commachio

Just to add.....Roger has been both superb in helping me understand the topic, the Tadayoshi swords, his book and pushing me to look further into the detail. I CANNOT thank him enough for his time and effort in both replying to me and also investing his own time. Note, however, that I have invested an enormous amount of my own time in order to reach out to Roger. I am sure he is inundated inn requests so only feel that people should invest as much time as possible in investigating their sword rather than just throwing things at Roger for an opinion. Yes, he is regarded as an expert and we all need to apply ourselves as much as we can before expecting anyone just to come up with an answer. As above though youre correct - its not just the Mei but the whole blade that needs to be considered. Now that you know its a Gimei, if you pass it on it makes sense to pass it on in its true light. Despite it being a Gimei there is, as stated, many fine blades out there irrespective of the Mei. I think one of the problems is trying to sell on without physically seeing the blade first. I have new items in my collection now that I don't overly care who made them....they are just beautiful pieces of Nihonto art. As for my Tadayoshi I'm a happy bunny and, as stated with Roger, its a beautiful proportioned blade and hoping that the recovery polish will bring out its true nature. Will post pictures next year once done.

Okay...here's the latest. I've spent the last few weeks pulling apart everything I can find on Tadayoshi blades including a host of reference material - online, PDF and manuals/books. The sole aim was to take this potential 'Gimei' sword and bring it back to life. That said the Mei intrigued me - Why was it Gimei? So I took sourced material, took high res photos of all kanji (as above) and systematically pulled them apart. Every stroke was looked at, angles, placement (inc Mekugi-Ana), and placed against reference material. I did the best analysis I could (with my limited knowledge) of the whole blade including Yusarime, Hamon, bosh, kissaki etc etc etc as recommended against all the reference material to hand. Its definitely a Hizen sword....after much work I produced my finding and sent these to Rog. Aside from my obvious grammatical inaccuracies, which I'll correct in due course, the end result is that it is a very high possibility of being an early 8th gen Dai Mei. That is not to discount it could still be Gimei. Rog has suggested further research including looking at Mei's (possibly even Students) which I will undertake in due course. He has also suggested looking at similar papered Oshigata's - the problem will be finding them. So....as a starting point, does anyone have any papered 8th Gen sword Oshigatas that they would kindly photograph and send. Ideally they need to be POST 1982. This will help add further clarity on this prior to potentially sending to Japan. I'd rather gather more information beforehand. Am also open to further ideas, suggestions and comments. Alternatively if anyone can suggest books specific to Tadayoshi it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Ian....will do. I can find representative oshigatas where the Ana is as mine.....but I also wonder if you look hard enough you'll find what you're looking for.....so now analysing each individual kanji against a host of kanji's across multiple oshigata's to come up with a base idea of possible matches. Also looking at the number of strokes, angles, positions......but again can be quite subjective.....anyway, will send a single image as suggested tomorrow. Many thanks

No 5

No4

No3

no2

Still gaining information from Rog but, based on above, still appears Gimei without seeing the clarity of the blade, file marks and of the individual Kanji. We're all very cautious not surprisingly especially when based on pictures so hoping these may also shed some light/clarity. Eitherway a good case to help see the real differences between Gimei, 'Good' Gimei genuine articles. Eitherway the sword needs some TLC and will make a beautiful possession. It could even possibly pass papers but we'll see. Will update once Rog has seen these.

Ha!!!.....already and in conversations with Roger so many thanks. More visibility......hopefully a better indication. Its the top one

ah....got it. Thanks for the reply @geriant For clarity: the images of the blades (section starting "Yup.....many thanks. I'm currently looking at 8th gen. Defo not Shodai. Also been pointed towards 5th gen. Interesting the Mekugi-Ana is lower than ’standard’ "tachi Mei..........) were for comparison of where the Mekugi-Ana and Mei's have been placed over the years in comparison to the Mei on my blade. Although it seems standard that the Mei's appear in Kanji position 1,2 and sometimes 3.....they sometimes appears even lower......not withstanding this could still be Gimei.......time will tell and hopefully everyone can pull this apart in due course and come up with some pointers. I'll take some more detailed photos on Wednesday.... many thanks

Blade length - 27" from tip to Mune Machi

Hi Ed....how did you work that out? thanks

Yup.....many thanks. I'm currently looking at 8th gen. Defo not Shodai. Also been pointed towards 5th gen. Interesting the Mekugi-Ana is lower than ’standard’ (i.e. normally between 1st/2nd Kanji)…..but also looked at papers that outlines these are also based on the period and Fuchi sizes. Still all very suspect - maybe even the Mei was added at a later date. But again, as per attached, can certainly be lower

All.... Firstly, many thanks to the Admin team for my membership. Secondly - I am a COMPLETE newbie. My father used to collect swords in his hayday and I seem to have gotten his 'bug'. I have recently come into a number of swords if which I will post separately when the time comes. Of possible worthy note was (and to a degree still is) is a poorly maintained sword found in an attic (maybe 'loft' in the US?). For clarity the UK is a damp place and anything metal that isn't looked after doesn't fair well. I have come across, and will post more photos in due course, a possible Tadayoshi. The tip of there kissaki has broken off but this does not go too far into the bosh and can possibly be re-shaped. The blade was covered in rust which has been professionally removed by a well established sword polisher in the UK. There is STILL a lot of blemishes and a few nicks to the Ha. I have this lined up to have a complete deep polish to bring the blade back to life. Based on all my previous research so far its suggested that I should take the sword as Gimei until proven otherwise. I've been through all sorts of literature (She-Sho, British Museum, Sesko, various printed books on the subject etc), been through hosts and host of Mei's on other Tadayoshi's (not physically, all online or by photos sent to me) and, although wiser, I'm still unsure. The reasons I am unsure fall mainly to two reasons: 1. Mei signature, although very comparable to some 8th gen Tadayoshis, seems to 'shallow' - I am told that all signatures were deep? Also Mekugi-ana seems 'low' in terms or order with other kanji BUT I have also seen it this low on others..... 2. Tang shape. If this was an 8th gen the ONLY tang of this shape I found on this forum site. It looks like a 9th gen shape but everything else says 8th gen so somewhat confused. Last image is a comparison Oshigata which came from NBHTK will add more images as soon as I can...... Any help would be appreciated.....thanks

Hi Ray.....although this post is some 3 odd year old I do have a question from an newbie (me).....I have access to a potential Tadayoshi here in the UK. I am assuming at all stages that its Gimei un til I can prove otherwise. I am using a host of literature and currently looking at both the Mei and nagato shape. Mei 'appears' to be 8th gen (hence my query here). However the literature seems to suggest the nagato shape is 9th - i.e. the curve on most 8th gen is fairly symmetrical - in that the left hand highest point is almost the same on the right. Mine seems to be higher on the right-hand side very much like yours. Do you have any comment? is the majority of literature based on 'common' and there are always variations - thus possible an 8th gen tang can be same as a 9th gen? any help would be appreciated....