Help with Mei

[PatrikD]

Hello all

 

im thinking of buying this blade (Katana), the blade itself is out of pollish, can someone help me with the mei?

 

Best Regards

 

Patrik

[cabowen]

陸奥守宗重

 

How does that look?

 

Mutsu no Kami Muneshige

[PatrikD]

Thanks alot, so if i understand this right is says, lord of Muneshige provience ??

 

 

Best regards

 

Patrik

[hxv]

Patrick,

 

No. Loosely translated, the mei says "Muneshige, - Lord of Mutsu Province."

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[PatrikD]

thanks, so in this case the smith name is Muneshige?

[hxv]

Absolutely. In general mei follow a specific order: Province, Title, Smith's Name. Of course, Province and Title are not always present, but when present, this order is followed.

Regards,

Hoanh

[PatrikD]

Thanks, nice to learn something new everyday :-)

Do any of you know anything about this smith, i did some research on the net and it look like there is at least 3 smiths with that name, have any ides about period for the smith?

 

Best regards

 

Patrik

[Gabriel L]

陸奥守宗重

How does that look? – Mutsu no Kami Muneshige

 

With respect Chris, I think it’s 常陸 (Hitachi), not Mutsu. It looks like you might have flip-flopped the kanji position when checking the province?

 

Markus lists at least two “Hitachi no Kami Muneshige,” a 1st gen in Kanbun (1661–1673) and a 2nd gen in Genroku (1688–1704). Both wazamono.

 

EDIT: in fact this exact same sword has been discussed here before. There is a clearer mei pic and an overall nakago photo in that thread.

 

For anyone wanting to do mei comparisons:

1. NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon – katana (namban tetsu, ubu) - click the url in the middle of the page for more pics

2. NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon – shodai? katana (namban tetsu, ubu)

3. NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon – katana (namban tetsu, ubu?)

4. NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon – katana (ubu)

5. NBTHK Hozon – katana (ubu)

6. NBTHK Hozon – [shodai?] katana (namban tetsu, suriage)

7. NBTHK Hozon – [shodai?] wakizashi (ubu)

8. NBTHK Tokubetsu Kicho (green paper) – [gen?] katana (namban tetsu, ubu?)

9. NBTHK Kicho (white paper) – [gen?] katana (suriage, but with takanoha yasurime? Suspicious)

10. NTHK (Yoshikawa) – shodai? katana (namban tetsu, suriage)

11. Unpapered? katana (machi okuri?)

12. Unpapered? wakizashi (namban tetsu, ubu?)

 

There are other examples, but they’re never-ending… seems he was a very prolific smith! The board literally won’t let me post more links, so this seems like a good place to stop.

[cabowen]

You are right, I was sloppy....Sorry!

[kusunokimasahige]

Just to add to this. The word Kami in this case does not mean that the Smith was the lord of Mutsu province nor that the blade itself was forged on behalf of the lord of Mutsu province.

 

You should see it as an honorary title.

[Gabriel L]

I put all the mei in my previous comment side-by-side. The numbers in the image refer to the numbered links from my last comment. If you click on the image it will take you to a higher-res version.

 

EDIT: NOT TO SCALE

 

 

Some notes:

 

There’s a lot of variation here, and very little effort to distinguish between possible generations. Everyone seems to list theirs as the shodai, but in that case I think there’s either some gimei or else misidentification happening.

 

The common nakagojiri seems to be a pronounced iriyamagata. That makes the sword from this thread and sword #3 outliers (a more rounded and gentle iriyamagata). Sword #3 also has a notably different mei quality from most of the others, including from this sword (but is similar to sword #10). Swords #6 and #10 are suriage of course, preventing comparison on this basis.

 

The common yasurime is sujikai / kesho for every sword except #9. That takanoha is therefore rather suspect. The angle of the iriyamagata jiri and the mei quality are both odd too.

 

For sword #10 (the suriage NTHK [Yoshikawa]), this is the only nakago signed “Tada,” and the mei is very different from the others. I don’t see any other examples of this smith signing with “Tada” (although it is apparently a recorded signature). The mekugi-ana is placed differently with respect to the central ridge as well. This item is a clear outlier, but on the other hand it is very similar in mei style to sword #3.

 

Sword #1 is perhaps the closest match to this sword (but is not perfect).

 

It is hard to come to a definitive conclusion based on mei alone, especially in this case. I think that the reflex attribution being listed on the dealers’ pages (everyone’s a shodai!) seems to be obviously wrong unless the shodai changed his mei style significantly several times. Even if you accept that more than one generation is represented here, it is still difficult to cleanly separate the generations based on mei and nakago. There is of course also the possibility of gimei. ***NOTE: the actual NBTHK papers I have seen for these blades never attribute which generation; the listing of “shodai” or “1661” is consistently listed by the dealer, not the paper.

 

Ultimately shinsa would be necessary to at least compare the workmanship of the blade itself with known examples, but with so little precision evident in the existing papered attributions, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the identification of which generation specifically a given sword might be…

 

I welcome thoughts from anyone else on this matter.

