Chinese fake?

[DaveM4P99]

 

 

 

 

I think so...but what do I know. Mei looks like jibberish and shape is terrible. Fittings are crazy looking...All guesses here...

[cabowen]

Good guesses.

[Peter Bleed]

Chris is right, "chinoiserie" could be a good fair guess for this sword. But there is another potential since aspects of this sword look pretty Japanese.

In the 70's and early 80's, when sword buyers were actively running ads and spending money, many of the players were very naive and the level of skill and understanding was generally low. So were prices, of course.

In that context there were Americans who 'signed' swords and made other improvements that were intended to make unsigned blades more salable to gun slicks and others who thought that they could make money on "signed" blades. I recall one fellow who said his "mei" was "Masahira" or sometimes "Hiramasa".

Peter

[Kai-Gunto]

Habaki looks right.

[kunitaro]

This is burned blade.

The black part on Nakago is the burned rust.

probably it has no hamon, or if shadow of hamon left, there is no nioi-kuchi.

Normally they are filed off when restore or re-Yakiire for Saiba.

When you see any 1 mm of this black stuff on Nakago, they are burned blade.

[DaveM4P99]

This is burned blade.

The black part on Nakago is the burned rust.

probably it has no hamon, or if shadow of hamon left, there is no nioi-kuchi.

Normally they are filed off when restore or re-Yakiire for Saiba.

When you see any 1 mm of this black stuff on Nakago, they are burned blade.

 

So do we think it is a real nihon to that was burned and thus unidentifiable?

 

The poor mei and odd blade shape look like Chinese fakes

that have been posted on here before.

 

Thanks all.

 

Dave

[Jean]

Dave,

 

Where do come these amateurish pictures? Part of the nakago, picture with the habaki.

 

Real burnt Nihonto, in my opinion.

[kunitaro]

So do we think it is a real nihon to that was burned and thus unidentifiable?

 

It WAS Nihonto. if the blade is burnt, the cutting edge is not hard. no Hamon.

Not a weapon anymore. no value.

* you can use it as material to make new sword, or to use a piece for "Umegane".

Also, good for practice yakiire and polishing.

 

The poor mei and odd blade shape look like Chinese fakes

that have been posted on here before.

 

Those are added later by non Japanese person.

 

Maybe Tsuba is good...

[Gabriel L]

I’m normally first to argue that a given sword is a Chinese fake (I’ve long lost count of the number of times I’ve had to persuade some poor soul of that), but in this case I am reasonably certain it’s real (but junked).

 

The fittings are not typical; HOWEVER, they *do* resemble certain Edo wakizashi/tanto koshirae. This is not an invented wacky Chinese fake style. The oddity is that that specific Edo style is usually more “upscale” or fancy, meant for merchants or people making an aesthetic statement; whereas these fittings appear relatively crude, albeit more or less correct. If you have the books Edo no Tanto Koshirae / Edo no Token Koshirae, I know there is a similar example in there (I don’t have my full library with me so I can’t find a pic right now). More importantly, the relative proportions and shaping of the fittings are right, though not very good; Chinese fakes rarely get the balance right. And things are sitting flush and even in a way that is also rare for a Chinese fake, although again the quality is low. Oh, and the wood is a type sometimes seen on Japanese koshirae, don’t think I’ve ever seen it on Chinese fakes.

 

When it comes to the blade, the shaping of the kissaki is way too good for 99.99% of all fakes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Chinese fake with a kissaki that correct; this feature provides an extremely bimodal split between fake and real. The overall sugata is right, and the nakago looks real (albeit in bad shape) too. The only thing that gives me pause about the blade, apart from the really bad surface condition, is the shinogi; a wobbly shinogi is a total hallmark of Chinese fakes. On the other hand, it could just be a junky example of nihonto; I have seen crude polishes of this poor quality on some authentic blades. Maybe an amateur tried to “restore” it.

 

As far as the inscribed kanji (both on the koshirae and the nakago) are concerned, I think they might be post-hoc, but I’m not 100% on that. Regardless, they don’t look like the typical Chinese gibberish you see on most fakes.

 

All in all, I think it is a real (but never very good) sword that has been through some very bad times. Too many aspects are “right” in ways that the fakes never get right — the overall proportions, the koshirae style chosen, the fit and shape of the fittings, the kissaki geometry, the habaki, the tsuba patina, etc.

[Stephen]

wow...what a range of real to fake, the whole thing is hinky to me mei looks like crap, blade weve seen repros with like nihonto blades....my vote...thumbs down NOT nihonto

[Peter Bleed]

To briefly add to my earlier contribution, I recall at least one early player active in the sword boom who not only signed but also "tempered" blades. That sort of activity could create the obvious fire scale that this sword displays.

