seattle1

Hello: I love the lead in Hiroshi. I don't comment on things offered for sale, particualrly if there is a critical reason, for if things are seen out of hand it just seems not right, however you got some fast and great advice. Some of the folks on the NMB are into dealing and those I know of are reliable. Check the Links, ask around, by all means do some homework which means reading authoritative sources so that things seem to fit into place when encountered. Welcome and good luck. Arnold F.

Thanks Stephen - it does. Arnold F.

Hello Mark: You would have to ask Chris Bowen about the process once back in Japan. There might be some mei about which further study might lead them to add an explanatory observation about a generation or some such, but the out come for the paper is pretty well determined once it has left the judges' hands in Chicago. It is then a matter of making notations on the origami issued to you which will carry a unique number for the item, a photograph and various stamps. For a visual example see: https://.japaneseswordindex.com/origami.htlm Arnold F.

Hello: Marumune was a big clue pointing to Yamashiro where it is often seen, but the jihada would not fit Awataguchi, so it seemed that some early Sanjo might do, and then along comes Rai Kunimitsu so often outside his usually described parameters. Tough kantei! Arnold F.

Hello: When I heard that comment, stated with force by Miyano sensei and translated by Chris Bowen, I could hardly believe what I was hearing as it so fundamentally contradicts modern kantei order of examination and the format for written description of blade characteristics. For a master like Miyano, who is to question, but it seems to me that for the usual skill level we hope to develop, it is bad practice. For a person with perfect visual recall it might work as some hamon are almost unique to the maker, and combine that with great memory, well fine as that would go right to the man. However for the usual collector recognizing that jihada is a dominate school marker, focus on hamon could easily get one into a quite different gokaden and then one is lost. It must be much easier to produce any hamon than a school jihada that is convincing. Arnold F.

Hello: I believe that the fundamental road map path is found in the sugata and jihada, not the hamon. Arnold F.

Hello: Sanjo (Early Yamashiro) Arnold F.

Hello: Thanks Fred. for if so that does help underscore the rarity of tosogu at the Juyo level since the inception of the NBTHK's Juyo designation. Arnold F.

Hello: I meant what is the run of the years surveyed, the terminal one being the last one. As mentioned above the NBTHK published one summary recording set covering from the beginning of Juyo to 1999, and that I have, and perhaps they have put out another set, or not, and perhaps Darcy has just counted the yearly Indexes year by year to 2017 - I just don't know. If the statistics cover from the start to 1999 and tosogu Juyo having being issued since, that would make the numbers seem rarer than if counting were to have been continued. In any event they are all scarce for sure, but just how "scarce." Arnold F.

Hello: After all of the Darcy reply to a subset, I suppose, of the 2117 total number mention by Fred Geyer as having come from Darcy's count, still no information on the terminal date in the NBTHK run! It is hardly an irrelevant or argumentative issue when talking about scarcity. Arnold F.

Hello: "Nagamitsu" is a very big (!) name, but it is on the side that would usually indicate carry as an uchigatana, which came after the big Nagamitsu's era., though of course there were other people who used the same two kanji. The kanji themselves give cause to worry about shoshin as Ray suggests. Arnold F.

Hello: I have the NBTHK Juyo Index volumes published in 1999. As it is laborious to do the counting does anyone know the terminal date for the numbers given above? The foregoing mentioned is an index, not the individual year by year volumes. Arnold F.

Hello All: I believe the Me no Me 2009 article was foreshadowed by the Tampa lecture I referred to, it being in 2003, and also being mainly about gimei. If memory serves Tanobe sensei used a white board for illustrations along with a spiral bound booklet of various gimei examples. I seem to recall him drawing contrasting examples of Tensho and Keicho suriage with the emphasis on the jiri itself. A Tensho example doesn't have to be a textbook example of kuri-jiri, just markedly radiused. That was the first time I came to realize that a particular suriage process might give a clue as to age on a o-suriage blade. Arnold

Hello: Guido I would say your attachment is Keicho as there just is not enough of a curvature, and I would call Paul's both to be Keicho for the same reason. As for the reference it is No. 389 of Me no Me, 2009, February., pp.23-57. It is wonderful for you to be able to talk with Tanobe sensei. Arnold F.