[Brian]

Gabriel,

All I can say is that if this were a for-profit forum, I would pay you a salary :lol:

You always go soooo far out of your way to reply and put a huge amount of time (that I know you don't have) and effort into these, that all I can say is a huge thanks. Not just on behalf of the OP, but for anyone in the future who is going to search for this smith and come up with this post and others you have done.

 

Brian

[Gabriel L]

Thanks Brian. The sound of crickets chirping after I made that post was a little disconcerting. :lol:

 

Obviously they serve as study exercises for me too, and I do make them with the intention of being able to refer back to them if and when another sword with that mei shows up. But I appreciate the recognition since they do take a bit of labor.

 

---

 

On that note, I noticed a few more details:

 

The primary vertical strokes of all the mei lie just to the left of the nakago-shinogi, EXCEPT on this sword, sword #3, and sword #10. But again, though #3 and #10 are very similar in mei, the sword in this thread is clearly different.

 

Though I said that this sword (maybe I should call it #0?) is closest to #1, there are still many discrepancies. For example, note in the 宗 mune character, the lower-left stroke on all the other mei somewhat extends off the horizontal line of the “J” stroke; but on this sword, it is very disconnected. Also, the 守 kami character has a stray horizontal stroke inside the “box,” which is different from all the other mei. The “handwriting” feels similar (but not identical), but the details are off.

 

When you combine the myriad discrepancies, it reduces my confidence in this sword:

 

• Several small details in the mei significantly different from all the other mei (and definitely different from #3, #10)
  
• Nakagojiri is a less-pronounced iriyamagata than the majority of others (except #3; #6 and #10 suriage)
  
• Mei vertical strokes lie directly on / on the wrong side of the shinogi, contrary to all others (except #3, #10)

 

Again, there are too many possibilities: earlier style, different generation, daimei, random outlier, gimei, etc. But basically if it were me I would want to examine the actual workmanship of the blade very critically.

 

Regards,

 

—G.

[Mark]

Gabriel

 

as Brian said ***** great work*** having it laid out that way it makes deciding if genuine or gimei much easier than looking at one at a time. I think we will all come to our own conclusions but I think it is clear, at least for me

[Peter Bleed]

Wow!

Gabriel, you are dazzling! Wow!

Peter

[cabowen]

The kanji for kami 守 shows the same habit in all the examples but is missing from the op's signature.

[Brian]

This smith's nakago jiri seems very consistent and distinctive. Aside from #3 (what year are the papers?) the others seem all alike except for the suriage ones of course. That says a lot to me.

 

Brian

[Gabriel L]

This smith's nakago jiri seems very consistent and distinctive. Aside from #3 (what year are the papers?) the others seem all alike except for the suriage ones of course. That says a lot to me.

Brian

 

Brian,

 

The numbers in the graphic all correspond to the numbered links in my earlier comment. So this is #3. I don’t read the Japanese language proper and unfortunately no papers are pictured, but I presumed from the recognizable line 特別保存刀剣 (Tokubetsu Hozon Tōken) that it must be NBTHK papered. Of course I could be wrong…

[Brian]

Thanks Gabriel,

I was just idly wondering if they were old papers. Don't want to start a debate about that sword here, but it is the only variation of the nakago jiri shape that the others share. Just curious as to whether that is a clincher or not.

 

Brian

[PatrikD]

Thanks alot!, that was alot of information, im think i gonna try to buy this blade.

 

Best Regards

 

Patrik

[hxv]

Patrick,

 

Your sword seems to be gimei to be. My 2 cents.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[cabowen]

Patrick,

 

Your sword seems to be gimei to be. My 2 cents.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

 

I think several people have come to that conclusion.

[hxv]

Chris,

 

Yes, I stated the obvious explicitly because Patric said he decided to purchase the sword. I am not sure if he understood what was said in many previous posts.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[Brian]

Well..if the work is well done, and he is buying it as though it was mumei or gimei, and the price is ok..then no reason not to.

 

Brian

[Gabriel L]

Hoanh is just playing it safe by being explicit, for Patrik’s sake. Patrik doesn’t have the kind of long and well-informed post history we’d need to be confident he understood all the implications in this thread—or that even if he did, that he would necessarily have the expertise to make a good judgment call a fair price for a gimei blade.

 

Of course it is possible that he does have that capability, in which case I apologize for my assumption; but better safe than sorry (or putting it another way, we’re just trying to look out for you and your bank account!).

[PatrikD]

i understand what you all saying , im really greatfull for your comments about the mei, but i think the price would be in the range for a gimei also...

 

i let y know the price on Sunday.(and my bank account is already low, buuuutttttt i think i need this blade :-) )

 

Best Regards

 

Patrik

[kuromido]

Peter, I have to agree with Brian that your post, photo and deph of info are amazing.

Thanks!

 

 

Cheers,

PeterD

[Gabriel L]

Peter, can I safely dispense with humility and assume you meant to write my name and not yours at the top of that post? :lol: If so, thank you very much.

 

While we’re on the subject, I noticed another issue: the space between the mekugi-ana and the start of the mei is greater than all the other examples (except #9, the Kicho example that seems quite obviously gimei).