Crusader22 Posted Tuesday at 01:48 AM Report Posted Tuesday at 01:48 AM Well, first, thank you for looking. I bought my first, as far as I hope and know to be, real pre-Meiji sword. Or maybe I did not. It was not expensive by most standards, but I took a chance long before I should have. More reading was, and is, in order. I am certain the shown parts are not likely original to each other, the tsuka is not tight, as the mekugi holes are very, very slightly off. One more thick spacer would correct that. The tsuba is iron, I have seen others like this, loose, some identical, most look sloppy and "off". This one has sharp casting. The fittings look finely made and like internet and book examples. The saya looks to be in poor shape, the blade is tight without rattle fully inserted. The open end is unfortunately taped and surely cracked. I have not attempted to address that yet. I feel good about what I see, but I know little to nothing. I now present it to you, and will accept my beating if required. Two more books arrived today. Jeff 1 Quote
Crusader22 Posted Tuesday at 01:54 AM Author Report Posted Tuesday at 01:54 AM Please advise of any further photos required if necessary. Quote
Crusader22 Posted Tuesday at 02:14 AM Author Report Posted Tuesday at 02:14 AM Sold to me as the work of a "Yatsumitsu", with reference to Hawley and a date of 1362-1368 Quote
Crusader22 Posted Tuesday at 02:18 AM Author Report Posted Tuesday at 02:18 AM It strikes me as abnormally thin and petite Quote
Rivkin Posted Tuesday at 02:26 AM Report Posted Tuesday at 02:26 AM Boshi would be helpful as well as overall sugata shot, overall nakago on both sides. Otherwise, the tsuba is modern, tsuka is old, blade most likely is not that old. Can be Edo period, can be later, can be even showato. 1 Quote
KungFooey Posted Tuesday at 02:28 AM Report Posted Tuesday at 02:28 AM (edited) Hi there Jeff! others way more knowledgeable on such things will weigh in on the signature and date but you've got yourself a nice looking original Japanese sword there! Congratulations! Sure it has some flaws - most old things do 😂 I've been doing a lot of reading recently because I bought my first sword and apparently real old blades are often light and slim. Looking at the temper line though it looks more shinto to me (but that's just because I've been reading everything I can on shinto!) This is the lamination flaw I see (and I know ALL about those!) Edited Tuesday at 02:33 AM by KungFooey Added stuff 1 Quote
ROKUJURO Posted Tuesday at 02:33 AM Report Posted Tuesday at 02:33 AM The TOROKUSHO (registration paper) should have stayed in Japan when the sword was exported. The MEI seems to read YASUMITSU (not Yatsumitsu). It looks like a MINO blade, and I think it could be mid EDO. But judging only by photos is not reliable! 1 Quote
Crusader22 Posted Tuesday at 02:42 AM Author Report Posted Tuesday at 02:42 AM 7 minutes ago, ROKUJURO said: The TOROKUSHO (registration paper) should have stayed in Japan when the sword was exported. The MEI seems to read YASUMITSU (not Yatsumitsu). It looks like a MINO blade, and I think it could be mid EDO. But judging only by photos is not reliable! Yes, this is a color copy of the paper the seller made for me. He based his dating entirely on the Hawley entry and date. Methinks. Yes, there are a couple delamination flaws! Jeff 1 Quote
Crusader22 Posted Tuesday at 02:53 AM Author Report Posted Tuesday at 02:53 AM 26 minutes ago, KungFooey said: Hi there Jeff! others way more knowledgeable on such things will weigh in on the signature and date but you've got yourself a nice looking original Japanese sword there! Congratulations! Sure it has some flaws - most old things do 😂 I've been doing a lot of reading recently because I bought my first sword and apparently real old blades are often light and slim. Looking at the temper line though it looks more shinto to me (but that's just because I've been reading everything I can on shinto!) This is the lamination flaw I see (and I know ALL about those!) Thanks very much! I paid what I thought was what all I could afford as my first, but by chance found a nice traditionally smithed gendaito Shin Gunto while this was in the mail. Im actually more excited to dive into the 3 hardcover books I just bought and Ray's flash cards now that I'm no longer terrified my sword is not junk LOL! You guys are a class bunch. Im glad I fell into this hobby. Thank you, all. Jeff 1 Quote
Crusader22 Posted Tuesday at 03:04 AM Author Report Posted Tuesday at 03:04 AM I also note that the habaki is a brass sleeve on contact with the blade, and wrapped entirely in another equal thickness layer of silver, with a falling rain with hail pattern. If my reading serves. Quote
Crusader22 Posted Tuesday at 03:47 AM Author Report Posted Tuesday at 03:47 AM 1 hour ago, Rivkin said: Boshi would be helpful as well as overall sugata shot, overall nakago on both sides. Otherwise, the tsuba is modern, tsuka is old, blade most likely is not that old. Can be Edo period, can be later, can be even showato. I will have another, more patient, go at a photo shoot tomorrow. Jeff Quote
Geraint Posted Tuesday at 08:47 AM Report Posted Tuesday at 08:47 AM Dear Jeff. Look again at the habaki. It is most likely silver foiled which would make the silver much thinner than the body but folded around the body and overlapping it. Most habaki are copper but brass is not impossible and is more common on Showa swords. All the best. 1 Quote
Crusader22 Posted yesterday at 02:40 AM Author Report Posted yesterday at 02:40 AM Ok, I will disassemble it tomorrow. Here are closer photos. Jeff Quote
Crusader22 Posted yesterday at 03:33 AM Author Report Posted yesterday at 03:33 AM Upon studying the fuchi and kashira, (hopefully correct terms?) there is a "Praying Mantis" theme, and another insect with long antennae on one side of the fuchi. In all cases, the insects are gilded. Also, blossoms of some sort? Plum? Quote
