Jump to content

xiayang

Members
  • Posts

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

xiayang last won the day on May 2 2022

xiayang had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Australia
  • Interests
    pre-Muromachi 日本刀, viking age swords and trying to decipher all sorts of handwriting

Profile Fields

  • Name
    Jan

Recent Profile Visitors

2,805 profile views

xiayang's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • One Year In
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

691

Reputation

  1. Hi Michael, The blade is signed 豊州住藤原正行 = Hōshū-jū Fujiwara Masayuki
  2. Hi Rob, Yep, that's pretty much it. You can find more information about the smith in this thread:
  3. 濃州住塚原兼次謹作 = Nōshū-jū Tsukahara Kanetsugu kinsaku
  4. That‘s correct: 豊後住藤原實行 = Bungo-jū Fujiwara Saneyuki
  5. Have a close look at the placement of the mei the proportions of the individual characters the proportions of the characters relative to each other the execution of the characters (e.g., depth, width and shape of strokes) One of them is consistent with a master craftsman putting the final touch on a work of art that took hundreds of hours to create. The other one is sloppily executed with poor calligraphic aesthetics...
  6. 皇紀二千六百一年 = year 2601 of the Imperial calendar (1941 CE) 出征詔念應永田千弘代需 = in commemoration of Nagata Chihiro answering the Imperial command to go to war
  7. The mei and nakago look rather dodgy, if you ask me... Compare to these examples of the smith's work: https://kako.nipponto.co.jp/swords2/KT214504.htm https://ikedaart.net/?pid=180628778 https://aucview.aucfan.com/yahoo/w454764826/
  8. The answer to that question depends on what you mean by gimei in this context. So let's break it down, in order of increasing speculativeness: Was it created in 1919? By shortening an older blade? Was it Hiraga Morikuni who shortened it? Was there an original signature, and was it 安則? If it had indeed been signed 安則, was it actually made by Yasunori of the Ichimonji school, or perhaps by some later smith who used the same characters? I guess it may not be possible to answer all of these questions with certainty, but perhaps you could start with the last point: does the blade actually have the characteristics one would expect from a Kamakura era work by the Ichimonji school? Here's Yasunori's entry in Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan:
  9. 大正[己?]未歲八月 = August of Taishō, year of the [Earth?] Goat (that would correspond to 1919 CE) 平賀守國上之 = shortened by Hiraga Morikuni 古銘 一文安則 = old mei: Ichimon Yasunori
  10. 継利以南蠻鐵作 = made by Tsugutoshi using nanban-tetsu
  11. 貞繼 = Sadatsugu Probably this entry in Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan:
  12. The signature appears to be 若狭守源廣政 = Wakasa no Kami Minamoto Hiromasa Whether the blade is restorable at all I cannot say. Probably best to get a polisher to look at it.
  13. 土肥真了 = Doi Shinryō
  14. 備前國横山上野大掾祐定 = Bizen no Kuni Yokoyama Kōzuke Daijō Sukesada
  15. 美濃國住人小川兼先作 = Mino no Kuni-jūnin Ogawa Kanesaki saku The smith appears to be listed with the (erroneous?) reading "Ogawa Kanemitsu" on this list: https://japaneseswordindex.com/tosho.htm
×
×
  • Create New...