Oite Senju

[Davis]

Good Morning All

I would welcome opinions on this mei, which might read as "Oite Efu saku kore Hamada Masayuki - Oite Senju Futatsu .. Do Kore".  It does not seem apparent who actually performed this test.  Could it have been the smith himself.  Any biographical information on this smith would also be appreciated.

Thanks

Mick

[SteveM]

於江府作之濱田正行　Oite Kōfu saku kore Hamada Masayuki 

於千住二ツ胴囗之　　Oite Senju Futatsu Dō ? kore

 

It may be surplus to your requirements, but I think both the signature and the cutting test engraving are a bit problematic. The overall balance of the cutting test signature is a bit funky, plus the odd kanji after 二ツ胴 almost seems like a mistake, as if somebody tried to engrave something but gave up halfway through, or tried to change it. Normally one would expect 落し (otoshi) or 切落とし (kiri-otoshi) after the futatsu-do. The smith also seems to be so obscure that he's invisible to Google. And usually the saku kore goes after the smith's name (or at least the "saku"). Odd that it should appear after the city/province name. Sorry I couldn't have any good news for you. 

[Peter Bleed]

Steve has presented an interesting and even expert assessment of this nakago. I see the odd features he has pointed agree and I can only agree that it is"funky" and not likely to be "important" in any way. Still,... I think it might be "interesting". This looks like a very late Edo period sword and lots of exploration and experimentation was going on at that time. I could believe that this sword was made in Edo by a person who was guided and well-connected and then went on to other things. I don't see this as a studied "fake."

Peter

[Jussi Ekholm]

I checked Seskos and there is Masayuki with civilian name Hamada Masajirô 浜田政二郎 but as you can see, different kanji for Hama. He is listed at Genji, 1864-1865.

 

I don't know a thing about Shinshinto and I'm not sure if the above Masayuki ever used Hamada as part of his signatures. I just thought it might be logical that it could be a false signature trying to be his? The above mentioned Masayuki was Musashi province smith and Kôfu/Efu (I think it can be read either way?) is in Musashi province.

 

Too difficult and complicated for me but fun puzzle. I would think like Steve, that in overall it seems weird. Would be nice to see pictures of the sword too.

[SteveM]

Probably a good time to say again that the sword is always more important than the inscription. A funky inscription only slightly mars the quality of the sword, and often it is a defacement that can be remedied (by removing it, basically). So bear in mind my comments are in relation to the engravings only, and I am not enough of a sword enthusiast to comment on the sword itself. Also, there are a lot of funky signatures out there, and one strange kanji, one oddly-placed fragment, one obscure usage, doesn't attract my attention too much, other than as a curiosity for future reference. But when a number of these anomalies appear, it usually doesn't bode well for the authenticity of the signature. 

 

So, with that throat-clearing, first the good news: 濱 is the old version of 浜, so Jussi's post above is a ray of hope extended to Davis. 江府 indeed refers to Edo/Tokyo, which is in Musashi province, so that is another thing that helps support this line of inquiry. (江 may indeed be pronounced e or kō, but I think when it is combined with 府 it is always kōfu. This pronunciation exists today in the Tokyo ward of 江東区　kōtō-ku).  I still find it weird that the saku and the kore are following the location, but it wouldn't be the first time I've seen something odd like this. So... unusual and suspicious in my opinion, but could be overlooked if everything else is in order. (Perhaps the engraver was affecting some kind of kanbun - Chinese style - usage??)

 

For the cutting-test signature, there is another possibility for the problematic kanji after 二ツ胴, and that is 裁断 (saidan), but the kanji on the sword looks nothing like 裁 or the archaic version of 裁 that is seen on swords (so archaic that I can't find it in the IME...will look for it later, basically it is a combining of 戈 with　隹　- for the kanji buffs out there you can see a good example here http://kourindo.sakura.ne.jp/yamano.html )

Edit: Found it - 截

 

Regarding the balance, you can see the four kanji up until  二 are biased towards the left of the shinogi. After that they are biased to the right. The final 之 leans back to the center. This feels and looks sloppy to me, particularly with the strange kanji there. Edit: Its the cutting test balance that looks bad to me. The overall balance of the signature on the other side looks OK.

 

Finally, using a sword from an obscure smith for a cutting test and subsequent inscription seems to be a stretch of the imagination. Particularly if this was a very late Edo period sword.

 

So, any one of these by themselves I think can be excused. Taken in totality, it gives the impression that someone was trying to tart up the sword.  

[Toryu2020]

I think under Chinese rules (kanbun) you would read this

 

Oite Gofu Hamada Masayuki kore wo saku

 

so nothing I see here is off - just another way of doing things

 

mho

-t

[SteveM]

I'd be interested to see if there are other examples of the 作之 coming after the location instead of the smith's name. Seems unusual.

[Davis]

Steve, as Peter said "an interesting and even expert assessment".  I enjoyed reading your most comprehensive reply - it addressed the main points and gave a plausible explanation.  Thanks very much.

 

Jussi, I can't provide pictures at the moment but will try to do so in due course.  The blade is of large proportions and very nicely mounted.  As you said a "fun puzzle".  Steve thinks the sword is more important than the inscription - I fully agree with that statement and acquired it on that basis.

 

Thomas, a glimmer of hope, thanks.

 

Mick