Bought first real sword

[beedeepotter]

I haven't been in a forum in years so please forgive me if I have done something improper. I read the rules a and have tried to follow as noted. I bought a wakizashi today and am very excited about my purchase. I have tried to research this sword but have very little experience with signed tangs. I will post some pics and ask you all what you think about them. If I should post them somewhere else, please someone...tell me. This sword was supposed to be 500 years old (Eisho period) but from what I have been able to learn in less than an hour from this site, it's newer. I would like to know all I can about this so please share with me your opinions (good or bad). I will be glad to take more and better pictures if anyone requests or can guide me on how to take better pics. It is missing its kozuka and the seppa and has a broken habaki. I'll shut up now and let the experts tell me what I have brought into my home.

 

Thanks in advance,

beedeepotter

 

I've got to get some photo editing software installed so I can shrink the pics. I will come back.

[Brian]

If you did read all the rules, then you will know that you must sign every post with at least a first name, and preferably an initial. :lol:

I guess we could call you B.D....but Brian is much easier as I have found out myself.

Other than that, you're doing fine. Looking forward to the pics.

 

Brian

[runagmc]

The sword's signature is partly removed due to shortening, but what's left looks like Bishu Osafune ? Mune...? , and the date looks like Tensho hachi nen, which would be 1580... mabey somebody will confirm, deny, or expand on this for you...

[cabowen]

Bishu Osafune Yasu ? 備州長船康

Tensho 8 Nen 2 Gatsu

 

 

That is my best guess....

[Jean]

Adam,

 

Confirmed for the date not sure for the "mune" but possible

[Geraint]

And everyone is going to want pictures of the blade in more detail.........

 

Cheers

[beedeepotter]

It's difficult to get good pics of blade. It's a bit scratched up but they are very light scratches and look much worse in these pics than in real life. This was the part of the blade people would want to see, not the tang in better detail? Is this a common, cheap looking sword or something? No one seems to want to comment on it. I was thinking that owning something over 400 years old was really special. Are there millions of these swords all over the planet or what? I'm starting to think I paid too much money for this thing. Kind of afraid to say how much.

 

Brian P

[nagamaki - Franco]

Is this a common, cheap looking sword or something? No one seems to want to comment on it.

 

1) The condition of the polish is such that there isn't a whole lot to tell at this point regarding the quality of this sword. Better overall images might give a better impression about its shape and perhaps condition, but it isn't going to really say anything more about its age than what is already known, unless there is something really surprising revealed. Still, additional images might help stir discussion.

2) Swords, especially late Koto Bizen made in this time frame (assuming the date is correct), are often known to be "kazu-uchi mono", a term you should familiarize yourself with.

3) A Koto sword is a Koto sword, not exactly common, and not exactly an endangered species. The question is whether or not this is an "art sword", which would give it more of a unique status.

[beedeepotter]

I'm trying to familiarize myself with term and I've reached a point of not being excited about the sword any more. Then I read this

 

"I just come across this and thought about this thread. It is from Katana no Kansho by Nakahara Nobuo

 

å‚™å‰å›½ä½é•·èˆ¹ã§å§‹ã¾ã‚‹åˆ‡éŠ˜ã¯æ³¨æ–‡åˆ€ã§ã€å‚™å·žé•·èˆ¹ã§å§‹ã¾ã‚‹ã®ã¯æ•°æ‰“ã§ã‚ã‚‹ã¨ã„ã†ã®ã‚‚å…¨ãåŒæ§˜ã«æ ¹æ‹ ã®ãªã„出鱈目ã§ã‚ã‚Šã¾ã™ã€‚

 

Loosely translated,

 

To call swords that begin with Bizen Kuni Osafune Ju chumon-uchi, and swords that begin with Bishu Osafune kazu-uchi mono has absolutely no basis and is nonsense."

 

So i have a little more hope now than I did a few minutes ago. Either way I probably got ripped off buying this sword but i couldn't help it. I have never bought anything this old so I guess I'm not too sad about it.

 

Thanks,

Brian P

[runagmc]

Even if you think you got ripped off you should take care of it. Lightly oil the sword with mineral oil to keep it from rusting while you have it. It's not worth a fortune but it's not junk either. It's probably worth at least $1,000-$2,000...

[nagamaki - Franco]

To call swords that begin with Bizen Kuni Osafune Ju chumon-uchi, and swords that begin with Bishu Osafune kazu-uchi mono has absolutely no basis and is nonsense."

 

You will often find my posts contain the statement "it's the sword that confirms the mei, and not the other way around", and that is a true statement. Which means that each and every sword needs to be evaluated independently for quality. The reason for my raising the kazu-uchi mono issue here was not so much based on the mei of your sword, but rather the time period of manufacture, where many mass produced blades were made due to the civil unrest in Japan during that time period. This is not to say that fine swords were not produced during these times. It is essential for students and collectors of nihonto to become aware of what was taking place historically, and to learn how to recognize the differences between "art" swords and mass produced blades.

[Jean]

Brian,

"To call swords that begin with Bizen Kuni Osafune Ju ,"

 

It is in fact "Bizen Kuni Ju Osafune..". In Nihonto Koza, the Author states that all swords he has encountered with "Bizen Kuni Osafune Ju were gimei.

 

In sue Bizen mei, the "ju" kanji is before Osafune.

 

You will notice that all the sue Bizen sword pictures provided in Katana no Kansho are signed Bizen Kuni Ju Osafune and not Bizen Kuni Osafune Ju