mei help

[EricM]

hi

would like to get your advice on a mei signed Echizen Kami Minamoto Rai Nobuyoshi who was O-Wazamono.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9162/pict0226it9.jpg

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5927 ... tedho4.jpg

 

In my opinion it really looks like an other mei validated by the nbthk

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8871 ... thkdr3.jpg

 

wondering why the mekugi-ana was placed in a way to damage the first kanji though

Any thoughts are welcome

thx

eric

[James]

The links aren't working for me.

[AZPhil]

Sorry I can not help you, but the link does work.

[Guido]

Hard to tell - Nidai Nobuyoshi changed the style of his signature a lot, often - like in the photos above - it looks kind of unsophisticated. Some time between Empô and Genroku did he change the way the Kanji for "Rai" is written (from 6 to 7 strokes).

 

Again, without high resolution pictures it's very difficult to be sure; I can't see the Yasurime, but the Nakagojiri looks o.k. He occasionally squeezed his signature right under the Kiku-mon, and often his Mei isn't in a straight line, but wanders off to one side. So, well, I'm sort of leaning towards Shôshin.

[Jacques]

Hi,

Hard to tell - Nidai Nobuyoshi changed the style of his signature a lot, often - like in the photos above - it looks kind of unsophisticated. Some time between Empô and Genroku did he change the way the Kanji for "Rai" is written (from 6 to 7 strokes).

 

Again, without high resolution pictures it's very difficult to be sure; I can't see the Yasurime, but the Nakagojiri looks o.k. He occasionally squeezed his signature right under the Kiku-mon, and often his Mei isn't in a straight line, but wanders off to one side. So, well, I'm sort of leaning towards Shôshin.

 

I think the sword shown above is not from the nidai but from the sandai who was the second brother of shodai Tekai Nobuyoshi and signed (among others things) Echizen no Kami Minamoto Rai Nobuyoshi 越å‰å®ˆæºæ¥ä¿¡å‰. He also use the ji ichi just below kiku-mon(after 1688). Moved from Kyoto to Osaka, he was active between 1655 and 1703

 

the nidai (son of shodai) was active between 1673 and 1703 in the Kyoto area.

Signed: (Kiku) Yamashiro no Kami Fujiwara Nobuyoshi (èŠç´‹) 山城国藤原信å‰.

[Guido]

Interesting therory, Jacques: according to your timetable, the Nidai (i.e. 2'nd generation) worked *after* the Sandai (i.e. third generation)? The smith usually only listed as "Echizen no Kami Nobuyoshi" is without doubt the third son of the Shodai, and calling him or his uncle Nidai is a topic for leasurely, rainy days at the fireplace; actually, a "Sandai" isn't mentioned in any of my books.

 

But be that as it may, it's actually besides the point. The question asked was "is the signature of this Echizen no Kami Nobuyoshi genuine?" How about your opinion on that?

[Nobody]

The links aren't working for me.

I cannot see the pictures either. :?

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Guido, yasurime are sujikai.

 

About Generations, i think you know that several worked at the same time (for sample you have a gassaku from shodai and nidai Hisamichi).

 

If it's shoshin? I have not the knowledge (and sufficient samples of mei) to be purely affirmative or negative. The way of engraving looks similar, but i'm embarassed by the location of the mei and the kiku mon style of engraving.

[Brian]

Here you go. NBTHK one is on the right. While there are some small differences, I think it is definitely close enough to consider a polish and submitting for papers.

 

Brian

[Guido]

Here are a few Oshigata from the Shintô Taikan; the only thing consistent about his Mei is that it's inconsistent .

[Guest reinhard]

The pics could be better; so this is just a superficial impression.

 

If two mei look almost perfectly the same at first sight, it makes me feel uncomfortable; especially if the smith is not known for particular consistency in writing.

 

There IS, I think, one consistency in NOBUYOSHI's mei. It seems he signed his swords AFTER the mekugi-ana was drilled. The mei in question does not look like that. The part around the mekugi-ana, particularly the "Echi-" kanji, makes me feel like someone got in trouble.

 

reinhard

[EricM]

thx for your answers

not easy to be sure of the mei as the other mei are quite different !

the mekugi ana was drilled a bit larger to fit a gunto koshiare

the blade is quite healthy and nicely balanced so guess the smith was quite good

the interesting story about the blade is that it suffered a grenade impact from WW2 which damaged the scabbard and "only" create a hagiri (too bad...)

do you know if i could get a NTBHK or NTHK paper if i have it polished ? (i think hagiri is not a good thing for that but perhaps if it appears not to be a gimei it could work)

eric

[Brian]

Eric,

 

I do have strong doubts about getting any form of origami with a hagire in this case. The smith is good, but if you search the forum, you will find other posts and threads that indicate a sword has to be truly rare and unique to pass with fatal flaws. Things like Rai school, early Kamakura tachi, Ichimonji etc have passed, but because they are such important swords that they are worthy of study even with fatal flaws, and are truly remarkable.

However a sword really does have to stand out, and be a great example for them to consider this I think.

In this case, it is a risk, and one that I don't think would pay off at all. The cost of restoration would also likely have to be purely for your own reasons, as I doubt you would ever be able to recover the cost.

 

Brian