Ray Singer

I understand. I am showing variations in writing the same kanji.

Another example. Variations on how the same mei of Masatsugu might appear on different smiths' swords.

No, this has nothing to do with difficulty in executing a straight line. Mei are calligraphy, and calligraphy is expressed in different ways depending on the hand of the craftsmen. This is the famous swordsmith Toshiro Yoshimitsu.

There are many ways that kanji are expressed in mei. They not aways executed in a rigid exact way and strokes do not always connect with one another.

This is a set I had not long ago and actually had offered here within the group. The mitokoromono was attributed to Kaga Goto.

@Maik, 土 refers to the radical and does not mean a mei that begins with the kanji 土. The Kanji 吉 (Yoshi) contains the radical 士 at the top.

Typical typo on my part, what I intended was Yoshihisa rather than Toshihisa. Thank you for correcting.

Happy New Year everyone, I just wanted to share an update that I have started to post new video content after taking a long break from filming. Please do check my channels below in the coming days for updates and new videos. https://youtube.com/@swordsofjapan https://www.instagram.com/swordsofjapan Please email me with any questions, or for videos you might like to see in the future. Best regards, Ray

Not as clear as the previous one. Perhaps Toshihisa.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean as far as looking different, but that is what I personally see. 正次 - Masatsugu.

Appears to be Masatsugu.

Perhaps authentic, late Edo / Meiji ken. Best regards, Ray

You can see examples of each below. Bizen. https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-google&hs=B4n9&sca_esv=31d3cabc157c1d09&sxsrf=ANbL-n5MFpQJGTJurISdTdqyc8fxkMcEoQ:1768063408616&udm=2&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpaEWjvZ2Py1XXV8d8KvlI3jljrY5CkLlk8Dq3IvwBz-SWBLBIpU6WqoosusF5QLbxpRE4UEP-s9kvW4xyM81KU_nRDDrtTHEylOeCsOnTP6hZ9VUt4pmkK8PNoWiruUYTsXGzKpivCXlJPWSNFMyEwrMzsXSvKDqkcbHhOfbpzkEvB87CEt8d30SxCeg7NLVb1A4ZNthJU98sgz3dyXlymgZQDWo&q=備州長船兼光&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVvqS7tYGSAxUORTABHTAXK3AQtKgLegQIGxAB&biw=411&bih=753&dpr=2.63&aic=0#ip=1 Mino. https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-google&hs=Yj8o&sca_esv=31d3cabc157c1d09&sxsrf=ANbL-n4HLLPh0Kc-3yG1z78s3fKJYn_ZqQ:1768063499941&udm=2&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKp9lEhFAN_4ain3HSNQWw-mMGVXS0bCMe2eDZOQ2MOTwlPvdyGBqAYcnoDmdEOcJS4d44EpyAw76HrrPnlvuXFGMipMqWEuzmpzWzF6B4LPIcCJ3aEpkgsHoFQ2hwIuo04hGe_Dglr_3LMzZEpkVotQSzRkGrNi7OmdRav9kfb0rFL3pUk-fAMdI7JXVwFpebN2oCqZUaoUQMoSGrjrrpnoh5uFiQ&q=濃州兼光&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFyurmtYGSAxWOTTABHR_4LXAQtKgLegQIERAB&biw=411&bih=753&dpr=2.63&aic=0

There were many smiths other than the famous Bizen Kanemitsu who legitimately used that name. As an alternative, you may want to look at the Sue-Seki Kanemitsu lineage. It's not wrong to be cautious with a sword being sold previously out of Japan with no papers, but gimei is not the only reason that this happens. In other cases, the seller may not have felt that it was financially viable to submit it, whether that is due to flaws, or simply not being signed or attributed to a school/smith that would make the shinsa investment worthwhile.

This is exactly the book you want: The Connoisseurs Book of Japanese Swords https://a.co/d/bYOs3m7 Best regards, Ray

https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+quenched+hamon+hamon+site%3Awww.militaria.co.za&sca_esv=7158150de61051ff&rlz=1C1YTUH_enUS1164US1164&sxsrf=AE3TifNUOJS9mscaAAEpNovBrV7uF48CUQ%3A1767734473213&ei=yXxdaa_cDKeRwbkPscy58QM&ved=0ahUKEwjv5NSK7PeRAxWnSDABHTFmLj4Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=oil+quenched+hamon+hamon+site%3Awww.militaria.co.za&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiMW9pbCBxdWVuY2hlZCBoYW1vbiBoYW1vbiBzaXRlOnd3dy5taWxpdGFyaWEuY28uemFIwBNQoAdYoxJwAngAkAEAmAFVoAH-AqoBATa4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB44CsgcAuAcAwgcAyAcAgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

That is what it appears to be from your photo.

From the second photo of the hamon, this appears to be a showato arsenal blade (not fully traditionally made) and produced during WWII.

Hi Shane, please provide additional images that clearly show the blade if you would like feedback from the group. Up close and in focus if possible. Please also carefully remove the handle and show a clear vertical image of the nakago (tang) on each side. Best regards, Ray

The mei appears to be: 備州住國光作 - Bishu ju Kunimitsu saku (made by the smith Kunimitsu in Bizen province).

Agreed, Sukekane. My mistake above. Best regards, Ray

Bizen (no) kuni Norikane It is readable, don't do anything to disturb the rust on the nakago to improve the condition.

You can see an extended discussion below which deals with the evaluation of a tanto mei, and range of variation across the smith's atelier (the students working together in his shop, assisting and sometimes signing on behalf of the master).

Yes, swordsmith mei did vary from one sword to another and there is an acceptable range of variation within authentic examples. Some swordsmiths are known for this, for example shodai Tadayoshi. And also yes, evaluating the workmanship is a part of the shinsa process, in addition to judging the mei (inscription). However, you would not expect to see a legitimate Naotane mei so radically different from the juyo example above with an identical date. And there is a crudeness in the execution of the mei that raises doubts compared with legitimate examples from Naotane and his students.

This is what I provided for the date. 嘉永五壬子年 - Kaei 5, mizunoe-ne (zodiac date for 1852)