gendaito doing the same. They can just be utsushi, but some by the finest might carry an old koto name with a doctored nakago, and then at kantei time you really want a qualified opinion. Submit your tsuba to shinsa; I understand there might be one in Tampa next year. I would guess your tsuba is an honest one pre-1600. Let us know. Arnold F.

Hello: It is said that earlier are smaller than later ones and the thinness at the seppa-dai is a plus, therefore assuming it isn't a 19th Cent. revival piece, I would guess Ko-katchushi. Arnold F.

Hello: I agree with Guido that this is a great thread, interesting and educational. Comparing the NBTHK and the two NTHK's though is really an apples and oranges thing. People make rational calculations between running the risks, and they are real, of sending a blade to Japan to the NBTHK, though all of the three do shinsa in Japan, vs. for those of us here in the US, submitting to one of the NTHK groups, which by the way seems to be an opportunity awaiting in Tampa, Florida in 2019. I go back to the days of being an oshigata making volunteer for the NBTHK in Texas to standing at the door like everyone else today trying to get a view of my blade's progress. One thing I can tell you for sure is that the complaint rate driven by some failed expectation in the US, in comparison with a paper from Japan, is in large part the deplorable state of polish that many have as presented over here. A team simply cannot assume what cannot be seen in a presentable way. When blades are run through a US shinsa I suspect the speed is much faster than in Japan and doesn't allow for long consideration on set asides. Further talking about the expertise of shinsa staff in Japan and those that come over is walking on pretty thin ice. No longer does the NBTHK have a expertise of Homma and Sato sensei, very heavily published scholars that they were, and Tanobe sensei, now in retirement, isn't the trusted information source now as he is simply there only infrequently and without secretarial staff as I understand it. The two main NTHK judges are hardly to be discounted, one of course being the Imperial Keeper of blades of the Royal Family and at the National Museum in Nara, and the other, Miyano sensei said to be a kantei quiz super star, though looking at a blade with a covered nakago and the bare blade at a shinsa are somewhat different skills. Both the NTHKs put out journals, though I find that of the non-NPO group much closer in scholarly level to the NBTHK's Token Bijutsu. It was said above by one contributor that the two NTHKs ante-date the NBTHK, hardly, as the one without post nominal letters goes to Meiji times and the other about two decades ago. Well I hope this gives some flavor to the apples and oranges analogy. While having sinned once or twice with complaint, I then stop to think what is the rationale for laying out the dough if one can't respect the outcome one way or another. Just submit somewhere again. A friend of mine did that three times and climbed the ladder from gendaito, to shinshinto, to Juyo Token. Arnold F.

Hello: I tend to look for motion, at least implicit motion in Ko Shoami: paddles paddle, leaves fall, but those three circular elements puzzle me. No idea really. Arnold F.

Hello: A handsome tsuba indeed, however I would be curious to know what elements or combination of elements makes it "Ko Shoami". I am not saying it isn't, but why? Arnold F.

Hello: No Paul I had not looked at the Fujishiro images until right now, relying rather on the standard written kanji which looks quite different than your blade and Fujishiro's example. I don't want to diminish your sword but would still doubt the mei from its apparent newness, as well as blade shape and the bizaare kanji on the blade proper and the poor horimono. In those regards I hope I am wrong as another Tomonari would be a terrific find. Arnold F.

Paul: The second kanji is not "nari" IMHO. Many here are better kanji readers than I am, so if it is "nari" please chime in. Otherwise this is a wild goose chase for sure. It appears to be "gatsu" to me as mentioned above. Arnold F.

Hello Paul: Welcome to the NMB by all means. There are lots of well informed people on it who would be ready to help and happy to give you positive feedback if it were there, but I am afraid that you were duped somewhere along the line on this one. Assuming my reading is correct I checked the so called Brown Hawley, the largest compendium of names in the English Japanese sword literature and no such smith is listed. There are a number of red flags from the mei which is signed usually in the mode of a tachi while the blade seems shaped like an uchi-gatana, the horimono which leaves a lot to be desired and the strangely done kanji on the blade all point a typically confused Chinese workshop somewhere right now. As everyone would say: build a library, get a look at some really good Japanese swords to set your template, go to some shows, ask around, and then put your toe in the water. Arnold F.

Hello: It looks like Tomogatsu. Arnold F.

Hello: Well we can all make mistakes, however I have studied the smith called Dewa Daijo F/W Kunimichi for years, have owned quite a few of them, and have many examples of his mei from wide sources and therefore am almost certain it must be another man. Arnold F.

Hello: I think it is almost certain that this is not the Kunihiro student Dewa Daijo F/W Kunimichi. The only intriguing feature is the kiku-mon, used by the Mishina group, which Kunimichi had some relation too, but I am almost 100% sure that no blade of his ever carried that mon, and further the kanji is entirely unlike Kunimichi's early kanji, so in those senses, leaving out consideration of an image of the full nakago, jihada, yakiba and boshi, I would say no! Arnold F.