James Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 I have come across this wakizashi nakago that I need some help translating. I think the omote mei says "Suishinshi Masahide". If anyone could confirm this and whether this a genuine or gimei S. Masahide, I would be thankful. I am having difficulties with the ura inscription so any help would be greatly appreciated. 2 of the photos are of the ura (the inscription is quite long) and 1 photo of the omote. There other photos are of the actual blade and the last photo is of the police papers (I think) that go with this sword. Please click on the links. Regards. http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 ... de/004.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 ... /omote.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 ... ura001.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 ... ura002.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 ... /002-1.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 ... /003-2.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 ... de/005.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb13 ... papers.jpg Quote
sencho Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 can't make out the 4th character on the date inscription but it is where "nen" should go... and I think that the 3rd is a 'lazy' "4" But the rest says 文 化 四 ?NEN? 正 月 初 日 BUN KA YO (NEN) SHO GATSU SHO NICHI BUNKA - 1804-1818 YO - 4 ?NEN? YEAR SHO GATSU - 1st Month SHO NICHI - 1st Day i.e. New Year...... 1807???? Cheers Quote
Guido Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 This sword was already posted on SFI. Since it's obviously Gimei, there's no point in discussing the details of the inscription. Quote
James Posted June 17, 2007 Author Report Posted June 17, 2007 Thankyou Sencho. Mr Schiller, yes I did post it on SFI, however no one gave me much help there so I though I would try somewhere else. May I ask what makes it an "obvious Gimei"? Kind regards. Quote
sencho Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 Guido... this is good for the learners like me..!! Not quite a boffin yet! Doing these date and mei excersises over and over again is good for me, gimei or not! I would have no idea that this is a "obviously" a Gimei, until I got into the books for 30 minutes or so.... so, James, for the uneducated like me, this is what I just checked out: Mei looks to read Suishinshi Masahide. Hawleys has 3 generations that signed with these characters .. 1st gen would seem to fit date but it is not listed that he signed exactly like this. Also page 320 Fujishiro’s Shinto volume show an Oshigata of the 1st gen Masahide and it definitely does not match your mei. 2nd gen and 3rd gen did sign with this mei but maybe date is too early for them. However 2nd gen dates are not specified… it just says 1818. 3rd gen dates are 1850 -1865 so this is out of the park. Page 289 Oshigata 532 of Kanzan shows a 2 character mei of (Suishinshi) Masahide shows a closer match, but still the 2nd horizontal on HIDE (that should be a right side diagonal), spoils it. From the examples I have seen in the limited reference books that I have it definitelydoes not match. there is a lot of info on the web mentioning Suishinshi Masahide too. Cheers Quote
Rich T Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 ok, here is my 2 cents worth. Suishinshi Masahide was one of the top sword smiths of the Shinshinto period. He had many many students including two of the very best of their time. His signature is well documented and the book Suishinshi Masahide to Sono no Ichimon is dedicated to him and his better students, his work, and their signatures. I had not seen the forum on SFI but I agreed with Guido immediately that this sword listed here is gimei. Masahide changed his signature 3 or I think or 4 times over his career, and in nearly all variations of Masahide's mei, the Masa 正 is a lot squarer that the example shown by James. All the rest of the kanji look a bit too scratchy to be Masahide's. Also notably missing is a Kao and or hot stamp which was very common on his signature of this time though this does not guarantee its gimei. What's really different however is the Nenko. The Gatsu is very different to any mei from the Bunka jidai in the book. The gatsu however is reminiscent of Naotane's, with the inward curvature on the left and right stokes. The two horizontal stokes in the centre of the kanji are parallel in this example, where as Masahide's have the appearance of an 'L' Lastly, the yasuri on Masahide's work from the Bunka jidai was Kesho and very crisp as a rule. This looks sujikai and weak. I will also note here that there is the possibility that any smith can have an off day in work or mei I know, so there are from time to time oddities and differences, but I think if this sword were to be put up for shinsa, it would bounce. I discounted later generations as the date do not match. I will note one final tool for mei kantei. If the sword is dated and you have published references of the nenko, start there first. Forgers may have spent some time copying the mei, but the majority of dates in a gimei are bad. I have been a fan of the Masahide Kado for some time now so these are my own humble observations. I hope I have not missed anything or made a mistake. Cheers Richard Quote
James Posted June 17, 2007 Author Report Posted June 17, 2007 Thankyou for that information Mr Turner. The yasuri-mei on this sword does seem to be weak but it is clearly kesho. Still, it probably is a gimei and unless anyone can give me some new info on this blade, I will accept it as that. Quote
Guido Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 ... however no one gave me much help there so I though I would try somewhere else. You got some replies with Oshigata for comparison, but people were probably put off by your holding back info, and only giving it out piece by piece. Plus, Susishinshi Masahide is very easy to reasearch, being the famous smith that he is; Google alone gives you more than 450 hits. And on a final note: forget about the signature, and look at the workmanship - would you have kantei'd the sword as Masahide if the Nakago was covered? Quote
James Posted June 17, 2007 Author Report Posted June 17, 2007 You got some replies with Oshigata for comparison, but people were probably put off by your holding back info, and only giving it out piece by piece. Plus, Susishinshi Masahide is very easy to reasearch, being the famous smith that he is; Google alone gives you more than 450 hits. And on a final note: forget about the signature, and look at the workmanship - would you have kantei'd the sword as Masahide if the Nakago was covered? Yes, you're right. My apologies for wasting your time. Thankyou Sencho, Mr Schiller and Mr Turner for your help and contributions. James Quote
Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 If anybody is interested in, at page 48 of the Stibbert Museum catalogue auctioned for no-profit reasons here http://forums.swordforum.com/showpost.php?p=917294&postcount=72 there is an example of a joint work by Suishinshi masahide and his son Suikanshi Masahide. AFAIK only another one is reported, in NihonTo Koza vol. V pag. 249, but it's not the same. Images can be posted under request of people interested in an offering to Genise. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.