Crusader22 Posted yesterday at 03:35 AM Author Report Posted yesterday at 03:35 AM Unknown insect Quote
Crusader22 Posted yesterday at 03:53 AM Author Report Posted yesterday at 03:53 AM Probably a cricket? Quote
Matsunoki Posted yesterday at 05:41 AM Report Posted yesterday at 05:41 AM Yes, bell cricket. 1 1 Quote
Stephen Posted yesterday at 07:04 AM Report Posted yesterday at 07:04 AM I get a feeling that the habaki was added as we're the rest of the parts. One wouldn't expect the habaki to stick out above the mune. 4 Quote
2devnul Posted yesterday at 08:37 AM Report Posted yesterday at 08:37 AM On 12/10/2024 at 3:14 AM, Crusader22 said: Sold to me as the work of a "Yatsumitsu", with reference to Hawley and a date of 1362-1368 Unlikely. I will be straight forward with you. Based on the pictures my amatory opinion is as follows: - Shinto/Shinshinto/Showato blade. Nasty 'ware' and poor/old Hadori polish. - Fuchi/Kashira late Edo, Tsuba modern. Bit missed theme so it appears that Koshirae was put together from parts. - Tsuka-ito condition looks like on my sword I use for Iaido (after 10 years of training). Markings (sword drawing) on Koiguchi might confirm that sword was used for training. - Torokusho in frame looks nice, but honestly, it doesn't bring any value or sword authentication/confirmation. - Not sure how much you paid, in my opinion sword is worth around 500USD, 1k tops. All above is just my personal opinion and I could be totally wrong. Quote
marivo Posted yesterday at 12:49 PM Report Posted yesterday at 12:49 PM Worth is in the eye off the owner 2 1 Quote
KungFooey Posted yesterday at 03:34 PM Report Posted yesterday at 03:34 PM Rust color on the tang and no hamachi - sure doesn't look Showa to me.🤔 1 1 Quote
Kantaro Posted yesterday at 06:11 PM Report Posted yesterday at 06:11 PM That Habaki makes me think a bit of of this one: (tested it with a magnet?) Quote
Crusader22 Posted yesterday at 11:26 PM Author Report Posted yesterday at 11:26 PM Uh, ok. I think you may have misunderstood me. As I clearly said in the first post of this thread, once I had it in hand, it was obvious to me that it was made up of parts likely none of which are original to the blade. That does not bother me, given the price. I also am fully aware that the the torokusho is NOT any sort of "pedigree" or registration besides the Japanese gov't being made aware the sword exists and is not illegal. I put it in a cheap $5 frame because it looks nice and is part of the story. The blade has "nasty wear" and a "poor polish". I don't care. All I want is to know when it was made, and where, and by whom if possible. If this carving on the tang is not from the maker, and from that period, then is it Chinese junk faked to look like something it is not? Or is the blade original, but not attested to this signature? If so, who signed it, and when? And why? As for "how bad I was ripped off", again, don't care. I paid about a third again over your high estimate because it appealed to me visually, and I felt it was worth a chance that it was, in fact, a pre-1800 blade, with original fittings, as the seller stated to me. I also knew the tsuba was not original to the sword, and am looking for a mote fitting replacement. I bought it based on my subjective opinion. I did not think I was buying a NBTHK rated and papered sword for $2000. What I did buy, was an amazing collection of period parts that makes me just as happy. I only posted to show it, learn a little, and have fun participating rather than reading and not getting off to a collecting start. Thanks for all the info posted, all valuable to me, and deeply appreciated. Jeff 4 Quote
KungFooey Posted 20 hours ago Report Posted 20 hours ago (edited) 8 hours ago, Crusader22 said: Uh, ok. I think you may have misunderstood me. As I clearly said in the first post of this thread, once I had it in hand, it was obvious to me that it was made up of parts likely none of which are original to the blade. That does not bother me, given the price. I also am fully aware that the the torokusho is NOT any sort of "pedigree" or registration besides the Japanese gov't being made aware the sword exists and is not illegal. I put it in a cheap $5 frame because it looks nice and is part of the story. The blade has "nasty wear" and a "poor polish". I don't care. All I want is to know when it was made, and where, and by whom if possible. If this carving on the tang is not from the maker, and from that period, then is it Chinese junk faked to look like something it is not? Or is the blade original, but not attested to this signature? If so, who signed it, and when? And why? As for "how bad I was ripped off", again, don't care. I paid about a third again over your high estimate because it appealed to me visually, and I felt it was worth a chance that it was, in fact, a pre-1800 blade, with original fittings, as the seller stated to me. I also knew the tsuba was not original to the sword, and am looking for a mote fitting replacement. I bought it based on my subjective opinion. I did not think I was buying a NBTHK rated and papered sword for $2000. What I did buy, was an amazing collection of period parts that makes me just as happy. I only posted to show it, learn a little, and have fun participating rather than reading and not getting off to a collecting start. Thanks for all the info posted, all valuable to me, and deeply appreciated. Jeff Good for you Jeff!!! There are a lot of true experts here who handle treasures you and me could only dream about. They share their wisdom freely and generously - I have benefitted from it myself many times in my short time here. unfortunately, there are others who turn a beginners question into an opportunity to 'score criticism points' and maybe they forget how discouraging it comes across sometimes. i like your sword and, if you do too, nuts to the gainsayers. Edited 15 hours ago by KungFooey Replaced too strong adjective. 2 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.