Older Daito in Gunto Mounts

[Death-Ace]

Good Evening All,

 

It's been a while since I've posted and I hope you are all doing well! I lost out on one auction lately, but have bought this older blade just recently. I haven't taken exact measurements yet, but it was listed as having a 23 in. nagasa. It does have a pleasing sori, and appeara to be an older blade. I see areas of shingane (at least, so I believe) and looks like through prior polishes, and area of the hill a few inches from the hamachi has the hamon dip low, about a 1 - 1 1/2 millimeters. O

 

One thing I wish the seller did, although he is a trusted militaria guy and I have purchased from him before, was photographer underneath the habaki. I won't fault him, but something that I believe should have been listed. However, it is interesting in the damage as that it appears it has a kirikomi near it on the shinogi as well, although I'll list thay as just a small probability. The top mekugi ana is interesting, possibly tsutsumigane? I dont believe it to be an older placement or an original square mekugiana as we see on early blades.

 

The blade does appear nice, with a few flaws, no chips. I was wondering if anyone has any idea about the possible school or age? I'm leaning towards koto, but do not know if it's older than Muromachi. The koshirae is your typical gunto mounts with a plain wooden saya, but has writing (albeit I'm not sure if that is the koshirae/tosugu maker or not. The menuki definitely appear older, not the typical IJA/IJN issued ones.

 

Any information that can be given would be highly appreciated! 

 

Please forgive the poor photographs as my phone camera is a little busted and I have little space to work with, at the moment and my attempt to resize the photos. 

 

Thanks again!

Lev H.

 

 

 

 

[Death-Ace]

Last Set of Photos:

 

 

[DoTanuki yokai]

Looks interesting, when seeing how big the Nakago is the blade must have a lot of material lost with the polishes over time. 
looks like the blade is narrower then the Nakago and they made a “new” Hamachi. 
I would agree on Kotō but I don’t really have a clue if Nanbokucho or late Muromachi period. 

From the Nakago and what I think I can see in the hamon I would guess bizen. 

[Death-Ace]

On 1/21/2025 at 12:12 PM, DoTanuki yokai said:

Looks interesting, when seeing how big the Nakago is the blade must have a lot of material lost with the polishes over time. 
looks like the blade is narrower then the Nakago and they made a “new” Hamachi. 
I would agree on Kotō but I don’t really have a clue if Nanbokucho or late Muromachi period. 

From the Nakago and what I think I can see in the hamon I would guess bizen. 

 

Good Evening Christian,

 

Thanks for your response! It definitely has the appearance of being a bit "tired." 

 

I think I can agree with your assessment of Bizen. I can get more photos, if needed, preferably without being oiled, I forgot to wipe prior to taking the pictures. The more I look at itN it appears it has characteristics of Yoshii Bizen?

[KungFooey]

Hi!

My thoughts: the blade suffered a significant chip in battle which took the ha up too far to be polished out. So, the machi were moved up instead and the chip is now the dip you see on the bottom of the nakago under the habaki.

 

Nice old sword that's been through the wars - literally!

 

Dee

[2devnul]

5 hours ago, KungFooey said:

the blade suffered a significant chip .... which took the ha up too far to be polished out. So, the machi were moved up instead and the chip is now the dip you see on the bottom of the nakago under the habaki.

That makes sense,  you are probably right about it. 

 

5 hours ago, KungFooey said:

in battle

5 hours ago, KungFooey said:

been through the wars - literally!

How can you tell? I understand that cool story behind damage is what everyone wants, but you will never know. It could have been damaged in XX century, by a new American 'sword owner' who was chopping wood   

See the patina difference? It looks like new Machi is way younger. 

[Nihonto student]

Dear Lev,

 

just my opinion:

 

to me nakago looks ubu so if we add the machiokuri difference (+-) to the current nagasa we get the classic uchi-gatana nagasa (Around 65cm).

Shinogi-ji looks masame, while in the Ji  mainly itame...for me = Muromachi Mino, the hamon reminds me Shigaseki school.

 

I think I see some remnants of a signature? If so, the starting position seems unusual to me compared to the machiokuri, it could mean that the signature was added after the shortening.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Giordy

[Alex A]

Hello, cant tell from the pics but is the Shinogi-ji Masame ?

 

 

[KungFooey]

14 hours ago, 2devnul said:

That makes sense,  you are probably right about it. 

 

How can you tell? I understand that cool story behind damage is what everyone wants, but you will never know. It could have been damaged in XX century, by a new American 'sword owner' who was chopping wood   

See the patina difference? It looks like new Machi is way younger. 

Oh sorry, I blocked you straight after your creepy PM so I only see your responses if I bother to open them up.

 

I made an observation based on the fact that damage in that area is easy to disguise by moving the habaki up and I had seen an example of battle damage in the same area:

katana in real fight

 

Of course I don't know - and will never know - the true story of how the damage occurred - just like 99.9% of the swords we see on this board. I was simply throwing an opinion out there.

But then you knew that, didn't you?

 

 

[Alex A]

Anyways, for anyone interested that don't know and why i asked the question. You will find the reason i asked here. KANTEI 2 – JIGANE & JIHADA #2 | Markus Sesko

 

Though what i have found, there are always exceptions to what is written.

 

That's how the hobby seems to go.

[Jacques]

[Matsunoki]

Another incredibly helpful contribution from @Jacques D.