I think there is no question that this is a Japanese blade. It is also clearly junk. As io look at it, tho, I think it may reflect aspects of sword history. If an American is not responsible for its current appearance, I wonder if it spent some time in the hands of soldier operating on western or northern China. Isn't that brass fitting on the scabbard of this sword one of those fittings on the side of Russian scabbards that held the spike bayonet of a Mosin-Nagant rifles?

Peter

[Dr Fox]

Although junk, is this blade interesting enough to ask for more pictures, and ones that show specific areas? As a teaching aid Id like to think its a yes.

 

Denis.

[Jean]

Generally a good picture must include a picture without habaki of the nakago from the hamachi to the nakago jiri. Another one will be same picture but from above showing if the blade has had several polishes.

 

Then picture of the kissaki, of the hamon hada...

 

Here, only the first two ones are interesting to see if it is a real nihonto or not.

[Stephen]

Ok

 

what you guys are saying is it was a mumei blade then burnt then given to some idiot who thinks this looks like kanji and did the same crude marking on the saya...what some of what you guys are smoking

[Jean]

I am just saying it was Nihonto but due to the poor pictures and the fact it was burnt, it is impossible to say if it was a good blade or not.

[Gabriel L]

Ok

 

what you guys are saying is it was a mumei blade then burnt then given to some idiot who thinks this looks like kanji and did the same crude marking on the saya...what some of what you guys are smoking

 

Stephen,

 

First of all, I for one never claimed that the mei and the scribble on the saya were done by the same hand (it is a conceivable possibility, but it never formed part of my argument). I think the scribble on the saya is absolutely post-hoc, and therefore not worth consideration. As to the mei, maybe it was done by the same hand, maybe not… Ultimately though, the mei is completely besides the point. There are more than enough specific features and characteristics of this blade to ID it as genuine (but crappy) nihonto, and NOT a Chinese fake.

 

Show me a Chinese fake with a kissaki that correctly shaped, with a habaki that good, and with a tsuba that correct. For that matter, show me a Chinese fake that uses that same species of wood for the tsuka (a species I have seen on several Japanese koshirae in the past). You can’t, because there aren’t any.

 

Looking at it another way, fake nakago often have all manner of horrible aspects to them (poor shaping, crude filing if any, uneven surface, ridiculous artificial patinas)… but this doesn’t look like at all like a fake nakago, it looks like a real one that has been through a fire. Significant difference.

 

I’m not saying that it is 100% absolutely nihonto, 0% chance of being a fake. On the contrary, I still allow for the possibility (perhaps at a 10% uncertainty?). But just this once, counter-gestalt, it’s significantly more likely to be genuine nihonto than a Chinese fake. Has it been burned to hell? Manifestly. Is it crappily mounted? Sure enough. But that does not make it fake, per se.

 

Believe me, in such cases where a blade generates this kind of disagreement among actual students of nihonto, I am pretty much always on the side of “this is clearly a Chinese fake, why on earth are some of you suggesting otherwise?” But in this case, you have to look closer than the initial gut reaction based on some of the superficial elements.

 

---

 

By the way, from Grey’s site, here is one shot of the Edo no Token Koshirae book I mentioned earlier:

 

 

These are slightly more “upscale” examples as I mentioned, but they are the same basic fitting type. Note that one of them has a ring, rather than a normal kurigata. Also note that the blades in these examples look fairly poor quality. I *really* wish I had my full library with me so I could A) attempt to read this page, and B) find even better examples (I’m pretty sure there was at least one example that was even closer). But my point stands that this koshirae style was a known one.

[Gabriel L]

Generally a good picture must include a picture without habaki of the nakago from the hamachi to the nakago jiri. Another one will be same picture but from above showing if the blade has had several polishes.

 

Then picture of the kissaki, of the hamon hada...

 

Here, only the first two ones are interesting to see if it is a real nihonto or not.

 

I would argue that a photo of the kissaki is very useful to help tell if it is nihonto or fake. Getting the shaping of the kissaki right is one feature which virtually every fake I have ever seen fails at. Heck, even very expensive custom-level western smiths sometimes don’t nail the Japanese character of the traditional kissaki perfectly (even if they do a high-quality job). Yet pretty much all real nihonto share certain geometrical features in the kissaki, even when the kissaki is clumsy or repaired. This one section of the blade is about as good a litmus test as they come for separating real from fake (when the rest of the blade is controversial).

 

I don’t think you will find a hamon or hada given the condition, so that’s as it is.

 

Also, I think an overall bare (no habaki) pic including the full nakago *and* blade in a single frame is important. Seeing the entire object is very telling.

[kusunokimasahige]

The sword blade is not fake. The Saya is of a later date and very crudely made. The Mei in my opinion was put on much later and hiragana "ha" and Kanji "San" is not something I am acquainted with. It is a burned wakizashi. Period I would not know but I would say around late edo.

 

KM