Hello Gakusee: This is a discussion of interpretation rather than something with stark distinctions. I believe the illustration that Markus used as a Tensho piece is really over the top, kengyo indeed, a gorgeous shape and wonderful inlay, but I do believe that goes to an extreme of the Tensho model. I base my focus on Tanobe sensei's Tampa talk and the Me no Me article referred to. To my eyes the illustration you provide in your 6:00 PM post is what I would call closer to the Tensho one would usually see, though have seen other elaborated examples just like the one Markus shows. In my own collecting experience I have had a number of o-suriage koto blades but only one with a jiri similar to the one you illustrate, though somewhat tighter in the radius, i.e., more curved. It is interesting that it is a Bizen Tsuneie, signed tachi-mei, almost 29" and without hi. It was made circa Shocho-Eikyo (1428-1441), therefore at the end of the practical use of tachi and by Tensho or before it was ready for adaptation to the uchi-gatana mode of carry. I do wonder what the reason is for the Keicho model to be kiri; was the workload so great that the slight additional time called for the most efficient cut, or was there some functional reason? By the way is your illustration a gakumei? Arnold F.

Hello: Quite right Martin. The inclination for would be sellers to turn on the dream machine for anticipating or seeing something in an object that goes beyond the verifiable is an on going issue, and it can seem to be particularly attractive to a rookie collector and therefore dangerously misleading. Just when a blade that has the straight kiri-like suriage was initially shortened cannot be inferred from the kiri jiri as it might very well have been done in Tensho times in the Tensho fashion and then shortened again to conform to the increasingly commonly seen uchigatana koshirae, perhaps to make the blade somewhat straighter overall. Arnold F.

Hello: The images found in the Aoi reference clearly show the Keicho style of o-suriage. The Sesko images show the Tensho and Keicho shapes as I mentioned above. The critical distinction is the outcome at the jiri termination and not the entire sugata of the shortened blade. This issue was discussed by Tanobe sensei in his Tampa, Florida lecture a few years ago and can also be found in the Japanese journal Me no Me, No. 389, Feb. 2009. Arnold F.

Hello: Following Tanobe sensei there is a distinct difference between Tensho and Keicho era o-suriage, but the illustrated blade seems to fit the latter rather than the Tensho representation. The difference between the two is that the so called Tensho suriage have a rather kuri jiri shape and those done around Keicho, by far the more common era for o-suriage, are kiri jiri. Arnold F.

Hello: I believe you are referring to the so called "Blue Hawley" which is two volumes, the thicker 1966 and the thinner 1967, and they should come with a thin supplement titled Supplement #3, containing 400 additional names. Why I also own the later Brown Hawley I will never know as it adds nothing except the incorporation of the foregoing in one large and awkward book. The earlier Hawley books are much more handy and better bound as well. Arnold F.

Hello: I am also with Jussi on this one for sure. While the sword shows its age in the photographic image, the group is small, rare, and the sugata is classic. For me the clincher would be the oshigata which shows the boshi intact, not so common as one might think, entirely hamon pleasing, and the length is great. As for the ha-machi I think it could be minimally reinstalled yielding a net plus. I don't like to get into offer prices, much less Juyo hype, but think how about a couple of much less interesting things that could be had for the same asking price. Arnold F.

Hello: I don't think my post had anything to do with gimei; it only addressed the Hasebe call and the excessive fright related to the very small number of the total Tokubetsu Kicho papers output that are wrong, and in any event the new paper entirely abstracted from the bad paper issue one way or the other. The Hasebe call looked entirely reasonable from the get go. Arnold F.

Hello: How about first or second gen. Bizen Morikage? Arnold F.

Hello: The "heads up" on the "Hasebe" must have caught someone's attention because of yesterday the "Place Bid" prompt gets you "404 Page not found". However the end product of the Tokubetsu Hozon on top of the Tokubetsu Kicho in terms of confidence adding is very close to zero in my opinion given the tiny fraction of TK papers that can be demonstrated to have been wrong. Arnold F.

Hello: I repeat again and from personal knowledge, not speculation, that there was initially a problem with the translation of the Fujishiro volumes, however that was mutually resolved when Harry visited Japan. Arnold F.

Hello: I am not exactly sure of the meaning of the statement by Brian above: "...the translations were not so much authorized, as ...not". Harry, whose work is admired and very useful to many of us, is not here to explain, but to the best of my knowledge as a Director of the JSS/US at the time those volumes were issued and our organization did have a close relationship with Harry, there was initially some confusion as to the legality of doing the Fujishiro Koto ands Shinto volumes, however on a visit to Japan on his part any misunderstanding was resolved to the satisfaction all parties. As for the issue of copyright, one would have to ask a lawyer. Arnold F.