Nihonto Club

The name is Nobuyoshi.
Looks older than Meiji to me.
Hamon style could be called "choji midare", but it's a rather subjective thing.
No yokote: Very common on tanto, becomes less common as the blade gets longer.

Gap between tsuba and habaki:
It's not impossible for seppa to fill an 8mm gap, especially if you currently have no seppa at all. The "rivet hole" is called mekugi-ana (mekugi is the bamboo peg, ana is hole).
In general, blades can have multiple holes to allow mounting a new tsuka (handle).
It's possible that your tsuka is not original, and is not a good fit. Try to verify if the interior shape of the tsuka is a good match with the shape of the nakago. A tsuka that was made for a specific blade will be a very close fit (allowing for shrinkage of the wood over time).

Perhaps add a picture of the overall blade, with everything removed.

Pete

Hi Pete,

Once again, thank you for your input and translation.
I have looked very closely at the nakago again, under different lighting and with a magnifying glass.
There is certainly some very bad pitting which has partly obliterated two of the kanji characters.
But I've looked through all of the Nobuyoshi smiths on the database and have finally come to a conclusion as to the closest match.
He appears to be the third son of Shodai Nobuyoshi, as listed here. And the blade would appear to be 1655-1703, EDO period and Settsu province.

https://nihontoclub.com/smiths/NOB586

I have also added another image file as PDF showing the kanji on the tang and my conclusions, including the two characters which you confirmed as Nobu and Yoshi.
Where there is some bad pitting at the bottom of the nakago there is one other character which I can see is for Saku.

I'll upload some images of the blade tomorrow when the light is better.

Thanks again for your help.

Andy

Hi Pete,

I've uploaded another PDF with three slides. One slide shows the full blade length without fittings and a few details.
The other two slides illustrates the gap between the habaki and fuchi.
Basically, when the tsuba(3mm) and the 2 No. seppa (2mm) fitted, there is a 6mm gap remaining so that the tsuba rattles around between habaki and fuchi. The hilt seems to be a good fit with the tang but you can see that the hole in the tang is not correct for this hilt. Apart from making up the difference with 6 No. further seppa, it would mean changing the hilt or cutting another hole in the tang - both holes would be very close together so wouldn't be practical or something I'd want to do in any case.

One other thing I've noted - where the signature is located, there is an area where there is no dark grey/black patina - as if it has been rubbed at this point - possibly a previous owner mistakenly doing this to better reveal the signature?!
Having looked at a lot of tangs on the internet, I haven't seen any so far that are so badly pitted as this one. They always seem to appear in clean condition.

All a steep learning curve but I'm happier that the blade appears to be a better provenance that I first thought - though there are issues as noted above and some pitting and minor nicks to the edge.

What do you think?

Can I ask how/why you can read kanji so well? Did you have to learn as part of this interest or had you learned Japanese before that?
Any tips or good reference material for learning how to read/learn/remember kanji/Japanese characters?

Cheers and thanks again - appreciate your help.

Kind regards

Andy

Based on your new pictures:
Weak yokote: This blade is supposed to have a yokote - it is not a tanto-style shape as I suggested yesterday. The polish is not much good, I think.

Difficult to see in the pictures, but it appears that perhaps the hamon drops off the edge before reaching the hamachi. If so, that's usually a bad thing. It could mean that the blade was re-tempered, such as after being damaged in a fire. Re-tempering typically causes the hamon to become "weak" (not crisp, lacking crystalline features such as nie, etc.).
The heavy pitting on the tang could fit this story also.
I have a very old blade by Masaie that was destroyed in a fire 30-some years ago. The habaki is partially melted on to the blade. The exposure to fire and water caused major pitting.

Another possible explanation for the "tsuba gap": the hamachi/munemachi may have been moved up, in an effort to get rid of some issue, perhaps tied in with fire damage???

This is all just guesses, of course!

Learning Japanese:
I took some lessons many years ago to learn some basics. But more importantly, my wife is a Japanese citizen, so that forces me to get exposure on a regular basis (we watch mostly Japanese TV every day). My fluency is very limited, but I can usually recognize a Kansai (southern Japan) accent when I hear it.
For just reading stuff that appears on sword tangs, there are only perhaps 300-ish kanji that you are likely to see, and some that appear over and over (such as KANE). See this list, which I made in the late 1980's:
https://nihontoclub.com/files/stroke_count.pdf
To move to a higher level, it's very helpful to learn how to write kanji. When you know how to write the basic radicals, then you can look at someone else's "handwriting" and start to recognize things.

Pete

Thanks Pete,

I'll take a look at those aspects you've highlighted and post again if I have anything I can add or comment on.
Thanks for the link to your document - I'll print off as a reference. Not sure my brain is up to such a feat of memory.

Cheers

Andy

Hi Pete,

I admit I am quite fascinated by the details and all the possibilities that you've suggested.
I've had another close look at the blade and can confirm the following.

The hamon does continue past the hamachi, though not as well defined but definitely there, more as a 'matt shadow,' like a satin finish on stainless steel and straight, (chu-suguha) rather than choji-midare.

I have posted another image (hamachi.pdf) which shows the area of the mune-machi and a definite line where the polishing finishes up to the ridge line. Is it possible that this was the original line of the mune-machi and hamachi and, as you say, it has been moved for some reason? Having said that, I've looked at images of other tangs online as a reference point, and the polish line is not something that seems to coincide with mune-machi/hamachi line in any case.
And one other thing comes to mind - if you're going to go to the trouble of making fine adjustments to the blade, as it might be worth saving, assuming there was some issue along the line, then why wouldn't you make sure that the tsuka fits to suit, by either making another hole in the nakago or changing the tsuka or?.......

