Token bijutsu 299 (12/1981) Important Sword number 6568

[nihonto1001]

Hello:

 

I would greatly appreciate any info, especially oshigata, that can be forwarded regarding this sword> Reisen Sadamori, Juyo Token 6568 from 1979 shinsa. In Token bijutsu 299 from 1981.

 

Thanks,

Jon

[Ludolf Richter]

Hi Jon,why do you need info and oshigata of that sword?!Walter A.Compton had one,made by the same swordsmith:Juyo Token 6879 (1980):look at Compton part 2 No.215 or at "One Hundred Masterpieces" from 1992 (No.32).Ludolf

[nihonto1001]

Hi Ludolf:

 

Thank you for your reply. I already have the analysis on the Compton Sadamori, to which you are referring. It is a very nice sword that is very typical of Reisen Sadamori.

 

However, I am looking specifically for the one I listed. Any assistance would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Jon

[John A Stuart]

That sword was just sold in New York at Christies. $16250, under estimates.

 

NANBOKUCHO PERIOD (14TH CENTURY), UNSIGNED, ATTRIBUTED TO REIZEI (Reisen) SADAMORI

Sugata [configuration]: Shinogi-zukuri, shallow even curve, chu-kissaki

Kitae [forging pattern]: Flowing itame-hada with chikei

Hamon [tempering pattern]: Medium suguha, tight nioi-guchi of ko-nie, uchi-noke near monouchi on the omote, some niju-ba, sunagashi and kinsuji

Boshi [tip]: Ko-maru with slight hakikake

Nakago [tang]: O-suriage, kiri file marks, two mekugi-ana, kiri-jiri

Habaki [collar]: double gold clad copper

Nagasa [length of blade]: 69.2cm

Horimono [carving]: Kakitosu bohi grooves

 

The blade accompanied by a certificate of registration as a Juyo token (Important sword) no. 6568 issued by the Nihon Bijutsu Token Hozon Kyokai (Society for the Preservation of the Japanese Art Sword), dated 1979.3.2

[nihonto1001]

Hi John:

 

Yep, I have that info too. Thanks for your response. I should have been a little less vague. I was hoping to get the info on this sword from the Token Bijutsu 299. I would be interested in the oshigata and any write up from this if possible. Because it is a Juyo Token, it should be cataloged here correct?

 

Jon