Bizen Osafune Sadasuke Sword

[MPP1234]

Hi All - I found this board while searching for information on a newly acquired Wakizashi. My wife and I spent a little under a month in Japan this winter for our honeymoon and in our travels we came across this sword and for a variety of reasons (symbolism, craftmanship, beauty, etc) we decided to purchase it to commemorate our honeymoon and our marriage. Yay! We purchased the sword from an Antique dealer in Kyoto (Hatsune Antique) who provided the below information on the sword as well as papers for both the sword and the Saya/Tsuka. The Saya is severly cracked on one side and has some minor cracking on the other but is otherwise stunning visually. The dealer provided the below writeup which seems to suggest that the sword could have been made by several different smiths.

 

I was wondering if anyone is able to assist in translating the papers and can offer any additional details on the sword. It seems like they know the school but are unable to attribute to a specific swordsmith. Additionally, I was wondering what folks thoughts were on finding an expert to repair the saya. Given its age (not sure if it was made at same time as the blade) I'm not certain if its the sort of thing you would actually fix or not... any thoughts? I live in the Northeastern US and would be interested in seeking a professional though I have no idea how I would locate someone who could be trusted to review/repair the saya. Thank you all kindly and if I can provide any other photos pls let me know!

 

Details from the Antique Store:

 

Bizen Osafune Sadasuke
Osafune School 1500-1868
“新刀”―Shinto (**New sword) period ; Yokoyama Ueno Fujiwara Sukesada

 

Sadasuke was the name for Bizen swordsmiths who belonged to the Osafune school from the late Muromachi period, and were known to be master swordsmiths alongside Tadamitsu and Katsumitsu. Although there were several swordsmiths who were named Sukesada throughout this above period, only those appraised as worthy of this name could use it for inscription on their swords. As this sword was certified as a “New Sword”, it was forged during the “Shinto” period from 1596-1771. During these  specific years, one famous” Sukesada” was named “Fujiwara Sukesada”. Another renowned” Sukesada” was called“Yosozaemon” . Both can be searched on the internet.

 

[MPP1234]

Here are the papers. Any idea why the txt is covered and cut out of older papers? Is this to prevent forgeries?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MPP1234]

Paper for Mother of Pearl Inlay Saya/Tsuka:

 

 

 

 

Crack in Saya: how do I figure out if this should be repaired and if so by whom?

 

 

 

 

 

[MPP1234]

Thank you again for any posts or replies!! Here's a hi-res image of the saya/tsuka.

 

 

[Robert S]

That's a pretty flash saya!  I'd say that was the one you wore to the opera :-)

[Kanenaga]

Sukesada, not sadasuke. Large group of swordsmiths working in Bizen tradition during the 16th and 17th centuries, all using the same "art name." Wide range of sword quality. 

 

I'd think of asking Brian Tschernega (master craftsman) to take a look at the saya. He will likely be at the Chicago sword show in late April (http://www.chicagoswordshow.com/).

 

Les

[SteveM]

The little rectangles of paper are covering up the name of the person who submitted the swords for the authentication certificates. It is for the protection of the privacy of that person. The papers for the sword were issued in 1967 and 1976. Both papers are "kichō" (literally: precious) papers. It was the basic appraisal certificate for an authentic Japanese sword. I'm not sure why the owner had the same paper issued 9 years after the initial paper was issued. Anyway, this sort of paper was terminated in 1982, and replaced with a new paper. The text is just boilerplate..."we hereby certify this sword as a "precious" sword, etc.... The paper for the koshirae (the saya and its various parts) is a "tokubetsu kichō" paper (literally: especially precious), and is also from 1967. It lists the components of the koshirae, but the basic text is the same kind of boilerplate (we hereby appraise this item as "specially precious".)

[Matsunoki]

If the saya were mine I’d leave it alone. It would be a very tricky repair and could end up looking worse depending on who did it. It’s pretty common for old saya to split and distort in various ways. The blade is safe in its shirasaya.

[Mark S.]

17 hours ago, MPP1234 said:

…we came across this sword and for a variety of reasons (symbolism, craftmanship, beauty, etc) we decided to purchase it to commemorate our honeymoon and our marriage.

 

Am I the only one who noticed this BRILLIANT tactic to convince our spouse to purchase a blade!?!? 
 

Ya got a keeper there (the wife). And the blade is nice too…

[Lewis B]

1 hour ago, Mark S. said:

Am I the only one who noticed this BRILLIANT tactic to convince our spouse to purchase a blade!?!? 
 

Ya got a keeper there (the wife). And the blade is nice too…

Although not my style that Koshirae is super nice. And congrats on the nuptials. 

[MPP1234]

Thank you all very much for the replies!!

 

So with the signature being a 'general' name is there any way to narrow down the actual age of the blade or who might have made it?

[SteveM]

Hello Morgan,

 

The NBTHK is saying "Sukesada (shintō-era)", which means any time past 1596 to the late 1700s. Since the NBTHK didn't (or couldn't?) nail down a specific smith, I don't think any of us could offer a better, more fine-tuned guess. And, the name "Sukesada" is almost a generic brand name. Swords with this name were produced in great volume, so the individual smith doesn't really get recorded or noted anywhere, except for the several Sukesada smiths whose work was outstanding. The outstanding Sukesada smiths signed not only with the two-character Sukesada name, but also included their own personal name as well. (And they tend to predate the "shintō" era.)

