The blade has/had sashikomi polish.. but it looks like someone went on it again with some untraditional way aiming for the seen mirror like finish.. after that brought back the ha and hamon with kesho polishing...
We will start now with the refreshing of the sashikomi polish.. and probably a mei investigation in the shinto, shinshinto era.
Will see..
Many thanks for all your kind answers. Will keep you posted if anything nice or intresting comes up..
Regards
David
According the difference in gimei and gendai gimei signatures..
Please tell me that mine is not a gendai.. that is probably the only thing i really hope for
Rivkin, not so dense at all,
Just forgive me for my bad photogarphic skills with my old phone.. other than that it looks like the polish is not a perfect job, it hides a lot of the jigane structure.. at least on the photos.. i have to admit that
Of course i have that in mind..
I am currently wondering if a sec. Or third gen. Moriie in the post hatakeda times could possibly have forged the blade and in this case the mei could be so called authentic..
Sure.. not for hatakeda..
You probably saw some mei in your life.. from the nakagos overall appearance.. does the mei match the period when the blade was forged or do you see it as beeing signed later..?
I really dont know where to position it..
For my -completely untrained- eyes the nakago looks older than shinshinto
forgot to mention the sori is 2,6cm
Sorry for hiding the mei..
I really did not want to have the blade judged by the mei..
Myself i think it is no way the Moriie mei could be authentic..
I also did not buy it because of the mei..
Hello all,
Recently i purchased a tachi..
It is signed but i think it is irrelevant at first.. later on i will reveal it of course..
Nagasa 75cm
Ubu nakago
Blade 29mm and 19mm at kissaki
Thickness 7 and 5mm
At this point i really would appreciate your experienced oppinion about the age from the sugata, jihada and jigane as well as hamon..
Many thanks in advance
David