Information about a Katana. Bishu Osafune Sukemune. 1511.

[slavia631]

Hi,

 

I am presenting this sword on behalf of a friend who is trying to find out about it's history. He has had this sword for years, having picked it up from a neighbor who was about to take it to the flea market! (It was brought back after WWII by a Grandfather of the neighbor, so the blade rests in military mounts.) The owner has gotten mei translations from two sources: one stating that it reads "Bishu Osafune Sukemune, dated Eisho Shichi Nen Hachigatsu Hi (August 1510), the other stating that it reads "Bishu Osafune Sukemune" and is dated 1511.

 

Here are a few photos, provided by the owner:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any information on this blade, it's mountings, it's inscription, or it's smith would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Andrew.

[Brian]

Andrew,

Although I have seen some bo-hi that were originally cut extending deeply down into the nakago, usually when you see this, you start to think suriage. In this case, the nakago was obviously reshaped to fit into the military mounts. I get the overall impresssion that this sword was maybe quite a bit longer, and the original hi didn't extend this far into the nakago. If this is the case, then the mei is probably gimei, as it would be much too high on the original nakago.

This is just my first impression, and should be taken as an opinion only. No doubt someone will show the error in my thinking here :D

Still looks like a reasonable sword though, that he should look at having evaluated in hand by one of the sword groups in your area. The hi looks well cut, which sometimes indicates a well made sword, or one worth closer examination at least.

 

Brian

[John A Stuart]

Sukemune was a commonly faked signature even at the time as well as after. John

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Sukemune was from Ichimonji, maybe i'm wrong but i don't think there was a Sukemune from Osafune School.

[Brian]

Andrew,

 

Ask your friend for a much better photo of the mei, from overhead.

Spacing looks odd to me, not like a neat signature. The Osafune Sukemune documented is from the 1800's and used a different kanji for suke.

So he is either undocumented (still many out there) or a gimei of a non-existent smith, or just a fantasy later addition to an o-suriage blade.

Sword is still legit though, and he should be studying what it is, more than what it isn't

 

Brian

[sencho]

The Osafune Sukemune documented is from the 1800's and used a different kanji for suke.

 

Plenty of Osafune SUKEMUNE smiths　in Hawley's, Bri.

 

6 smiths between 1394 and 1865 used this Kanji 助 for their mei.

 

Hawleys documents other smiths from Osafune with at least 2 other kanji for SUKE.

 

Your point on the suriage vs. mei is well taken...

 

Cheers!

[sencho]

BY the way Andrew,

 

Eisho 7th (shichi) year (nen) would be 1510, so this is the correct reading of the date...

 

1504 being Eisho 1st year... (the translator who read 1511 made the mistake (most likely) of starting off at 0 year instead of 1st year)

 

cheers

[Brian]

Plenty of Osafune SUKEMUNE smiths　in Hawley's

 

Not being at home with my references, I was just going by the NKB swordsmith database for a quick example. Looked for those signing with Bishu Osafune, and only got the one (SUK748) but using a different Suke.

 

Brian

[slavia631]

Here are a few more nakago photos provided by the owner. They are not a lot clearer (if at all), but hopefully might help:

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, he paid less than $100 for this sword over 10 years ago!

 

hope those may help with further identification,

 

Andrew