Mikaveli

From a Facebook listing - caught my eye but don't think it's a genuine signature... ...too cheap and unpapered, obviously: Here's the suspect mei along with two papered ones, let's see if your appraisal matches mine:

Aside from the gold paint marker, the inscription doesn't appear to have been written by a native speaker of Japanese (or any country with Kanji). When a westerner copies a character like 山 they tend to see 4 lines, and draw 4 lines. Without knowing the typical number of strokes used, the result is far from convincing.

Like another poster stated, even restoration should be carefully considered. Even a polish, there's finite material (before exposing other layers etc.).

It's not "protect the fake mei" it's protect the object. "PC" how / where? Not really a robust response to the debate.

Glad to hear there's some sense to the law. Similarly, I think there's a difference between a fake sword, and a sword with a fake signature. I'd assume (hope) that a genuine nihonto wouldn't be destroyed because of an incorrect attribution or just fake signature added later. Whereas a modern produced sword, specifically made to fool / presented as something else would be caught up.

@Jussi Ekholm in the example above, when was the mei removed? Before modern shinsa? At first, I thought (assumed) it was just a tachi-katana shortening, rather than motivated by removal of the mei as such?

Just as a follow up, there's a link (from this site's info section 🙈) to: https://www.sho-shin.com/titles.htm It shows the various titles, eras and smiths - giving a good indication of who may have shared titles at the same time etc.

The alternative reading is still definitely worth knowing / being aware of - you'll occasionally see it in listings (especially from automatic translations). Likewise, sometimes I've seen Terukado referred to as Terumon for the same reason (alternative reading). It's also worth noting that, even for Japanese native speakers, the correct reading of certain (family) names etc. isn't always known/obvious. You'll occasionally see web contact forms with entries for both the Kanji and Kana (pronunciation) of Japanese names.

My understanding is that 善定 (Zenjo) and Yoshisada are one and the same. Zenjo being the onyomi reading, and Yoshisada being the Kunyomi reading. Usually for compound nouns and in most nihonto contexts, the onyomi reading is used. It gets a little complicated because most transliterations don't stick to a consistent romanization. In Mino-to, he's described as being of the Yoshisada Ha (school).

Slight tangent, but if anyone hasn't read this short article by Markus, it's fascinating: https://markussesko.com/2019/12/31/kajihei-鍛冶平/ (Story about Kajihei - famous meikirishi and faker)

I actually tend to buy signed works by a single smith (with some impulse buying exceptions 😂), because I like the specific form and features of that smith. Now, if one of my papered blades turns out to be gimei, I would be upset - but I'd still have a sword of the style, configuration and (to my ability to discern) quality. If you can't tell the difference (without the label) - what's the difference? I treat wine in just the same way - saves me a fortune 🤣

Isn't that more reason to judge the sword by its merits than who is thought to have made it? Should mumei blades be signed with the attribution for the same reason (please don't 🙈😂)?

I think I'm also in the camp of not wanting to remove (at least old) gimei signatures. It is part of the history of the blade (plenty of fake Masamunes from around the Sengoku period) and, worse, we can get it wrong. I've read Markus Sesko talking about a few known examples. Better to paint / lacquer a "suspect" marking over such a signature (in a reversible way)? Similarly to how the sword that went back and forth between Sadamune and Masamune attribution, I think the focus should be on the artistic merit of the item itself. Who signed it or who is thought to have created something should be secondary.

Thanks Ray - very much appreciated 🙏

So, maybe a simple question, but when a smith is granted a title, does the place name have any relation to where the smith lived, worked or came from? For example: 丹波守 (Tanba no Kami) 河内大掾 (Kawachi no Daijo) Would the smiths have any association with Tanba in Hyogo or Kawachi? Also, side question, can two smiths have the same title at the same time?

I think it's a reasonable question, just not one with a direct answer. For example, if genuine, displaying certain mon might suggest being owned by a samurai status family. Sometimes the theme of the fuchi kashira can provide clues (though, not certainty). Depending who made the tosugu, sometimes these craftsmen only worked for specific families. Despite the sword hunts, being a katana length sword doesn't guarantee "samurai owned". But wakizashi length or shorter increases the likelihood of a merchant being the original owner etc. But, all that said - enjoy it for what it is. It certainly "could have been owned by a samurai" - and if that thought gives you more enjoyment from the piece, stick with it.

Is it 勉 ?

Not at all, it's all good feedback. I knew it was an unwise purchase - but was intrigued to see what actually turned up. 🙂👍

Cross section of the break in the blade, if it's of interest to anyone else:

So, now in hand - you're right, it is like it's a scaled down katana / wakizashi (rather than the dimensions I'd expect from a Tanto). Child's blade or export market "replica" perhaps? The tsuba is definitely a cheap casting, and not fitted to the blade. Looks like a replacement to me - the fuchi and kashira show signs of quality workmanship and materials, completely opposite to the tsuba.

Good question! I suspect the answer will vary. For Terukado, all the extant examples I've seen sign with title (although his title changed over time). Other smiths, sometimes didn't sign. Aside from mei, learning about what features certain Smith's used is always good knowledge. Tang shapes, file marks, blade style, forging patterns etc.

You can use a bit of process of elimination. Usually, it states how a smith signs - and some Sukehide use different Kanji - or only signed in a longer form - so you can rule them out. Likewise, Nihonto Club sometimes has links to known works - including museum listings if you're lucky. That gives you pictures to look at and compare etc.

Which Sukehide? Personally, I used the Nihonto Club site for the full Kanji of a mei - e.g. 一備州吉岡住助秀 Then, armed with that - used it to search Google Books. Sometimes you can see relevant pages where your smith is featured, but I've tended to buy the books featuring my smiths of interest.

This is the best picture I have of the blade for now - will be able to get better ones on Monday / Tuesday. The saya is 12" / 30cm externally, but only around 10" / 26-27cm internal depth, so that's why I assumed Tanto.

I had similar thoughts with the remnants of the blade. Tsuba-wise, I have this image for now: