|
|
Post by nicksbrain on Mar 1, 2017 20:54:18 GMT
Verity, Jussi, thank you both SO much for your valued expertise. I'm going to have a look at the sword asap, take more pictures, talk to the owner about the history and what she knows about it and I'll come back here and maybe get some more of your advice.
cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Mar 1, 2017 21:21:50 GMT
www.sho-shin.com/kanemoto.htmlThe more I look I respectfully disagree with you Jussi. I still think 4th gen. Predominant working period for 3rd was Taiei and finished in Tenmon. 4th gen was working most around the age of this blade and 3rd gen had more erratic sanbonsugi based on my own observations. I personally think this is a 4th gen Kanemoto piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Mar 1, 2017 21:28:17 GMT
Although can't really tell the difference in width is that chu or hiro
The "main" difference between 3rd and 4th gen tend to be the regularity of the sanbonsugi (4th was very even as this piece is, 3rd tended to be fairly even but had some volatility and gunome emerge) and the tree "width" in the hamon. 4th was considered hiro (wide) and 3rd was chu or medium.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jussi Ekholm on Mar 2, 2017 14:58:46 GMT
It could very well be the work of 4th generation. It is very difficult to date and pinpoint items made hundreds of years ago.
However I would approach some datings on Sho-shin website with caution. I am not sure where Robert Cole has gathered the information to there but I've discovered that on some occasions datings there differ from datings in well known Japanese reference materials. Of course the datings are not actual years but peak productivity but all my good reference materials have following dates. (for example Mino-to book by Malcolm Cox has some questionable start dates for 1 and 2)
1st Meiō 1492 - 1501
2nd Daiei 1521 - 1528
3rd Tenbun 1532 - 1555
4th Genki 1570 - 1573
Kodai (later generations) 1573 onwards
|
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Mar 2, 2017 15:07:13 GMT
It could very well be the work of 4th generation. It is very difficult to date and pinpoint items made hundreds of years ago. However I would approach some datings on Sho-shin website with caution. I am not sure where Robert Cole has gathered the information to there but I've discovered that on some occasions datings there differ from datings in well known Japanese reference materials. Of course the datings are not actual years but peak productivity but all my good reference materials have following dates. (for example Mino-to book by Malcolm Cox has some questionable start dates for 1 and 2) 1st Meiō 1492 - 1501 2nd Daiei 1521 - 1528 3rd Tenbun 1532 - 1555 4th Genki 1570 - 1573 Kodai (later generations) 1573 onwards Yeah I agree. The uniformity and even-ness of this piece is also a factor in what leads me to 4th as I said that most of the pieces by 3rd seem to have some volatility to the sanbonsugi. It's not quite "perfect" as most 4th gen pieces I have seen are. In fairness I have handled mainly 2nd gen (Magoroku) and 3rd gen pieces. I don't recall ever having handled a 4th gen in person. I have done a lot of looking at Kanemoto however, and almost bought a piece that was questionable whether a Magoroku or 3rd gen. |
|
|
|
Post by nicksbrain on Mar 22, 2017 7:41:36 GMT
Just a quick update to my sword buying experience: unfortunately, the seller has already sold the sword so I didn't have the chance to have a look at it... well thank you all for your help and I'll report back, if I find a new offer!
|
|
|
|
Post by billy02 on Sept 3, 2018 6:15:17 GMT
A very detailed guide. indeed helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by csills2313 on Sept 27, 2018 14:19:24 GMT
As I am new here I just read your guide. I thought the guide was great and you covered a lot of important stuff. I also loved your recommendations on where to shop for good quality katanas.
I know from past experience that sword shopping can be a risky experience and searching for decent quality swords at a reasonable price can be frustrating.
I loved the videos. The one that shows how to disassemble the sword was great but I wished he had included instruction on how to remove the mekugi pegs from the tsuka.
I know that at times these pegs can be rather difficult to remove with the brass hammer. They are usually tapered so that they can only go in one way. For some reason some questionable vendors even cement them in place which makes it almost impossible to disassemble the sword for inspection. I had a friend come to me for help on that one. I was able remove them eventually by drilling them out which was a tedious process. The sword only had a half tang. Anyway we both learned a lesson that day.
Thanks for the great Guide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silent on Feb 15, 2019 22:57:01 GMT
Very good Guide, congrats.
Why did ppl started going offtopic talking about ninhontos on a begginers guide series, its just gonna confuse them.
Well heat treated modern monosteel shinkens are better in cutting performance/durability then ninhontos thats a fact.
Cya
|
|
|
|
Post by aeri on Oct 9, 2019 6:29:01 GMT
Thanks, this post has a lot of useful information to absorb.
The expected price ranges in the list of sub-$300 swords may not necessarily reflect what is currently offered today, since at the time of this posting the last edit was in 2012, but that data still helps provide some context about previous market trends and it is not too difficult to look up current prices anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Apr 18, 2021 1:10:26 GMT
New guy, here. Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to share your knowledge.
Regarding my first experience with a folded Katana, buying from the Chinese is rife with the odds that they will save money any way they can. I removed the handle and polished the steel, and saw no evidence of folding, leaving me to believe that the beautiful pattern on my blade is simply printed onto a Maru/one layer blade. Given what I have learned about possible problems with folding and modern steel, and the cost of the blade, I am ok with this. Also, the "real ray skin", I suspect, should look more like leather than plastic, and shouldn't smell like plastic when burned with a soldering iron.
|
|
|
|
Post by cluster2k on Aug 1, 2021 11:15:45 GMT
I have recently begun to collect swords and have been looking for my first katana, or maybe a type 95 sword. I would like a real type 95 and not reproduction, but my budget may not stretch that far. The whole area is filled with traps and counterfeit goods. Take this for example, from a local auction: auctions.scammellauctions.com.au/lots/view/1-4V3TCE/japanese-sword"Early 20th Century Handmade, with Visible Temper Lines, Signed Above the Habaki with Habaki Marked -/no.137, The Bronze Tsuba Decorated with Mountain Scene in Wabi-Sabi Aesthetics, Shark Skin Case, Length: 109cm" Early 20th century hand made. Good enough for me, and current price is AU$650 (US$480). But the product looks far too clean for something supposedly made 100 years ago, and the blade's supposedly folded metal looks suspect to me. The kicker is the signature on the blade instead of tang. I emailed the auctioneer and they admitted this is a "reproduction". Could have been made last year for all I know. Surely the auctioneer should state the sword is a reproduction and in the description? I don't expect an 18th century sword for anywhere near that price, but the unwary may be suckered in if they truly believe they're buying something made before WW2. |
|
