Genuine Korekazu?

[James]

Hello

 

Could someone please help me determine whether this is a genuine mei of the Shin-Shinto smith Korekazu?

Many thanks.

 

Here are the two photos:

 

[Guest reinhard]

Hi James,

 

It took me some time to find a comparable mei. Those from Manen first year (there was only one Manen year and the second year of this name ended very soon and became Bunkyu first year) are very rare. The mei shown here for comparison belongs to an o-wakizashi, which is not papered but was a gift from Shogun Tokugawa Iemochi to Swiss government, presented in the days when KOREKAZU VII. was active and can therefore be considered to be genuine. I would like to know (once more) what the forumites think and not give an immediate answer.

 

reinhard

[nagamaki - Franco]

if this were mine based solely on this mei I would submit it to shinsa. But, then again, I would not submit any sword based solely on the mei.

[John A Stuart]

This reminds me of the Kiyomaro just discussed. When trying to make a comparison using only the mei and/or yasurimei. Differences there are, but close enough where I would want 5 guys who have a ton of knowlege to determine the truth of it. After all these smiths' mei are not stamps and from one month to the next, health, weather, lighting, a new tagane, whatever, could explain these small differences. I know some are so close on different swords by the same smith that you can superimpose one on the other and get no slop, but not always. Shinsa; if the other attributes match. John

[Jean]

I am not good at all at this kind of exercise, but there two main differences :

 

- 1st year kanji (kanji at the mekugi ana level) does not match at all on the two pictures

- The mei on your picture is aligned on the right, the mei on the picture provided by James is more centered

[nagamaki - Franco]

Second look rule, if it looks better on the 2nd look it is a good sign.

Does not match Reinhard's example perfectly (but, I think extra care was placed on cutting the mei on his example), none the less the mei in question looks quite natural in comparison.

 

how about a description of the sword?

[Guido]

I see not only small, but significant differences in the Mei, the most obvious being how "Gan" in "Gannen" is written; this can't be explained by slight variations on different days, it's a matter of unmistakeable handwriting. IMO it's clearly not chiseled by the same hand.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

I think that the fakers would have to make the same tools than those which are used by the smiths they have intention to imitate. It seems not to be the case with this blade. :lol:

[John A Stuart]

Guido, Yes, I think these differences exceed the amount that can be expected. I magnified some characters and it is more evident to me now. John

[John A Stuart]

And these.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Nothing to add, other then Korekazu's peculiarity in Yasurime, too, aren't carefully enough copied here, IMHO.

[Guest reinhard]

As Guido and Jean said: The most significant difference is the Kanji for "Gan" in Gan nen. There is another sword dating from Manen which could be brought in accordance with the mei in question, as far as the "Man"-character is concerned, but although KOREKAZU varied his mei somewhat, there is a strong persistency in writing the character "gan". There is a mei by him dating from Kaei gannen with exactly the same kanji for "gan". It is a very personal feature of his handwriting.

The mei in question gives me the impression of a faker, who started carefully (though not close enough to the mune) on the sashi-omote and then became careless with the nengo on the sashi-ura.

 

reinhard

[Jean]

Reinhard, unless it is a secret, where do you find all this information (tang pictures ...) you seem to have a fantastic library

[Guest reinhard]

No secrets, Jean. I just like to read in my (not so extraordinary) library in my spare time. So I don't have to wipe off the dust regularly .

 

reinhard