Removed Inscriptions

[Ray Singer]

Over the years I have seen a number of swords with valid mei (and some dates) which have clearly had additional inscriptions removed. I recall seeing this on several Gassan Sadakatsu recently, along with the Awataguchi Tadatsuna below. Was it common for special order blades to have the additional inscription removed prior to their sale by the owner or family? Alternatively, were they removed more frequently by their new owners? Obviously today this is seen as a more desirable trait to collectors, but am curious to know how this was handled in the past.

 

http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-awataguchi-ikkanshi-tadatsuna-hori-dosaku

 

Best regards,

Ray

[b.hennick]

Hi Ray

I have a Shodai Tadakuni in WWII mounts that has the Tadakuni mei intact but has had something else removed. I expect that it probably was the owners name. He did not want to leave the name when surrendering the blade.

Regards,

Barry Hennick

[Stephen]

I have a Omi no Kami Fujiwara Tsuguhiro  with the Echizen side removed, never considered the above, good to learn something new.

[Ray Singer]

Hi Barry, that does make sense as far as the gendai examples which came to mind (removal prior to surrender). My impression with the Tadatsuna was that inscription removal was quite a bit older, at least prior to the 20th century.

 

Best,

Ray

[Darcy]

If you buy a used iPad and someone got Apple to laser inscribe it "this is the property of Jim-Bob Brown" ... you might rub it off. 

 

Also if you were Jim Bob Brown and you were selling it you might rub it off as well. 

 

My feeling is that in some of these issues its an integrity thing for the family not to have their name floating around on something when they sell it (I have a daimyo box for a Norishige where the daimyo scrubbed their name off) or in the case of it being on a sword that someone felt it was a bit prideful and not so honorable for the sword to carry this person's name. 

 

The Yosozaemon Sukesada on my site probably had an owner's name on it and it was carefully removed. 

[Ray Singer]

Sounds right, thanks Darcy.

 

Best regards,

Ray

[Markus]

This blade is also introduced at Sho-shin:

 

http://www.sho-shin.com/ikkanshi-tadatsuna.html

 

Kanzan also refers to the remnants of the kiritsuke-mei in his sayagaki, writing "Tôji chinki..." (當時珍奇云々) which means "rare for this time..."

Very interesting insofar as the blade is signed tachi-mei, what is very rare for Tadatsuna. Maybe it was a presentation sword and the omote side

left free on purpose for the now erased kiritsuke-mei?

 

If it starts with "rare for this time...", maybe there was never a name but then again, why erasing it when it was not some kind of "difficult" name?

Maybe it was once offered to a temple then taken out again and mounted (at least two more times as seen along the three mekugi-ana) and maybe

the then owner didn't want to have that inscription (name of temple where he got it from, name of donor, ...). 

 

I guess we will never know...

[Ray Singer]

As often as I have visited the Sho-shin website over the years I did not realize it was the same sword from their journal.

 

The idea of a sword donated to a temple did not occur to me. For such pieces, was it more common for them to be mounted in tachi koshirae, or did the koshirae simply match the time period?

 

Best regards,

Ray

[Markus]

I think there was no rule for donations. Swords were donated in the koshirae or shirasaya they came with or either in a new shirasaya or a new koshirae when a new sword was donated. I guess it depended on the pocket of the donor how he wanted a sword to be donated.