As to the yokote - Visually there is no definite line as I've seen elsewhere on other blades, but putting a cotton glove on and rubbing my fingers over the kissaki, there is a 'hump' or a slight raised area of rounded nature between the kissaki and main surface of the blade. Does this then suggest some 'amateur' polishing that has removed the yokote in the process? If it had been polished professionally I would expect the yokote to be redefined or retained - just my thoughts based on my limited knowledge, but looking for rational explanations. It's like detective work trying to get to a reasonable conclusion as to historical events in the blade's life.

Cheers and thanks again.

Andy

Hi, as you say, the polish under the habaki is not typical, so it MAY support the theory of the hamachi being moved.
I'm sure you've seen a lot of this already online, but here is a very "normal" example:
http://yakiba.com/Daisho_Kat_Tango_no_Kami_Kanemichi.htm
This is my blade, and it is for sale on consignment on Ed's yakiba.com site. Feel free to buy it, or the companion wakizashi! :-)

Yokote: My best guess is that it's just a low-quality/low-cost polish, maybe done a long time ago.
Possibly related: Google "kazu-uchi mono" - a term for lower-quality blades produced in large numbers in the Sengoku era.

Pete

Hi Pete,

Have tried to get a better idea of this blade - its era and smith - the kanji on the nakago reads 'echizen no kami minamoto rai nobuyoshi saku'
From all information I've so far gleaned on Nobuyoshi - the signature should include a kiku mon - and I've not so far seen any example listed with 'saku' at the end.
So those are two clues that suggest it's a gimei - I suppose I don't understand why you would forge a signature but not include the kiku mon and then to add the 'saku' at the end? Seems odd - but I suppose if it was faked at the same period (1670's), then the person faking the signature would not necessarily have had any access to a real signature - nowadays everything available on the net to see but back them you would have to see a real example to know what it looked like.
So my conclusion is that the blade is of the correct era but the signature was faked at about the same time.

Cheers

Andy

Hi, Your conclusions MAY be quite correct - someone with more specific knowledge of the smith/school would be able to say better.
But remember that there is no "absolute" knowledge - even if you went to a high-level expert in Japan, it is still just an opinion (but a very reliable opinion).

It is certainly true that a gimei can have some "obvious" errors. The smith who did it may have never seen a real example, or only handled one briefly. Nobody was sharing detailed records, travel was a major effort, etc. If he knew someone who owned a real one, it would be suspicious to ask to see the signature. Note that an "expert" doesn't need to see a signature to recognize the quality of the workmanship, or to recognize who made it.

Pete

Hi Pete,

I understand the experts check the blade for clues and then can confirm a school rather than a specific smith. Only then do they have a look at the nakago to see if it matches their conclusions - a bit like wine stating/master of wine.

I have the luxury of viewing some Japanese swords tomorrow morning at an auction house, prior to the official viewing dates. Any tips on handling, what to look out for etc...

Thanks.

Andy

All I can suggest is to look for the most important types of flaws that might be "fatal", such as a crack in the edge, etc.
One thing to look for, which is nearly impossible to show in pictures, is this:
Hold the blade directly in front of your face, pointing toward any light source, and sight down the blade to see how "flat" the major surfaces are. On a blade with a cheap polish, like most WWII blades, you'll see considerable dips and waves in the ji and shinogi surfaces. After seeing good and bad examples, the difference will become clear. Even if a blade is in somewhat bad condition, you can get an idea of the quality of its old polish. A poor quality blade is unlikely to have a nice polish.
Another check: under the habaki, look at the depth of the hamachi, and note the overall width (not thickness) of the blade. Then moving a few inches up the blade, does the width decrease visibly? If it does, it means the blade has been polished a lot (maybe too much). Each time a blade is polished, the polisher tries to maintain the hamachi, so that the habaki can rest on it. This causes the main part of the blade get a bit narrower. It's not a fatal problem, but it means you should look for signs of over-polishing.

One other thing: If you're going to buy something, I suggest going for the one that you think is fundamentally the best quality blade. Don't fret over signatures. A good blade is a good blade, regardless of who made it.

Pete
[ I have this pair of swords for sale:
http://yakiba.com/Daisho_Tango_no_Kami_Kanemichi.htm
Available as a pair, or individually. ]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the tips. I'm just looking presently - just to hopefully increase my knowledge and awareness by making comparison. Not sure what to expect. The items will go into the auction in the next few weeks so not officially listed/catalogued yet.
As you may be aware, I bought three wakazashi from different sources, with no previous knowledge of subject. I know not the sensible thing to do - learning the hard way.
I am certainly happy with one (based on my limited knowledge and your comments and Looper's, as well as my own attempts at research). The other two, the jury is out.
I am sure I'd get my money back on them if I choose to sell, but will only do that when I've exhausted my research and am happy that I can go no further.

Thanks again.

Andy

Hi Pete,

Spent a good hour and a half viewing/handling about twenty tanto/wakazashi/katana yesterday morning.
From my untrained eye, mainly going on gut reactions and limited knowledge, I estimate that only about three or four of the blades were better condition/quality than the three that I already own - that doesn't necessarily say much, I know, but made me feel a bit more confident that I don't own complete 'rubbish.'
Having said that, there were two that stood out as being superior quality - beautiful hamon/tempering and high polish - and surprisingly, there were some fittings that were really special to my eye - especially on one tanto that had amazing fuchi, kozuka, tsuba and kashira, lovely details, that really impressed me.
A large number of the blades were pitted, rusted, chipped edges, and very loose fittings generally.
An hour and a half sounds a reasonable amount of time to view, but it wasn't really - I could easily have spent another two hours and also photographing them for my own records, which I didn't get the chance to do.
Well worth the trip. Only wish my eye sight was better.

Andy