Janrudolph

Geraint, thank you for coming in. I'd like to see what this thread delivers up, before doing what you wisely advise. Maybe it won't come to that. Johan

The two pics above were taken under different lighting conditions, so that all the characters should show clearly enough (hopefully). There seems to be two kanji at the top, followed by two vertical columns containing kanji, separated by a line, and at the bottom there again seems to be two kanji. Now I may be wrong by saying the two top kanji spell "Mt. Kinka", but that is what I understand at the moment. I have been advised that the signature includes "Kinka oite Nōshū Nagaragawa-hotori Fujiwara Kiyonaga". Fujiwara Kiyonaga is the name of the smith, Nagara is a river, Noshu is a province, and there I start getting stumped. Johan

Hello all! I know it has been said that one needs a great deal of expertise to decipher Japanese kanji characters, and also that in reading mei one should not make too much of it. Yet I have this kogatana and I find pleasure in trying to read the mei properly. But of course I am struggling. Please see the pic below and the first of some questions I would ask you guys who are proficient, to please help me out with. Johan

Commenting on Brian's kind assessment, I wish to state that I am not factually in disagreement with you. And thank you for coming in. I was fearing you have lost patience with me . Considering your first sentence, I have seen in many threads that forumites are willing to exchange thoughts on mei comparisons and it made enthralling reading to me, for one. One need not take every little opinion as proven fact, but use it to exercise one's mind in the lengthy process of becoming more experienced. Now in the matter of guessing, I would find more enjoyment in saying "there is no reason why my blade should NOT have been made in the 8th year of Empo" like the dating reads, instead of merely saying, "the blade is likely a few hundred years old". Isn't it much like saying "the glass is half full", instead of "the glass is half empty"? And then, as you rightly stated, "focus on the sword instead of the signature". That I have already agreed upon in my post #21: "I have to study the blade as to authenticity". But I want to focus with positivity and not allow my enthusiasm to falter. Barry might have some interesting observations after viewing my pics above.....? Johan

Barry, I don't know if the pics I am providing are exactly what you requested, but please respond. You and all the other kind forumites might ask why I am going to such a lot of trouble to research this blade, having already established that there are various serious kizu. Well, apart from the unhappy fact that I cannot afford anything of a higher class, this one that I do have, possesses a unique personality, as do all nihonto. I cannot imagine myself declaring "Well, it's not perfect, so why waste time on it?" At least my nakago is ubu, whereas some other nihonto had been altered yet are still held in respect. The tip is nice kurijiri. There is only one mekugi-ana, which means the tsuka before rewrapping might be its own period one. Other nihonto have multiple ana yet are still highly respected. The mei plus kiri-mon is well executed with no signs that it might be gimei, like suspect positioning on the tang. It compares REALLY well with genuine papered Nobuyoshi blades. And the dating? Even if I ignore what the date says, by looking at the blade shape & characteristics, and all the damage that time and human intervention has wrought, can I be confident that this blade is of Empo age? Please let me have your comments, guys! Johan

I forgot to acknowledge Francois R's very helpful comment. And thanks for that, although it is bad news. Otherwise the hamon seems to be in good shape; nobody has stood up to say different. I'm repeating my post #4 pic here below for your convenience, friends. The black spots I assume to be pitting. Under 10X glass they appear to be minute black depressions/scars in the metal. The blade had probably, over many years perhaps, acquired some rust while in storage or under inexpert care. Obviously the blade has been restored. It has been said in an earlier thread that the blade is in an amateur state of polish. Now about the hada on the blade: It was said: "Grain is closed, so hada can't be seen." What I see on the ji seems to be some kind of hada to my inexperienced eyes. If it isn't, what is it then? They look to me like little islands stretched lengthways. There's quite a lot of them all along the length of the blade. Can anybody suggest what we're seeing here? Johan

Glad to hear from you, Jesse! So, can anyone please inform me what KIND of suguha I have on the blade? Someone had said this was not a "pure" suguha, but I still don't know what that meant. Looks nice and straight and uniform to me, barring that nioi-gire. The turnback on the boshi looks good to me, too. Johan

