Mikaveli

豊州住 ? Can't make out the mei entirely (read the actual smith name)?

Indeed, that was kinda the point. What I take from that, is that the hada absolutely has a functional effect on the strength and pliability of the blade. If it was merely artistic preference, we'd potentially see more variations.

The gojuon (五十音) is the Japanese syllabary (the sounds). It's sometimes used as a synonym for the standard order, but that's 五十音順 I've never encountered the kana grid position being used to represent a number - so I'd be surprised by that. As in the gunto example above, when numbers are written, typically just the Kanji or numbers are used 九七 or 97 etc. In official / legal documents you might even encounter some specific Kanji used in that context (玖漆 etc.) but hopefully, that's out of scope 😅

Well, maybe a pertinent question: Are there any examples of masame (straight) hada that runs perpendicular to the nagasa of the blade?

Potentially - that'd certainly explain the differences in signature and workmanship. In Sesko's index, he states that some sources list two generations, because of the long period of output (Genna-Kanbun) - but I don't know enough to confirm or deny this.

The mei isn't the subject, it's just one of the many data points. And gimei or not, isn't boolean. There's the more obvious "Dremel" job, where the cited smith doesn't remotely match the presented mei, through to period mei which doesn't 100% match the style of other known works. What isn't clear to me, is what percentage of certainty is required for an NBTHK certificate - and what level of risk of potentially genuine signatures are removed as a result? If the NBTHK requires 90% to pass, I'd worry that the 60-90% range were destroyed as a result.

Well, written as 無銘 肥前 at the bottom of the second sentence from the right. Just in case the OP was trying to find those characters on the certificate. 無銘 and 無名 are both read mumei, and can mean unsigned. But 銘 specifically means inscription or signature, whereas 名 is name (無名 - literally "nameless").

Even with a mei, it's still opinion... You don't know if it signed by the smith, the apprentice, how many were involved in the blades creation. Mei added after suriage. Deliberate gimei at creation, added later etc. A mei just helps to confirm a more precise answer to who, when and where - if we didn't already know the tradition, school, era etc. how would we identify gimei? Other works? That's a circular argument. Actually, there are extant works where the blade has been suriage, and we still have the piece of the removed tang, kept together with the blade.

Possibly, but from the material I've seen, the two seem to be used interchangeably, with 守り刀 just being the more recent spelling. If you look up the reading of 守刀, you'll find "mamorigatana" for both. Happy to be proved wrong, but this fit with my expectations, as many inscriptions and mei don't use Hiragana. 守刀 were also at least "wedding swords" too at one point, and the funeral usage / talisman for the deceased is just one of the last remaining traditions. From what I understand, the short length now common (15cm or less) is too avoid their "sword" definition (avoiding the ban/ bureaucracy)? This article https://markussesko....ound-ohara-sanemori/ mentions a 守刀 as a gift to a new emperor.

I also found a Markus Sesko article about a Gassan Sadakatsu smith who made 守刀 as gifts/in celebration of notable events. So I'm wondering if this was also commissioned as a presentation gift etc?

守刀 is also written as 守り刀 Meaning "sword for self defence" or "protective sword". For example: https://www.touken-world.jp/tips/49131/

In Clive Sinclair's book, "Samurai Swords: A collectors guide" there's a reference to the Muroboku-cho period, where I'd expect the Muromachi period. Now, at first I assumed it was a typo, but then wondered if it could be an alternative way of referring to it? From what I know of the Kanji, 室町時代 (read Muromachi Jidai - period) 南北朝 (read Nanbokuchou) So plausibly: 室北朝 (Muro Northern court?) But I can't find any references to it that way, assuming I've selected the right Kanji?

The blade itself looks quite tired / out of polish - so it's difficult (for me at least) to tell. I kinda interpreted it as another red flag, obfuscating the quality of the blade. The seller knows how much a genuine blade could sell for, but won't get it polished / sent to shinsa (citing current finances). Plausible, true - but another red flag to me.

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 🙈😂)?