Possible to identify Smith of my unsigned sword?

[Anakin Solo]

Greetings, 

 

A few years ago I purchased this sword from an online seller in Japan, and had it shipped here to the USA. It was stated that it was from the Edo period, but is not signed and did not come with any certification/papers. This did not and has never bothered me. It was at the price I was happy with and I find it beautiful.

 

I have always wondered if there was a way to find out more information on it based solely on its characteristics. With no signature I'm sure identifying it would be an art form its self. Any suggestions or ideas?

 

Thank You ahead of time for any help.

 

[Rivkin]

Nakago looks either older than it should or maybe possibly burned...

One possible guess is that straight stick with fumbari is Kambun period, and wide hamon also suggests shinto, and boshi does look like suguha. Very hard to be school specific in this condition.

 

Kirill R.

[Ganko]

You could submit it to one of the NTHK Shinsa's they have periodically in this country, but they would most likely attribute it to a school rather than an individual sword smith. Cost approx. $300

 

 TomC

[Anakin Solo]

Nakago looks either older than it should or maybe possibly burned...

One possible guess is that straight stick with fumbari is Kambun period, and wide hamon also suggests shinto, and boshi does look like suguha. Very hard to be school specific in this condition.

 

Kirill R.

Wow, well I am currently attempting to translate what you are saying here. Never imagined it could be that old. All I believe the seller knew was the Koshirae was from the Edo period. The Saya seems longer than the blade it’s self, I have only ever kept it in the shirasya once I got it.

 

Thank you, this is all very interesting.

[Anakin Solo]

You could submit it to one of the NTHK Shinsa's they have periodically in this country, but they would most likely attribute it to a school rather than an individual sword smith. Cost approx. $300

 

 TomC

Thank you, I have been meaning to look into something like that.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Chris, it's good that you are keeping the blade in the shirasaya, instead of the koshirae, as it's made for long-term storage. You also must be keeping a film of oil on it, as I don't see any sign of rust. If you haven't already found http://www.nbthk-ab.org/Etiquette.htm, please check it out.

 

If you're only interested in your blade's characteristics, then you have most of that info already posted. But if you're interested in the field of Japanese swords, then it's time to invest in some books that will educate you in the basics. For example, one glance at the full-length photo of your blade should tell you the period of its manufacture, which is the early Shinto period. Yes, you could spend the money on shinsa submittal, but the multiple deep ware on the omote & ura pretty much take your blade out of the really "collectible" arena. Also, any truly collectible blade made in the Shinto period or newer should be signed by the tosho, & yours is mumei. I'm not expert enough to say whether your koshirae is also from the Shinto period, but most aren't that old.

 

So I would consider your blade as an entry-level study piece, & leave it exactly as it is. Your photography is pretty darn good, though. 

[Anakin Solo]

Chris, it's good that you are keeping the blade in the shirasaya, instead of the koshirae, as it's made for long-term storage. You also must be keeping a film of oil on it, as I don't see any sign of rust. If you haven't already found http://www.nbthk-ab.org/Etiquette.htm, please check it out.

 

If you're only interested in your blade's characteristics, then you have most of that info already posted. But if you're interested in the field of Japanese swords, then it's time to invest in some books that will educate you in the basics. For example, one glance at the full-length photo of your blade should tell you the period of its manufacture, which is the early Shinto period. Yes, you could spend the money on shinsa submittal, but the multiple deep ware on the omote & ura pretty much take your blade out of the really "collectible" arena. Also, any truly collectible blade made in the Shinto period or newer should be signed by the tosho, & yours is mumei. I'm not expert enough to say whether your koshirae is also from the Shinto period, but most aren't that old.

 

So I would consider your blade as an entry-level study piece, & leave it exactly as it is. Your photography is pretty darn good, though.

Yes I have had about 3 years now and I have taken it out and have cleaned it and reapplied oil a few times. Thank you, I have read that and another care article. Very insightful. Yes I agree it is time to get some books, are there any specific ones you suggest?

 

Also along the lines you stated Early Shintō, is there a more specific date range like Keigen Shintō? Or something close to that? Is it possible this was a Tachi that was shortened and possibly that’s why it is mumei? Thank you again for all your information and advice.

[16k]

I don’t think it has the shape of a Tachi. And i don’t think it was shortened as there is just one Mekugi Ana (peg hole) though it may have been only slightly cut off to accommodate a shorter tsuka and they managed to get the mekugi in the same place. As for the era, around Kanbun probably. As for being unsigned, many swords were made like that.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Do a quick search here on NMB, Chris, as the book topic has been covered many times.

 

By the time the Shinto period rolled around, most of the government-mandated blade shortening was already done, so although it's possible your blade is an o-suriage tachi, it's not very likely. Add to that the fact that there's only one mekugi-ana, & the probability drops considerably.