I saw that too, Ian. No matter. Johan

I have much appreciated the last couple of posts coming through. Barry & Michael, you have both agreed, earlier in this thread, that my blade seems not to the a genuine work the mei signature suggests. Tom Darling has just now voted "nay" as well. I cannot agree more that the three of you are basing your opinion on firm grounds. That is the only norm I now need to investigate for my own sake, to arrive at a final conclusion, whether it be favourable or otherwise. Steve & Ian, you have helped me gather some more papered examples, for which I thank you! Ed, thanks especially to you also, you can be sure I'll look at those nakago features you mentioned, and report back after I've done so. Jussi, good to hear from you; I've seen your face in many threads! So, what kind of blade do I have? This is where my ignorance is going to come out glaringly. I have a very nice hamon, straight, which I only know to classify as suguha. 1) Looking at my post #4, is anyone able to specify a sub-genre that can be attached to this suguha? 2) The temper line is interrupted for about 10 mm at a distance of 80 mm from the very point of the blade. On the one side it is like a clean break in the line. On the other side, also 80 mm from the point, the line just wobbles for 10 mm. Is this a kizu? How serious? Johan.

Thank you Jacques and SteveM. You realize of course, that I don't have recourse to Nihonto Meikan, Shinto Taikan, Fujishiro Taikan or any other Japanese sword reference book. I can do no more than access the internet and that with extreme caution for reasons you will be aware of. Then I have my reasoning powers (probably much addled after extensive use!) to make sense out of little info. As an active numismatist since 1979, I have learnt that you don't try to identify counterfeit coins by studying them; you study the genuine article and then you will know to identify counterfeits. That's why I'm so happy to now have three mei signatures on papered swords with identical kanjis as mine. I've gone to the trouble of enlarging them and putting them next to mine, and scrutinizing the shapes. Being free-hand chiselled, all four differ, but minutely. In fact, it is one of the papered sword's mei which stands out as having the greatest variation! What can I make of this comparison? Do I acknowledge that my mei COULD be gimei? Of course I do. Am I convinced it IS gimei? Not on your nellie. So where do I go from here? Easy: I have to study the blade as to authenticity. That is why I ask you to please do me the kindness of looking back to my posts #4 and #5 and commenting, if you will. I would really be very glad. Of course I will need to post more pics afterwards. Johan

Jacques, at least you are participating in this thread, for which I am thankful. But I am frustrated at the fact that I am putting much reasoning into the discussion, while you are putting nothing at all convincing on the table? And being more knowledgeable than I (I am sure), I would have thought you should be able to counter my arguments easily if you wanted to. Johan

The only mei I could find till now which is the same as mine, is in the pic below. I've put the images next to one another and they seem very close indeed. It is a papered Katana: Translation of papers: Kantei-sho (鑑定書) No 147115 katana, mei: [kiku-mon] Shinano no Kami Fujiwara Rai Nobuyoshi (信濃守藤原来信吉) Nagasa 2 shaku 3 sun 3 bu Migi wa tô-kyôkai ni oite shinsa no kekka, tokubetsu-hozon-tôken to kantei-shi kore o shô-suru. (右は當協會に於て審査の結果特別保存刀剣と鑑定しこれを証する) Heisei jûyonen nigatsu jûyokka (平成十四年二月十四日) zaidan-hôjin (財團法人): Nihon Bijutsu Tôken Hozon Kyôkai (日本美術刀劍保存協會) Appraisal: katana, signed: [chrysanthemum crest] Shinano no Kami Fujiwara Rai Nobuyoshi. Nagasa ~ 70.6 cm According to the result of the shinsa committee of our society we judged this work as authentic and designate it as tokubetsu-hozon-tôken. February 14th 2002 [Foundation] NBTHK.

