I don't know where you got the stats for your tamahagane, but the number that surprised me was the Si, for true tamahagane it should be much higher.
The biggest problem with comparing modern steels is the manganese content, manganese is added to keep the sulfur content low in the refining process and there is always some of it still remaining in the steel. You have a lot of numbers listed above, but most of them are trace and don't count for much, the Mn does make a huge difference. I think if you look at 1095 you will find it close in stats to the steel you listed
Just to let you know I have made tamahagane and am quite familiar with its properties.
C .1.04 Mn .30 P .025 max S .050 max Si .15
Delbert, I'm glad you've made tamahagane, and I'm glad more American's are playing around with it. I am not under the illusion - as I think some people are - that there is anything uber-special about tamahagane compared to a lot of modern steels, but I love that "from scratch" idea of a tamahagane blade. As I said in a previous post, traditionally in the huge tataras that are used to produce tamahagane in Japan the final steel ore has a wide range of composition, etc. Most of the American makers I have seen make it in a much smaller furnace, and I was wondering if you've had better luck in controlling the smelting process to get something a little more uniform in consistency?
I have a dozen other sources which all state the same general composition of this steel.