 

 

[Bugyotsuji]

You can cut out the 1500-1600 part, if it's shinto as they say.

Their suggestion of Yokoyama 'Ueno' for 上野 is a wrong reading in this context. The smith they (the store) are alluding to is 'Kozuke' Daijo Sukesada, who was a genius in his own right. Sadly there are countless forgeries out there, so you would need to focus on cross-checking yours against genuine signatures.

 

(The old paperwork itself says very little, only recording the two characters, and as Steve says, the Mei Sukesada does not suggest any particular Sukesada. Once upon a time, the word 'Sukesada' simply meant a Bizen sword to the masses.) 

 

See

https://www.seiyudo.com/wa-090924.htm

 

PS Congratulations on a lovely object with a particularly nice koshirae.

[MPP1234]

Thank you Steve and Bugyotsuji! So is it safe to say the sword was produced between 1600 and the late 1700 but beyond that it would not be possible to come up with a more specific date range? The blade does have a few noticeable flaws so is it a reasonable conclusion that it was probably not some master swordsmith? Also the signature does appear to be a bit more sloppy than the example you provided in your link (Bugyotsuji).

[MPP1234]

Also was wondering if the koshirae would be from same period as the blade or would it be something that was likely crafted later to fit the blade?

 

[Kanenaga]

Likely later. 

 

[SteveM]

Without provenance there is no way to tell the precise age of the koshirae, but the organic nature of the materials causes them to become worn-down over time. Therefore a lot of the koshirae found on blades being sold in the shops, come from the 1800s. This is my belief, anyway. I have no empirical evidence to back this up. And with frequent handling, the silk wrapping of the hilt becomes grimy and loose and the threads start to fall apart. So rewrapping is common. I would assume your koshirae fits this pattern, and was probably made mid-1800s, and the hilt rewrapped maybe once or twice since then. And yes, it was almost certainly crafted for the blade (although it is possible an orphaned scabbard was found that coincidentally matched the size/shape of your sword, and the two were thus paired - but usually the scabbards are custom-made for the swords.)  

4 hours ago, MPP1234 said:

Thank you Steve and Bugyotsuji! So is it safe to say the sword was produced between 1600 and the late 1700 but beyond that it would not be possible to come up with a more specific date range?

 

Yes. 

 

I also think the koshirae is a wonderful example of lacquer craftsmanship. Hard, if not impossible, to make a scabbard like this today. The dragonfly motif on the metal bits is nice. Incidentally, "dragonfly" in Japanese is kachi-mushi (勝虫), and the first character of that word means "victory". Dragonflies were therefore a favorite theme of samurai, due to the auspicious spelling. 

[Rivkin]

I don't have much to add to what already said, maybe a couple remarks. First if you show the entire blade it might be possible to tell if its early shinto or Kambun. NBTHK is generally very stingy in terms of information, saying the bare minimal. It would be also interesting to see the boshi, but I guess its sugu-boshi. I've seen works of lesser smiths while not dated but with smiths generally associated more with 1580-1590 production timeline classified as shinto if the blade is in shinto style - dense hada, sugu boshi.

Its a good koshirae. Its style is more or less 19th century popular, and mother of pearl you see considerable more often in the 19th and more so early 20th century. There are earlier, Ryukyu inspired examples, but they are rare. The same and wrapping while well done appear somewhat fresher and could be 20th century. If you want you can associate the symbol on kojiri (arrows with a wheel... I am certain there is a proper name for it... dharmachakra?) with a kamon and find the one matching in one of the books - and this might be a connection.

[Bugyotsuji]

Coincidentally there is a Kozuke Daijo Sukesada thread here today...

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/51947-translation-help/#comment-542800

[MPP1234]

On 3/31/2025 at 7:10 PM, Rivkin said:

I don't have much to add to what already said, maybe a couple remarks. First if you show the entire blade it might be possible to tell if its early shinto or Kambun. NBTHK is generally very stingy in terms of information, saying the bare minimal. It would be also interesting to see the boshi, but I guess its sugu-boshi. I've seen works of lesser smiths while not dated but with smiths generally associated more with 1580-1590 production timeline classified as shinto if the blade is in shinto style - dense hada, sugu boshi.

Its a good koshirae. Its style is more or less 19th century popular, and mother of pearl you see considerable more often in the 19th and more so early 20th century. There are earlier, Ryukyu inspired examples, but they are rare. The same and wrapping while well done appear somewhat fresher and could be 20th century. If you want you can associate the symbol on kojiri (arrows with a wheel... I am certain there is a proper name for it... dharmachakra?) with a kamon and find the one matching in one of the books - and this might be a connection.

Here's another pic of the boshi and the entire sword. I've also learned that trying to photograph the whole blade and the hamon is very difficult. Thank you for your input Rivkin. Please let me know if these help to gleen any more info about the sword. I do notice some strong similarities between signatures on this blade vs other Bizen example linked above so that's conforting ;-).