Jacques, you are right, of course, that Echizen Nobuyoshi was one of the younger brothers of the 1st gen Nobuyoshi. In your last post you mentioned Rai Nobuyoshi. I have to assume you are referring to the older brother of the 1st gen Nobuyoshi. Then you have no doubt also hit the nail on the head when you say Rai Nobuyoshi never received the title of Shinano no kami. However, I don't see what bearing "my" Nobuyoshi has on Rai Nobuyoshi. Michael & Barry, have you had time to look at the nakago (post #9)? I apologize for the incorrect orientation of the pics. I tried hard to get them vertical, and saved them as such, but no luck! Sorry! Johan.

Jacques, thank you. When this blade was briefly shown in an earlier thread, there were others who indicated gimei like you have. I have subsequently read up quite a lot about gimei. Forumites must please NOT think that I am not in feeling with the general norm of "assuming gimei". Yet, when Brian (I think it was Brian) understandably suggested I should just enjoy my blade for what is and not brood too much about it, I felt a bit cheated (in an amicable way). I would rather research my blade as much as I can and learn from that, as much. So the questions that come up to me are: On what grounds should I assume gimei? Is it the style of the kanji on the signature? Is the "handwriting" poorer than what could be expected of the "real" Nobuyoshi? Are the characters poorly formed/engraved/chiselled? There must be something about the signature that one could lay your finger on and say "That's the problem!" And the date: If the signature is suspect, is the date suspect as well? Friends, these questions arise because of my enthusiasm and not because I want to be difficult or a nuisance! Johan

Barry & Michael, I must agree, however, my understanding is still muddled although I have done a lot of searching. The Shinano no Kami Minamoto Nobuyoshi was used by 3 generations of Shinto smiths starting from around 1643 and were considered part of the Mishina School. This includes "my" Nobuyoshi as it is said that he later changed his signature from Fujiwara to Minamoto. The 3rd generation signed Echizen Rai instead of Shinano no kami. I did not find that "my" Nobuyoshi had signed swords including "rai" in the mei, althought the indication is that if he did, it would have occurred later in his productive life. Rai Nobuyoshi (it is said) was by far the best of the Takai-family. He was active from about 1655 to 1703. On earlier works before 1670 the 16-petal chrysanthemum was chiseled in, while later it was engraved. The name "Rai" was not added before 1673. "My" Nobuyoshi could have been 2nd generation. He also used the chrysanthemum. I feel I'm puttering around inside complicated Japanese history. I'll post the nakago both sides like you requested. Johan

What I see (granted, with grossly inexperienced eyes) is a relatively sharp straight suguha. I understand such a hamon was more common through history. I understand also there are many sub-genres, and I was wondering if you can tell anything about this sub-genre. Then concerning jigane: I have seen pics of ayasugi-hada, mokume-hada, itame-hada and masame-hada, but the pattern I see here looks totally different, more like irregular islands stretched out lengthwise along the ji. The section of the blade I show here is on the left side when I point the sword away from me, starting at 60 mm from the habaki and running for 105 mm. Those black dots I believe to be pitting, which tells me that the blade has seen better days, also that it has been restored (in SA?) to its present condition. I await feedback with trepidation. Johan

Here's my own wrap on the koshirae, based on what I've been advised by you, so it need not be discussed in this thread, unless someone has an important contribution to add, perhaps correcting me or concurring. The saya is so immaculate that it was thought to be recent, like in "yesterday". The ito is a recent re-wrap (I have the original leather ito that was taken off). The blingy kojiri and kashira are new, some kind of alloy, perhaps containing silver. The fuchi and koiguchi are hallmarked 925 sterling silver. The tsuba is iron, a design made by the Kinai School of Echizen all through the Edo period 1603-1868. Someone unfortunately silvered it, thinking to make it cool - I believe it might (in its original state) have been original to the blade. The two menuki I don't know anything about - they look silver. The habaki is immaculate, as someone said: "not older than 100 years". Concerning the bamboo tsuka and same, I believe those to be original to the blade. My idea is now to post some pics of the BLADE (as best I can) and request you guys to please give your take on the blade. I view this information that I might get, as very important for my own understanding. Please help, friends. Johan