[SteveM]

Looks to be a nice, authentic Japanese sword. You hear the word Kanbun/Kambun come up because your sword has very little curvature, which was a feature of the Kanbun era (mid-1600s). Your sword also has a few weld openings (ware or kitae-ware in Japanese) and these are considered something of a blemish. But don't do anything to try to cover them up or repair them - you will ruin the sword and it is much more desirable to have a few blemishes on the sword rather than a sword that is ruined by an amateur fix-it job.   

 

The saya for this and virtually all such swords are meant to be replaced over time, so we don't expect the saya to be the first and only one the sword had. Because of the replace-ability of the saya, they are not much use in determining anything about the sword itself. There are exceptions, especially for treasured swords in daimyo collections, where the saya has gold inlays of the family crest and whatnot, but this is a rare exception. For most swords it is a given that the saya and the various bits that make up the koshirae, are later additions, and they are usually appraised separately. In the case of the saya for this sword, the metal fittings look very ordinary, but I would agree they are probably from the Edo period as well. The sageo looks like a recent addition, but again, this is neither here nor there - it just means someone tried to make the ensemble look more presentable.

 

All in all, a nice relic from the past, which is more than most people can say for their first sword. Many people unwittingly buy fake swords, swords that have some irreparable damage, or overpay for forged swords (or some combination of all three). Yours seems to be a genuinely decent sword - not a museum piece, but not a fraud either. Anything more and you will need to send it in for appraisal. 

 

For books, Kokan Nagayama's "Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" is highly recommended.  

[Surfson]

I suggest you start with The Japanese Sword by John Yumoto or a similar one by BW Robinson.  

[16k]

Both books are good. Yumoto is dated but i find it still a very good start for a beginner. The Connoisseur's book though a priceless must have, can be overwhelming for an introduction book.

[Guest Rayhan]

Markus Sesko is an excellent resource

[16k]

And you too!

[Anakin Solo]

Thanks again everyone for so much help! I will be ordering some books this weekend it seems.

[Guest Rayhan]

And you too!

Arigato!

[Anakin Solo]

I have gotten my book and am reading about the periods. I do need a bit more help here. I of course left out information that may be of more help. It seems ha-watari is very important to the dating of the sword. Mine measures 63.5 cm. Now I as I read it is saying Late-Muromachi tend to be around 60cm rather than most other periods being 70cm or 75cm. Mine did seem rather short. Is it possible that it was made around this time and it is why the Nakago seems much older/darker?

 

I am planning to take pictures of both profiles and upload them for more help. Might be a day or two before I have time. Any other pictures or measurements that may help?

[Ken-Hawaii]

Just remember that these are typical lengths, & although they can be used to determine whether a blade is likely to have been made in a specific period, it's never definitive. Well, almost never...if you had an 82 cm blade, it probably wouldn't have been made during Muromachi, & much more likely in Nanbokucho.

[16k]

Just as Ken said, those are typical lengths. Wherever there are rules, there are always exceptions. It is true that your nakago looks old, but it may just be the place where it was stored had a lot of humidity or the sword wasn’t well cared for. As for being Muromachi, while possible, I have doubts. First because of the overall sugata (but then again, exceptions) and because the mekugi ana looks drilled, not punched which is usually a Shinto feature (but... exceptions! ).

 

Japanese were short people, there were sword length laws... all this to say that it’s very difficult to make decisive conclusions. There are so many unknown factors as to what the blade went through before that all you can make are suppositions.

[Anakin Solo]

Please excuse this awful attempt at these pictures. the lighting and reflections are awful, ill have to make another attempt a different day. but hopefully this may give you guys a better idea overall.

 

images are large here is the first one

[Anakin Solo]

and here is the second

[Ken-Hawaii]

Chris, please give us a break! There is no way to identify the smith of an unsigned Shinto-period blade! Please be willing to live with that limitation.

[Anakin Solo]

My apologies, I was in no way intending to get that answer anymore. I have known that was impossible from the first replies. Sorry if I have seemed to be giving the impression I was requiring anyone to do any such thing. I’m still very curious in trying to try and date it closer. Just asking for any help in that regard. I’m absolutely satisfied with past answers. I’m just still very curious about narrowing down the possible age.

[SAS]

Early Kanbun Shinto is probably all that can be said....seems reminiscent of Mino Kanesada work, but the heavy hadori makes it difficult to see the actual hamon.

[ROKUJURO]

Chris,

a hint to the possible age of your sword can be found in the thickness difference between the blade and the NAKAGO, well identifiable in one of your photos. Older blades often have lost more material from polishing. This is a general thing and as so often, may see exceptions. But this may narrow down the age discussion a bit.

My guess is that the blade is not older than early EDO, so together with the SUGATA, KANBUN seems to be reasonable.